Statistics Canada Reports II

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

According to the population clock, we are now less than 30k away from 41M Canadians.

We should reach the milestone within about 12 days (I'm personally hoping for April Fools Day).

That's a million new Canadians in one year. Completely unsustainable.....

Speaking of unsustainable population growth, excellent read from Scotiabank Economics today:

Raising the Bar, Not Just Lowering the Number: Canada’s Immigration Policy Confronts Critical Choices
https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/abo...21--2024-.html







Highlights from the report:

• Canada welcomed 1.25 mn new residents last year with a final count that was over 2.5 times the policy-deliberated permanent resident target as temporary arrivals surged (chart 1).
  
  
• Given the chronic challenge of low investment rates in Canada, we estimate Canada’s productivity-neutral pace of population growth is only around 350 k annually—temporary or otherwise. In the absence of stronger investment, increases in population beyond that lower the capital to labour ratio and depress productivity. We estimate about two-thirds of productivity declines since 2021 stem from this population shock (chart 2).
  
  
• The magnitude of the population shock has further muted this investment response. The surge in immigration almost certainly contained what would have otherwise been even more substantial wage increases and, in so doing, has made labour a cheaper option than capital. This naturally incentivized firms to forego investment in lieu of larger workforces. Given that, it was more or less a certainty that the surge in population would lead to a decline in productivity. This is what we find in the context of our macroeconometric model of the Canadian economy. Given the typical response of investment in Canada to macroeconomic factors, we estimate that the rise in population contributed to 1.0% of the massive 1.6% decline in GDP per employee relative to end 2021 (chart 2, front). We further estimate that a productivity-neutral rate of population growth over this time would have been around 350 k annually. That is a fraction of what actually occurred. Moreover, we very roughly assess that business investment would need to rise by about 15% over a two-year period for each million increase in population beyond the average historical pace of population growth. We have seen such large increases in capital formation in the past, but those episodes were few and far between and they have tended to occur when oil prices have risen sharply.
  
  
• Unfettered temporary programs have also left the federal government with a massive wall of mismanaged expectations. The vast majority of those in the country temporarily (3 mn temporary or undocumented) aspire to stay in the country. The stark reality is that many won’t successfully make that transition. There were 16 k judicial reviews filed in federal court in 2023—averaging over 40 a day—contesting IRCC decisions. The federal government now not only has to critically manage the growth of new residents, also the large stock already here. And as it contemplates policy options around undocumented residents, moral hazard is a material risk to be balanced against the government’s role in mismanaged expectations.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

Speaking of unsustainable population growth, excellent read from Scotiabank Economics today:

Raising the Bar, Not Just Lowering the Number: Canada’s Immigration Policy Confronts Critical Choices
https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/abo...21--2024-.html







Highlights from the report:

• Canada welcomed 1.25 mn new residents last year with a final count that was over 2.5 times the policy-deliberated permanent resident target as temporary arrivals surged (chart 1).
  
  
• Given the chronic challenge of low investment rates in Canada, we estimate Canada’s productivity-neutral pace of population growth is only around 350 k annually—temporary or otherwise. In the absence of stronger investment, increases in population beyond that lower the capital to labour ratio and depress productivity. We estimate about two-thirds of productivity declines since 2021 stem from this population shock (chart 2).
  
  
• The magnitude of the population shock has further muted this investment response. The surge in immigration almost certainly contained what would have otherwise been even more substantial wage increases and, in so doing, has made labour a cheaper option than capital. This naturally incentivized firms to forego investment in lieu of larger workforces. Given that, it was more or less a certainty that the surge in population would lead to a decline in productivity. This is what we find in the context of our macroeconometric model of the Canadian economy. Given the typical response of investment in Canada to macroeconomic factors, we estimate that the rise in population contributed to 1.0% of the massive 1.6% decline in GDP per employee relative to end 2021 (chart 2, front). We further estimate that a productivity-neutral rate of population growth over this time would have been around 350 k annually. That is a fraction of what actually occurred. Moreover, we very roughly assess that business investment would need to rise by about 15% over a two-year period for each million increase in population beyond the average historical pace of population growth. We have seen such large increases in capital formation in the past, but those episodes were few and far between and they have tended to occur when oil prices have risen sharply.
  
  
• Unfettered temporary programs have also left the federal government with a massive wall of mismanaged expectations. The vast majority of those in the country temporarily (3 mn temporary or undocumented) aspire to stay in the country. The stark reality is that many won’t successfully make that transition. There were 16 k judicial reviews filed in federal court in 2023—averaging over 40 a day—contesting IRCC decisions. The federal government now not only has to critically manage the growth of new residents, also the large stock already here. And as it contemplates policy options around undocumented residents, moral hazard is a material risk to be balanced against the government’s role in mismanaged expectations.

Most excellent. Blast this from the damn rooftops.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

[B]...We estimate about two-thirds of productivity declines since 2021 stem from this population shock (chart 2).

[*]The magnitude of the population shock has further muted this investment response. The surge in immigration almost certainly contained what would have otherwise been even more substantial wage increases and, in so doing, has made labour a cheaper option than capital..]

Let's just bold and highlight that so everyone is aware of the Trudeau game plan.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Let's just bold and highlight that so everyone is aware of the Trudeau game plan.

Fact don't agree with you statement.
Wage growth has accelerated under Trudeau and are still growing at a record pace and has been for a while now.
Still around 5% and faster than at any other time in your life time.
If wages grew any faster we would never get inflation under control and be stuck in a Wage-Price Spiral

[theman23]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

Speaking of unsustainable population growth, excellent read from Scotiabank Economics today:
We further estimate that a productivity-neutral rate of population growth over this time would have been around 350 k annually.[/LIST]

Interesting that their neutral population growth estimate is essentially the same as our annual population growth pre-2015. I wonder what changed after that year?

[theman23]

CIHI survey of 10 wealthy countries shows that Canada ranks last in access to primary care. Can't help but notice the correlation between the election of the Liberals, the ramp up in immigration numbers since 2015 and our tumble down these rankings:



Also rank last in same day or next day appointment availability:



https://www.cihi.ca/en/primary-health-care

[Architype]

Originally Posted by theman23

CIHI survey of 10 wealthy countries shows that Canada ranks last in access to primary care. Can't help but notice the correlation between the election of the Liberals, the ramp up in immigration numbers since 2015 and our tumble down these rankings:



Also rank last in same day or next day appointment availability:



https://www.cihi.ca/en/primary-health-care

A lot depends upon lifestyle here; in other words, how well we are looking after ourselves outside the healthcare system. It's cultural as well as economic or policy driven.

[theman23]

Not sure I follow. Obviously health outcomes depend on lifestyle factors, but what does that have to do with our last place access to primary care? Are you saying that Canadians are so much healthier in 2023 than other countries (or even our past selves in 2016) that we don't need access to primary care? That seems absurd. We have the 4th highest obesity rate amongst those countries, for example.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by theman23

CIHI survey of 10 wealthy countries shows that Canada ranks last in access to primary care. Can't help but notice the correlation between the election of the Liberals, the ramp up in immigration numbers since 2015 and our tumble down these rankings:

It was actually done by a US organisation - CIHI released it.

As you well know, correlation doesn't indicate causation, and the Liberals have increased healthcare spending as much, if not more than other federal governments. And health spending has gone up steadily, since 1975, (and significantly more during the pandemic).

How it's spent is a Provincial responsibility, and as comments in the press on the study note, hospitals often get the big bucks, and primary health care is often underfunded (in many provinces). There's also huge variation in accessibility. This Statistics Canada report shows Quebec has the lowest access to a regular healthcare provider, and Atlantic Canada isn't much better.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by theman23

Not sure I follow. Obviously health outcomes depend on lifestyle factors, but what does that have to do with our last place access to primary care? Are you saying that Canadians are so much healthier in 2023 than other countries (or even our past selves in 2016) that we don't need access to primary care? That seems absurd. We have the 4th highest obesity rate amongst those countries, for example.

The overall health of the population affects every aspect of health care, including access to it. You are comparing various countries which are not all the same in terms of this.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Nite

Fact don't agree with you statement.
Wage growth has accelerated under Trudeau and are still growing at a record pace and has been for a while now.
Still around 5% and faster than at any other time in your life time.
If wages grew any faster we would never get inflation under control and be stuck in a Wage-Price Spiral

How’s your reading comprehension? It says that wages were constrained more than they would have been without Trudeau’s immigration Ponzi scheme. And in case you hadn’t noticed the cost of living has increased greatly and the cost of housing costs even more so. Canadians could have used those more substantial wage increases.

It must be lonely out shilling for Trudeau and his merry band of idiots these days.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by Architype

The overall health of the population affects every aspect of health care, including access to it. You are comparing various countries which are not all the same in terms of this.

Your first sentence is obvious. Still don't understand the point you're trying to make. Are you saying Canadians are in such great shape that they don't need to access health care? That doesn't make any sense. The average dutch person is in far better shape than the average Canadian, and they're at the top of the list. Or is it that Canadians are too fat and out of shape to bother going to their doctors' offices? Again, doesn't make any sense. The Australians and Americans are even fatter and they beat us too.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by theman23

Your first sentence is obvious. Still don't understand the point you're trying to make. Are you saying Canadians are in such great shape that they don't need to access health care? That doesn't make any sense. The average dutch person is in far better shape than the average Canadian, and they're at the top of the list. Or is it that Canadians are too fat and out of shape to bother going to their doctors' offices? Again, doesn't make any sense. The Australians and Americans are even fatter and they beat us too.

No, you're overlooking the obvious. The system is overtaxed. At risk of being reductive, we are not in great physical shape as a country (this includes psychiatric illnesses), this creates more demand per capita, which puts a greater strain on the system. We are a country of high-stress inducing dysfunctional suburban living, illicit drug use, homelessness etc.; Europeans are generally in better shape. We also have higher immigration and population growth. Incidentally, trying to compare the "pay or die" US system (which doesn't exist by international definitions) to ours, is really apples and oranges.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by whatnext

How’s your reading comprehension? It says that wages were constrained more than they would have been without Trudeau’s immigration Ponzi scheme. And in case you hadn’t noticed the cost of living has increased greatly and the cost of housing costs even more so. Canadians could have used those more substantial wage increases.

It must be lonely out shilling for Trudeau and his merry band of idiots these days.

Wages growth under Trudeau is already the fastest it's ever been, any higher we would be in a wage price spiral, which would destroy the cost of living in this country.

The interesting question is why has wage growth accelerated so much in the last few years with record population growth.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by Nite

Wages growth under Trudeau is already the fastest it's ever been, any higher we would be in a wage price spiral, which would destroy the cost of living in this country.

The interesting question is why has wage growth accelerated so much in the last few years with record population growth.

It is also important to note that your charts don't show what you are trying to say. Your sloth makes you lie.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Nite

The interesting question is why has wage growth accelerated so much in the last few years with record population growth.

There has been high wage growth because inflation spiked in the last two years. People like to keep up with the cost of living when conducting contract negotiations and minimum wage is indexed to CPI in many provinces. The wage bit is somewhat a sideshow to distract from downsides of cheap calories high-growth policy.

High population growth still produces distortions in housing/rental markets. It's all and wonderful if wages rise, but if housing/rent rises more quickly, one's no further ahead.

A more 'normal' population growth situation would result in pressure being removed from the housing/rental market by decreased demand. Housing prices would continue to deflate as construction catches up to demand. Some overleveraged homeowners would lose their homes, yes, but they'd end up in cheaper rentals to rebuild the finances. Younger Canadians starting out would benefit from a stronger bargaining position for entry-level labour and cheaper accommodation.

The question I pose is this: Why are you so focused on 'high growth at any cost', when it is becoming obvious that the downsides are apparent? I don't understand the goal you are trying to achieve, aside from 'growth for growth's sake, to hell with quality.'

Even government is somewhat getting the hint that the current system is not sustainable and has clipped student visa approvals. One can force-feed an animal and make it grow. The downsides and morality of doing so is another question.

Should one want to maintain high-quality long-term immigration and faith in that system by domestic Canadians, perhaps it should respond to the internal pressures of 2024 Canada in all their facets.

To hell with the statistic fetishes. Focus on making life better. The system is doing a great job of pumping statistics and a terrible job of making life better. Best we fix that before people really get angry.

[niwell]

High percentage wage growth at the bottom end isn’t making things more affordable for those in low-paying jobs unless they have secure housing locked down. Some probably do. Younger people and newcomers not so much.

Anecdotally wages have gone up a ton in certain sectors for those at a certain point in their career. Most of my friends have seen their salaries increase ahead of inflation. But again house prices in Toronto have outpaced that which makes it a bit of a moot point. I suspect people in situations like that are the reason bars and restaurants are still so busy - if you can’t afford to buy may as well enjoy yourself. My relatives in Australia had this outlook a decade ago when they largely consigned themselves to renting unless an inheritance came in.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by thewave46

The question I pose is this: Why are you so focused on 'high growth at any cost', when it is becoming obvious that the downsides are apparent? I don't understand the goal you are trying to achieve, aside from 'growth for growth's sake, to hell with quality.'

One can almost imagine Canadian growth policy being led by a skyscraper fanboy. It's got all the hallmarks of classic SSP boosterism after all: it really pads those population growth charts, density figures, and diversity stats - and most importantly, has been great for skyscraper construction. Who cares about the negative externalities or what the social implications are - we've got towers to build and statistical dick-measuring contests to win!

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by whatnext

How’s your reading comprehension? It says that wages were constrained more than they would have been without Trudeau’s immigration Ponzi scheme. And in case you hadn’t noticed the cost of living has increased greatly and the cost of housing costs even more so. Canadians could have used those more substantial wage increases.

It must be lonely out shilling for Trudeau and his merry band of idiots these days.

The alternative is the elitist conservatives so I'll stick with the Liberals

[lio45]

For the Nth time, Nite, when we say that one of the effects of the Scheme is to make relative wages lower, it’s a shortcut to say “the number of hours most Canadians must work in order to have food on the table and a roof over their head is getting higher”, which as we pointed out to you 100+ times so far is not incompatible with “bbbbut… nominal wages are going up!”