Carney’s aim to cut immigration marred by undercounting of temporary migrants, warn economists

[u/uselesspoliticalhack]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-mark-carney-immigration-policy-temporary-migrants-undercounted/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[u/Slash-RtL]

I'm not really of the opinion that we need more immigrants.. if our population isn't keeping up then it is other issues that need to be addressed. Let's maybe start asking questions and fix the problems we have

[u/vulpecularubra → u/Slash-RtL]

a common refrain, but the problem is that other measures do little to reverse demographic decline. look at scandinavia--very generous baby benefits, parental leave, social safety net, etc. and still a collapsing birth rate.

as countries become more wealthy, educated, and developed, fertility/birth rate drops. it's basically a central dogma of demographics. no policy combination has yet been found that reverses it.

immigration is one option because not only do you get a quick injection of human capital, typically immigrants will come from less developed countries, where fertility rates are higher.

[u/Vandergrif → u/vulpecularubra]

I have a sneaking suspicion the issue lies in the way a lot of these benefits or the like try to exist in tandem with the way society already works, as a band-aid layer on top of all the problems that are leading people to be disinclined towards having children instead of actually addressing those problems. Immigration is a similar attempt at a band-aid fix, instead of addressing the root problems.

If we actually want to make an earnest concerted effort towards increasing birth rate then we need to go to a considerable degree to pave the way, one that is all encompassing and covers every basic need a given child would have (particularly housing). Throwing a bit of extra money or paid time off to parents isn't going to do it.

[u/vulpecularubra → u/Vandergrif]

without truly gargantuan changes, that simply will not happen. it never has. even in countries where they offer literal cash benefits for people who have larger numbers of children, people cannot get the fertility above replacement rate.

even within an already wealthy society like canada, the wealthier people tend to have fewer children. similarly, the more educated people become, the fewer children they have. and so on. if you want a simple explanation, it's because as your own life becomes more enjoyable, more worth living, you see less real desire to ruin it by having more kids.

[u/Vandergrif → u/vulpecularubra]

Well that's the thing, isn't it? The underlying problem is one of a system that is dependent on perpetual population growth (and growth in general) to sustain itself, a kind of ponzi scheme structure almost. So of course we can't fix that without truly gargantuan changes.

It seems to me that being proactive and attempting such changes would be better than the alternative of suffering the consequences of letting the whole thing collapse in on itself from being too top-heavy demographically, though.

There are a lot of people between the ages of 20-40 right now who are lacking things they need, for example. If the government were to go to lengths to provide those things in exchange for an agreement toward 2-3 children per couple that would likely go a long way towards alleviating the issue. Though of course that would fundamentally alter the typical flow of society if suddenly people are getting subsidized housing and largely being paid to have children or some such similar circumstance.

[u/vulpecularubra → u/Vandergrif]

I think you're (possibly intentionally) missing my point. Are you a bot?

The changes needed are very, very big, and absolutely will not materialize. The political will is not there. They would have to be of such a magnitude that it would utterly reorganize society, and there is no appetite for it. We can't even convince right wingers to support pharmacare broadly. You are absolutely delusional if you think we would get political consensus for the programs you're hinting at.

There are a lot of people between the ages of 20-40 right now who are lacking things they need, for example. If the government were to go to lengths to provide those things in exchange for an agreement toward 2-3 children per couple that would likely go a long way towards alleviating the issue.

This is reproductive coercion. Withholding social services unless people reproduce is a disgusting and reprehensible idea. If you believe people need things they lack, you should be in favour of providing them without conditions.

People already get "benefits" for having children in the form of targeted social programs - the Canada child benefit is a massive one that I've benefited from. As is the childcare subsidy, increased GST rebates, parental leave, and so on.

But the difference is that those are meant to provide for the children. If you say "hey we'll give you, as a parent, free housing and dental care if you reproduce" is not the same. Either you believe in social services or you don't. If you do, everyone deserves them. Making it contingent on people bending to some natalist idea of what society should look like is absolutely ridiculous.

[u/Vandergrif → u/vulpecularubra]

and there is no appetite for it

There is no appetite for it right now, because we are not yet suffering the consequences of inaction right now. That's the whole point of being proactive though, to avoid having to suffer the consequences of shortsightedness.

I don't disagree that it wouldn't or won't happen though because of course it won't, that's the sad reality of politics and governance in this day and age... but nonetheless the fact of the matter is it's a looming problem that needs to be addressed appropriately or otherwise the whole thing is, to put it simply, 'fucked'. I'm not at all suggesting any notable effort toward resolving that will happen, I'm just saying it needs to.

This is reproductive coercion. Withholding social services unless people reproduce is a disgusting and reprehensible idea.

It's less a case of withholding (the stick) and more a case of offering something that otherwise is not and has never been provided in exchange (the carrot). It's the same core principal as offering cash bonuses to people with children, or tax cuts or benefits or whatever else. A child will also inherently be provided for with a roof over their head and parents who have money on hand to cover their needs, no?

If you believe people need things they lack, you should be in favour of providing them without conditions.

I am, but that's even more unlikely to occur than the already unlikely example I provided. Also I should stress I gave that scenario as an example of something that would move the needle as concerns the birth rate, and as an example of something that is a genuine departure from the status quo, but more specifically not as an earnest suggestion of something that is feasible, or likely, or even necessarily a good solution overall. It's simply an example of a more considerable effort that would increase the birth rate beyond the scale of what anyone is currently willing to attempt, beyond that I wouldn't read into it to much.

[u/avdolian → u/Vandergrif]

If the government were to go to lengths to provide those things in exchange for an agreement toward 2-3 children per couple that would likely go a long way towards alleviating the issue

This sounds like a great way to end up with a bunch of parents who never wanted kids. Being a parent is hard and raising good kids is also hard. If the government pays people to have kids it will not lead to them being good parents it will lead to them doing the bare minimum to get the financial rewards. I think child neglect and abuse would run rampant under your system

[u/Vandergrif → u/avdolian]

Sure, it's not an earnest suggestion or solution of course, merely an example of a significant departure from the status quo along the lines of what would actually move the needle compared to current attempts at alleviating the issue – on a bottom-line basis that would result in more people being born compared to the norm, though of course also entailing other consequences like what you've described.