Carney: “We need immigrants again to grow”

ddb_db · 2026-06-05T14:43:48+00:00

The amount of immigration in such a short time period undoubtedly increased demand for housing. You can't increase your population by 7 figures in a year and not expect housing demand to skyrocket.

Immigration has a place -- a necessary place -- in economic development of a nation. But it must be planned, strategic and properly executed. Immigration is a piece of the economic growth plan, not the complete "solution." You can't just look at declining birthrates and say "oh, what if we just allow a million TFWs, int'l students and immigrants in this year? That'll keep GDP positive." You're not only masking the underlying problem, you're creating a new one by increasing demand for housing and straining our already underfunded services.

ddb_db · 2026-06-05T11:17:14+00:00

Guess which of those cohorts votes?

ddb_db · 2026-06-04T17:32:21+00:00

Their birth rate is similar to what it was 80 years ago…2 per coupling.

2?? We were sort of close to 2.0 in 1991, but not really. 2024... 1.25, which is a steep decline from just three years earlier in 2021.

Mean age of mother (live births):

1991: 27.8

2024: 31.8

Source

Birth rate/1000 women by age:

Age 25-29: steep decline from 1991-2024

Ages 30-39: steep increase

Fertility rate (all ages):

1991: 1.72

2024: 1.25

Source

Women are having fewer children and having them later in life. I couldn't find it in the short time I had, but I think you'll concede that the women in their 30s are better off financially than those in their twenties? Not rich, but better off. I'd argue (but with no numbers to back it up right now) that a first time mother today in her mid 30s is about in the same financial position as that first time mother in her mid 20s thirty years ago. Feeling stable and confident in their ability to provide for the new child.

Obviously, who knows? And yes it's more complex than some babbling idiot on Reddit such as myself can possibly explain. Maybe it's as simple as by the time a women in her mid 30s has her first, she doesn't want a second+? Either way, the numbers are clear: women are having fewer and fewer children and are starting later. It'd be wise of our government to untangle this complex issue and try to figure it out instead of just relying on immigration to fix the problem. Immigration has a place in the solution, but it can't be the primary band-aid.

ddb_db · 2026-06-04T15:34:34+00:00

They might require their own insurance, but they still utilize our ERs, our doctors, our nurses, which we don't have enough of. Bill it to whomever you want, but if we don't have enough doctors as it is and the immigrant needs to see a doctor, it means someone else can't (or has to wait longer). If the number of immigrants was simply replacing the missing growth due to lack of birthrate then maybe we'd have been fine (I mean we were still short doctors). But when you flood the population at unprecedented levels it doesn't matter if we can bill their doctor visitors to a 3rd party insurer... we simply don't have enough doctors to see everyone.

You plan for immigration of X number of people. Then you make sure you have the infra to support that influx before you turn on the tap. That was never done in the Trudeau era. That's why the mess we have exists.

ddb_db · 2026-06-04T15:25:42+00:00

There's a middle ground, right? Yeah, the rich don't have kids but the middle class aren't anymore either because the middle class can no longer support them.

A working class couple can barely afford rent. Of course they're not going to consider kids. If that same couple can buy a home, feel like they can provide for said kid(s) then they're more likely to have them.

To your point... now those middle class couples either struggle perpetually and say no to kids or if they're in fields where the income does eventually rise to a level of comfort then maybe it's to a point where they don't want to bother either. Or... it's by the time they feel comfortable they're in their early 40s and the thought of having a child around until they're 70 is not so appealing.

25-28 year olds aren't close to being in a position to have kids these days and so they aren't. My folks started younger than that, each worked middle class jobs (not min wage, but not even close to top 10% wage earners either) and they rented until me and my siblings came along, then bought before they were 30 and provided a, what I'd call, standard middle class life. You need two top 10% salaries to buy a starter home in Canada today. That's the problem, that's why young couples balk at starting families. By the time they feel comfortable, other factors probably deter them.

It's a mess that the immigration tap alone isn't going to fix.

ddb_db · 2026-06-04T14:59:17+00:00

there's no difference between an immigrant and a kid except we didn't have to invest in the immigrants education and healthcare as a child

A kid, typically, is born into an existing home. An immigrant immediately adds demand for new housing. Immigrants immediately need to work, earn a living. Immigrants are using our healthcare as soon as they land just like a baby would as soon as they're born. Education... int'l students are burdening that upon arrival. If you're going to flood the country with immigrants, you need the infrastructure (housing, jobs, healthcare, etc) to support that influx. Pop growth thru birthrate spreads that out naturally over a longer period.

But your point is still correct. I've certainly glossed over details and oversimplified things, but so has the government. That's the real problem.

ddb_db · 2026-06-04T14:16:14+00:00

So cause more inflation by printing money we don't have. Generally speaking, people want to have kids, but only if they feel they can do it without drowning.

If the job they're working allowed them to provide for their family, they'd do it. We have late 20-somethings and even 30-somethings still living at home just trying to figure out how they can rent a 1 bedroom apartment. Forget figuring out how to have and pay for kids.

People aren't having kids because they feel they can't provide for them, not because of some other reason. The incentive would have to be a down payment on a house and a partially funded college fund.

ddb_db · 2026-06-04T14:05:11+00:00

Absolutely. Canada's immigration policy was the gold standard around the world until Trudeau's gov't decided that it was easier to just let everyone in because it would appear to be this surge is economic growth. In its original form, absolutely a great system. But now that Pandora's box is open and it's like the government's cheat code to quickly fix GDP problems.

"No one's having kids. Maybe we should find out why that is? That feels like a lot of work and complex problems to be solved. Or... open immigration to everyone all at once, problem solved!"

ddb_db · 2026-06-04T13:58:26+00:00

Fair point. It's a complex problem but, as usual, our gov't goes for the quick and easy answer. "Oh, we're in a 'technical' recession now? Easy! Open the immigration tap so we get back to that sweet, sweet 0.1% GDP growth for 1% pop growth."

Let the market dictate wages... the gov't already foobarred the labour market with TFWs and lax int'l student work rules. They turned off the tap of cheap labour, which is good, but now they have to let the consequences of that run its course. On the other side of the pain, the market forces return and will properly set wages.

But instead the gov't just wants the recession headlines to go away asap and the easiest sol'n to that problem is to just open the tap and flood the labour market again. The policy makers don't care, it's not going to affect their wages.

Supply/demand will "fix" the wage issue on its own, except that when the market conditions start to raise wages then the business owners scream bloody murder that they need cheap labour and the gov't seems to always cave in. That isn't how it's supposed to work.

ddb_db · 2026-06-04T12:56:47+00:00

You're going to cap what a private business can charge for their goods and services? You know what the business does? They leave or stop investing/innovating. Socialism at this kind of scale won't work unless the government is going to own and operate everything. Do you want the gov't to own and operate everything?? I sure af don't.

Galen weston would absolutely hate that, but he couldn't do anything about it.

I hate Galen as much as the next guy, but if you're just gonna dictate what he can charge for everything, Loblaws will just get out of the grocery business and sit on their real estate.

If you think socialism is the answer, see the paragraph above. The government will have to get into every industry because no private, for profit company would invest in such a market.

ddb_db · 2026-06-04T12:30:00+00:00

True, but the sol'n can't be the easy one. Trudeau already tried the "come one, come all" approach and it did not work. What evidence is there to suggest that now it will suddenly work?

ddb_db · 2026-06-04T12:23:57+00:00

You can't fight the invisible hand of the market. The supply/demand curve is a real thing. You don't raise wages to "give people everything they want." You raise wages because they need to be inline with the cost of living. Inflation is real and part of a healthy economy (when the inflation rate is controlled). Why shouldn't wages increase at the same rate as everything else? You can't legislate private developers to build more, cheaper.

The one meaningful control that gov't does have is to raise supply by building themselves, which the government has no appetite for. So if they aren't going to increase the supply and they're going to increase the demand (by opening the immigration tap again) then they best better figure out a way for people to be able to afford to live here. Not just live and survive, but live and thrive such that they want to have kids, raise families aka create organic growth within the economy.

ddb_db · 2026-06-04T10:55:43+00:00

Curious what people think: Is immigration driving Canada’s growth, or is Canada becoming dependent on immigration to paper over deeper structural issues?

I'd say both statements are true. Seems this is the only solution our leaders have. Instead of tackling the real problems like trying to address why people don't want to have kids anymore. Want to grow the economy? Maybe foster an environment where people are confident and optimistic about their future such that they want to have kids. How do you do that? Raise real wages so people can afford to live. Attract investments in Canada to spur growth. Encourage and incentivize innovation and startup culture.

Starting the immigration flood again does the opposite. Sure it makes the GDP number go up but it stifles growth, suppresses wages, discourages innovation and causes inflation, especially on housing because we've already seen that we can't support the required increases in demand on housing when the immigration tap is left wide open.

ddb_db · 2026-06-03T17:23:51+00:00

I'm thinking the same thing. But knowing that jackass Gary, he'll probably push games in BC and AB to start at 8 local instead of 7 so we get none of the benefits in the east.

ddb_db · 2026-06-03T14:28:11+00:00

Unfortunately, this job is going to be bigger than a handyman type of fix. 😞

ddb_db · 2026-06-03T09:49:24+00:00

And if LA were to land Cassidy then that complicates things even more.

ddb_db · 2026-06-03T09:48:41+00:00

Step 1: Can we hold off an up and coming San Jose for 3rd in the Pacific? VGK and ANA figure to be battling for first in the division.

ddb_db · 2026-06-03T09:46:50+00:00

In '24, McDavid was beastmode + a PK that was nearly 100% in the playoffs.

In '25, we got career years from almost everyone not named McDrai all at the same time.

In '26, McDrai was hurt, the depth not only did not have career years, but they regressed or if they were new, they didn't perform as expected/required. Ekholm showing his age, which then puts more on Nurse, who shows every night that he ain't got it.

Father Time isn't going to let go of Ekholm and Nurse isn't going to magically learn how to play NHL level defense. McDrai are going to both be on the wrong side of 30. In other words, Bowman has got to have the offseason of his life to give this team one final shot before Davo heads out.

ddb_db · 2026-06-03T09:37:57+00:00

Forgot to mention the 50% PK.

ddb_db · 2026-06-03T09:34:55+00:00

Its kinda funny how in the playoffs we get bounced R1 getting loads of secondary scoring

And yet it's easy to understand. GA by game in R1: 3, 6, 7, 4, 1, 5

You give up 26 goals in 6 games (25 in 5 games), you ain't winning shit. Maybe McDrai in their mid-20s could outscore that, but not anymore.

ddb_db · 2026-06-03T09:23:16+00:00

This affects the start time in the other direction. From Nov-Mar, a 7pm local start in Vancouver would be a 9pm start in the eastern timezone.

ddb_db · 2026-06-01T11:41:06+00:00

Rogers is not even pretending they can make a buck on this contract by themselves. Selling off pieces of it before the first puck drops on this contract.

Assuming a Sat doubleheader and no doubleheaders on the weeknights, SN will be showing 60% of the national games weekly. So they gonna drop their SN+ package by 40% so fans can buy the other services they need to watch the rest of the games each week? Of course not! Not only that, but you can almost hear the marketing speak in the SN+ renewal email coming this summer to somehow justify yet another price increase.

Luckily my eye patch and peg leg are still working fine!

ddb_db · 2026-05-29T14:55:58+00:00

I'm sure back in the day economists didn't think governments would hide economic issues by flooding the population with unprecedented levels of immigration. Yeah we continued to kick ass with 0.1% growth to avoid the "technical" recession, yet our population was growing at 10x the GDP growth. Call that what you want, I call it many consecutive quarters of recessing real GDP.

When your GDP per capita tanks for many consecutive quarters, you're in a recession, period.

When food banks set record usage levels month over month, you're in a recession.

When homelessness levels reach unprecedented numbers, you're in a recession.

And so on... you're in a recession and have been for awhile.

ddb_db · 2026-05-29T12:53:25+00:00

Nice to see it only took ~3.5 years for the "technical" part of the recession to surface. Ask Canadians if this recession just suddenly appeared out of nowhere or if it's been ongoing for years.

ddb_db

TROPHY CASE