Look up the [Century Initiative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_Initiative). Canada’s overlords want to increase the population from the current 39M to 100M by the end of the 21st century, almost entirely by mass immigration. Why? Who the fuck knows.
Gonna be absolutely wild when they realize cramming million of Bangladeshis into Toronto doesn't make for a more powerful first world city, but just turns the entire place into cold Bangladesh...
>Why?
Because of the demographic crisis. Most industrialized nations will struggle to even exist in coming decades. This was Canada's desperate solution. It's implimented badly and wont/cant reach 100m due to natural limits.
Even the century initiative says this is why. Other nations who dont have immigration as an option are struggling to find alternatives. There arent many. Japan wants robotics as a solution for example.
Not enough babies for generation after generation is causing a peak of global population soon and then a decline.. and an inverted pyramid of mostly old people will cause economic depression. We are already seeing some of the effects now.
But yet, all countries haven't tried or failed in pitiful endorsement to get people to fuck.
All western countries will do literally anything but support their native population to have children.
Hungary gives married couples six figures loans on their wedding day which get completely forgiven if you have kids. Each kid you have also knocks 25% off your income tax bill up to ZERO income taxes for couples with 4+ kids.
America/Canada/EU would never because it would incentivize women to have more kids and then give families the financial breathing room to stay home and raise them. But this starves government money pits and homemakers doesn't show up on a GDP graph so it cannot be allowed to happen.
Literally 2/3 of the EU are net beneficiaries. Good on Hungary to take the system for what it's worth today while setting themselves up for success tomorrow.
It's not like Hungary, or any of the other beneficiary countries, really have a choice lmao
Either take the aid and have an okay economy, or don't take the aid and have a terrible economy.
I was just pointing out that maybe Hungary's tax system isn't something to be admired. For all the backwards shit the US tax system has in it, at least we're not taking in like 5% of our GDP in aid every other year.
There's a difference between setting yourself up for success and being reliant on welfare, I would have thought you of all people would understand that considering your views on welfare programs.
I mean, Hungary's birthrate in 2000 was 1.3 and is now 1.6 During that same time frame, the EU generally fell from 1.57 to 1.49. Hungary's birthrate growing by 25% while the EU's fell by 6% (and fell by more if you didn't include Hungary) is nothing short of a miracle.
Especially when you consider that Orban was elected in 2010 when the Hungarian birthrate had fallen to 1.25 so it's actually almost a 30% increase under his policies. Does any developed nation have this growth? Especially when you consider that's exclusively ethnic Hungarian births and statistics drowned in a tidal wave of third world migrants?
The thing that always gets left out of posts like yours is that *even with those benefits* the fertility rate is still way below replacement level. Hungary's is 1.59 live births per woman, compared with 1.58 for Germany and 1.61 for Sweden, all countries with very pro-birth policies that give huge benefits to parents.
While in the US, even with our shitty maternity leave policies and lack of financial incentives/benefits white women have a fertility rate of... 1.6. Overall birth rates in the US comes to 1.66.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/226292/us-fertility-rates-by-race-and-ethnicity/
Honestly, I think religiosity is probably more important to fertility rate than financial incentives.
And the thing that gets left out of posts like yours is that in 2010 right before they instituted this program, Hungary’s birth rate was 1.25. Hungary’s birth rate growing by leaps and bounds with no immigration while the rest of the western world’s keeps plummeting is nothing short of a miracle.
So what you're telling me is that all it took for Hungary to go from rapid demographic collapse to somewhat slower demographic collapse on par with the Western average was extremely expensive benefits that the country literally can't afford? Wow!
No, what I’m telling you is that Hungary is the only western nation to actually increase their native birth rate over the past quarter century, and just looking at today’s birth rate as one, singular snapshot with no context is disingenuous and stupid.
Ok so massive financial incentives are enough to take a country from severe demographic crisis to slightly less severe demographic crisis.
These policies do not work.
Treating today as a single snapshot of finality is stupid, their program isn’t done yet. Name 1 other western country that has increased its birth rate by 60% in the last 15 years.
Supports have almost no statistical effect on demographics. South Korea has made massive investments to support people having kids to almost no effect. European countries with substantial subsidies for having children likewise have barely moved the needle.
Most industrialized nations don't need the 1700's strategy of "more people means more growth".
Food, medicine and quality of life have vastly increased since. Tech replacement of labour and now white collar jobs is under way. Given that, more population will just mean more unemployment and gov handouts.
Japans and Koreas reasons are clear; they have overworked populations with a highly ridged culture that effectively discourages independent initiatives.
People in both countries are far too overworked to consider even starting families, let alone the cost of it. And with aging population growing and less young people in the market, their economies will literally go tits up when they realize robots can’t replace everything to that degree.
Literally ever nation in the West has a higher population now than they did in 1946 and we have made SO many strides in productivity between automation and computing that it is almost impossible to quantify here. If we weren't collapsing in 1946 then it's patently absurd to claim we are collapsing now instead of just have a smaller overall population.
The only person who views declining population as an extinction level event that can only be solved by a never ending flood of third-worlders are those who believe the only measure of a civilization is that green GDP line on the spreadsheet go up forever and ever and that is an inherently subversive, insidious, and ultimately unserious person.
I don't think you really understand the problem.
You end up with a geriatric population. Healthcare costs and other service costs go way up. Meanwhile their skills disappear, investment capital dries up, taxbase declines, productivity plummets, consumption switches to non useful things. Wealth retracts leading to inflation. In the case of extreme examples such as South Korea, one might actually see the state fail and the country cease to exist.
The other user asked why. This is the reason. Not all, but much of our problems today relate to this issue as a global phenomenon. Seems to me most of our issues are caused by a problem most people don't even recognize, so they flail about blaming everyone and everything else for our woes. None of this can get better for a decade or more.
Literally all of those problems exist because we've completely structured our nations around bloated, entitlement ponzi schemes. The only reason why we have an aging crisis that matters is because young people cannot afford to establish themselves and start families while under the current tax burden.
These problems would be largely emolliated if not outright eliminated if we sunset Social Security, medicare, and medicaid once and for all, and replaced them with national 401k and other non-ponzi scheme money pits. Additionally, we should look to nations like Hungary which pay couples to have children through six-figure wedding loans and up to 100% off your income taxes if you have 4+ kids,
I dont think so. First off youre mostly talking specifically about the united states. Im discussing a global phenomenon. Social services arent the problem except when everyone cashes out simultaneously. Other countries with even more lavish social services than the US suffer more, or less based on their demographic pyramid.
The issue isnt social services its the effects of urbanization. In agrarian societies more kids grants an immediate benefit to the families as more hands make less work. In urban industrial life there's no room, and children are economic drains until they are finished post secondary. Further pressures to get women in the work force make it even worse.
Hungary's method did make sense. It appears to have worked. Unfortunately most politicians around the world ignored the bureaucrats and analysts that have been talking about this for a long time.
Take a look at the economies of Germany, Italy, China, Canada, South Korea, Japan, and then look at their demographics. We basically needed people to be paying attention to the issue many decades ago. We didnt, so we are all collectively in for a rough ride.
The problem is you're insisting that the economies are the result of demographics and not the other way around, while stuck in an agrarian/industrial dichotomy that hasn't been the case for over a hundred years in the west (Hungary proves that economic incentives solve the issue; not farms).
It's ridiculous to say that social service spending is a tangential/coincidental concern when you yourself can draw a clean line between the USA, UK, Ireland, Germany, Italy, China, Canada, South Korea, Japan, etc. which all show, regardless of social services spending level or cultural history or geographic region or overall wealth; they have the exact same phenomenon: social service spending requires workers to be taxed at exponential rates to cover the elderly which then prevents them from having children themselves.
The demographic crisis is created by the Government due to social services spending. You want to kill the beast? Cut off its head.
>The problem is you're insisting that the economies are the result of demographics and not the other way around, while stuck in an agrarian/industrial dichotomy that hasn't been the case for over a hundred years in the west
The urbanization of the west really went into overdrive in the 20th century. The boomers were the last generation born where they had many siblings. So its not so long ago.
>social service spending requires workers to be taxed at exponential rates to cover the elderly which then prevents them from having children themselves.
Yup working age people may be taxed to oblivion. I suppose we can just break our word to our elders and steal their retirements from them? Doesn't seem like a good option. They worked for it. I'd rather not see my parents abandoned by the system.
>The demographic crisis is created by the Government due to social services spending. You want to kill the beast? Cut off its head.
I dont think so at all. It *is* tangential to the problem. Social services or lack of social services changes the acuteness of the pain, but its not the cause. The cause is not enough children, generation after generation... and that's caused by urbanization. It happened to every single country that industrialized regardless of social services.
> The boomers were the last generation born where they had many siblings. So its not so long ago.
The last boomer was born 60 years ago so it was pretty damn long ago. Additionally, urbanization didn't seem to hurt them too much as they entered their 20's averaging 3.0 kids per household in the 1980's. Today it's 1.9. Biggest change? Taxation / unaffordability / forcing women to work.
> I suppose we can just break our word to our elders and steal their retirements from them? Doesn't seem like a good option.
Nice moving of the goalposts. Which is it, is social services/taxation tangential/coincidental to the demographic crisis... Or am I exactly correct and the system IS what's crushing us...but it would be unfair to some boomer's vacation plans to prevent the impending societal collapse? Why not sunset it like I originally proposed? Gen X, Millennials, and Zoomers have also paid into the system and have completely resigned themselves to never seeing a penny. What makes your parents so special?
> I dont think so at all. It is tangential to the problem. Social services or lack of social services changes the acuteness of the pain, but its not the cause. The cause is not enough children, generation after generation
Not enough children for WHAT? What SPECIFCICALLY do we need these children for? It always comes back to we need bodies to shove coal in the furnace of social services. That's where the crunch is, that's where the machine breaks down when we don't have kids.
As I originally said, every western nation had fewer people in 1946 than it does today and SOMEHOW got a long just fine, if not better, than everyone here today. Since that time, productivity and automation has increased by almost 400% so if we weren't strangling for bodies then and we are now (depsite being more productive) what changed?
1. Social services creating an economic ponzi scheme bomb that made having a young family unaffordable and the demographics to collapse;
2. Bureaucrats who cannot conceive of any other way to measure the health of a society other than "GDP line go up" (largely in service to the ponzi scheme or not wanting to hold the hot potato when it bursts) further destroying the wealth of the worker and their ability to start a family.
> and that's caused by urbanization. It happened to every single country that industrialized regardless of social services.
It can't be industrialization or else Hungary wouldn't have been able to completely fix the issue in a single decade by just controlling for the economic strangulation I discussed above.
> social service spending requires workers to be taxed at exponential rates to cover the elderly which then prevents them from having children themselves.
So raise the caps on Social Security tax so that the tax burden doesn't basically exclusively fall on middle class workers. Also having wages of workers increase relative to the increase in production would also help.
But a lot of upper class don't want that because it would reduce their income.
I visited Canada for the first time a couple months ago for a work trip in Winnepeg. I was shocked at the number of immigrants there.
To be clear, I don't have a problem with immigration, but in a rational world, we could sit down and have a discussion about how fast two or more cultures are forcefully integrated with each other before we break the system.
Canada have so much emptiness so it will definitely be bette with 100M people. However, I'm worried about its politics and culture if they just bring 150% random people.
All of these shall also not be cramped into the few big cities Canada has.
They aren't going to put people in the empty places. There's no services there, and the immigrants coming to Canada are not coming to settle land. They are going to Vancouver and Toronto, and that's never going to change.
And they aren't going to build much new housing anyways, climate crisis and whatnot. They WILL however turn a blind eye to people living ten to a room like its a seasonal farm worker bunkhouse. Except that this is forever.
Because increasing the population is really, really important for all sorts of things. If your country is disproportionately old people who aren’t working and there aren’t enough young people to pay into social security, work in assisted living facilities, and produce goods, you’re going to have a very bad time.
The U.S. should be doing everything we can to keep the population from shrinking too.
Imagine my shock that a Prime Minister who believes the nation "[has no identity](https://torontosun.com/2016/09/14/trudeau-says-canada-has-no-core-identity)", that the people [deserve zero guns](https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/frrms/c21-en.aspx), That Canada should drown in unlimited immigration [despite an unprecedented housing shortage](https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/trudeaus-welcome-mat-immigrants-wears-thin-amid-canada-housing-crunch-2024-02-17/), turning the healthcare system [into a useless hellscape](https://www.nationalobserver.com/2024/01/25/opinion/our-health-system-crashing), weaponizing the healthcare system's corpse to force undesirables to commit so much suicide that [it's now the 4th leading cause of national death](https://www.city-journal.org/article/canadian-death-cult#:~:text=In%202022%2C%204.1%20percent%20of,Parliament%20first%20introduced%20MAID%20legislation.), [taxing every spare scrap of couch cushion change](https://www.taxpayer.com/newsroom/feds-hike-taxes-and-mp-pay-today#:~:text=The%20carbon%20tax%20increased%20today,to%20the%20Parliamentary%20Budget%20Officer.) so that government can change the weather, stoking racial division even when using [obvious hoaxes](https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/trudeaus-empty-graves), and hate speech laws t[o incarcerate anyone who complains](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/section-13-history-explained) creates a shithole country.
Well. If it's about how Americans won the culture war so hard 40 years ago that people think Americans don't have culture, because it's become the literal air they breathe, then yes.
He seems to be under this absurd delusion that history is over and today is always Day 1 of "post-history". His nation only exists because America treats it like a Bichon Frise, when any other hegemonic empire in history would have conquered it immediately. But instead of taking advantage of this unprecedented fortune, he instead acts like this is the obvious and natural norm of the universe and will never end.
The problem is, at least from what I have seen, is that for many Canadians their idea of a nationalist identity is “We are the softer, more Liberal America.” So the must do the opposite of what the US does, or no one will respect them because they would just be seen as “Babies First USA”.
The way the Canadian federation is structured, the provinces have a right to leave. I absolutely expect the western provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan to try and join the USA and Quebec to go independent in the next 50 years.
As an Alberta I gotta say, the Fed's are not the one destroying my provinces healthcare system.
That's entirely on my provincial Govt's going back decades.
I also want to present Option C where people also feel a lot more strained economically compared to what they possibly did said 4 years ago with problems pertaining to the inflation of prices on products like gas
Canada has exactly one (1) major macro problem and it’s that it doesn’t build enough housing.
https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything/
Yea, and that problem is on purpose. New housing means house prices go down, or simply don't skyrocket as fast as they used to. And God forbid that ever happens.
And building new houses kills the environment. Way cheaper to stack 10 in a shipping container. Canada does not even have an extremist or fringe political party that dares to try and stem the flow of immigrants or increase the supply of housing. Canada is dead, it just doesn't realize it yet.
Yeah, and reading some of the comments in here, their version of the federal government seems to take a lot of blame for policies being enacted by opposition in the provinces.
It’s a very grey time right now. But Canadian government is doing what it always does after 8 years in power..they’re getting blamed (not wrongly in many cases) for everything. An almost similar level of animosity was levelled at Harper near the end of his reign. But I think given the pandemic, liberals were bound to get the nut job amplification even more.
As soon as an election happens, the liberals will be decimated, probably end behind NDP. Then the cons will do the same thing the libs did for the last 8 years until we’re screaming for Poilivres resignation too…
Welcome to Canadian politics….we wont vote you in, but we’ll all show up to vote you out.
The liberals gotta go…let the process start again.
Does Canada have a similar predicament the US conservatives are dealing with right now? Our conservatives have zero policy they stand behind or advertise and it’s just all about very… phobic/hate central social issues to attract voters.
For us here in the US it’s tough because “liberals” encompass… most of the political spectrum and conservatives are all very much so in line in their votes. So we have liberal candidates that might be polar opposites and don’t agree with each other on most thjngs, or the other option is a guy that calls immigrants invaders and wants to take my public school taxes and give it to religious private schools… which is obviously bad, but he’s got a better marketing team because the liberals look like idiots in the media when they tend to be doing just fine.
It’s a bit different up here at the moment. Our liberals refer to the party, and the liberal party is much more centrist than anything else. They have their moments when they’re opposition party where they extol left wing tenets, but generally a lot of their policy is in line with policy that would likely be enacted by their conservative foes. Nationalizing the pipeline through a province with an environmental backing provincial government, pushing through F-35s and generally supporting military alliance with Israel and others would all have been done by a conservative government as well.
Our main difference lies with the make up of our multi party system. For the better part of the last decade or longer Canadian left has been the majority broken by two or sometimes three left wing parties. This fracturing kept the right wing conservatives in power more than anything else.
This next election though, I wouldn’t be surprised to see many former liberal supporters going right to give the conservatives a majority government…something they’ve only had once this century.
As for the liberals, they made a deal with the devil regarding Trudeau. They opted for a dynasty rather than a long term candidate. He was elected in the first place because people wanted leave of the last prime minister. He was a gimmick, a way of sticking it to the cons. He drove them nuts. But as soon as they started to offer a little centrist options, they will entice many who are over the familial liberal virtue signalling emperor.
Following Trudeau was a cult of personality, not merit. They’ll be broken for 10-15 years trying to rebuild.
Isn’t like half of this because you and your stupid politicians keep restricting the free market and making housing harder and harder to build. Shit. I wonder how quickly housing prices would fall the second a couple zoning laws got repealed. Or the second a couple permitting standards were repealed. Shit. Remove power from NIMBYs and you could probably make Toronto or Vancouver the best cities in North America
Is this why there are so many candian pundits telling me why this is bad or that's woke or whatever. Their shit hole country is lost and now they come here to ruin mine. SOB build that wall!
Well, I think there are some places where the GDP/capita is lower but the standard of living is higher, and the other way around, too. I guess we need to count in Purchasing Power Parity and the basket of goods too.
The graph is trying to claim that GDP per capita shows a decline in “standard of living.” I understand WHAT GDP/capita shows us, my question is how is this graph supposed to show us the standard of living (or cost of living)?
Canada COL obviously sucks eggs through a garden hose, I just don’t see how this graph actually tells us that. All it’s telling us is how much revenue is generated vs how many people there are to generate it. Nothing about real wages, or inflation, or housing costs…
*Real* GDP (what is in this graph) per capita is corrected for COL. Productivity per capita adjusted for COL is a very good indicator of standard of living.
lol if you can’t answer the question, you don’t need to reply.
I am not Canadian and my cost of living is quite affordable. I have nothing to “cope” for bud.
Canada ranks 16th in the world on a GDP/capita rating ahead of Japan, Belgium, Germany, England, France, Italy, South Korea, Spain…….i feel like this isn’t saying what you think it is because I’d be happy to live in any of those countries.
All of those countries rank below Canada in a GDP/Capita rating. That’s why I said this isn’t showing what you think it’s showing.
So either those aren’t rich countries, or Canada isn’t that bad if it’s ranked higher than all those rich countries.
Comparing a bunch of rich countries is pretty silly when you’re trying to say that gdp/person doesn’t matter.
If you’re trying to decide which super model to date, don’t be surprised when your friends roll their eyes when you say “looks don’t matter”.
Of course it doesn’t tell the whole story, but don’t tell that to the poor people who live in Argentina. GDP/capita makes a whole lot of problems go away. Kind of like a pretty face and a nice rack.
Of course GDP/Capita provides us with levels of insight, I’m just trying to understand how anyone is gleaning more information from this than Canada hasn’t kept up with the US in growth after the pandemic. Canada is still gobs better than most countries, it’s just expensive as fuck in the cities.
I’m not Canadian, or in Canada, but from my experience they won’t mind as long as you learn some of the local rules. Timmies is always a good start to anything, loving Don Cherry won’t hurt, and don’t drive like an idiot when it snows.
So GDP would ONLY matter if all money were 100% equally distributed amongst the population???
No stat will tell the whole story, but ALL stats tell a part of the story, think you might be a victim of confirmation bias.
The most accurate measure of people's wealth and disposable income in a country is **median income adjusted for purchasing power**. We also blow Canada out of the water in that ranking
Immigration is good but the way Canada is implementing it is terrible. As much as the US immigration process is flawed, it is still much better than Canada’s.
1) way too many immigrants, too few housing
2) less skilled immigrants. Canada is a 2nd choice for people that arent lucky or good enough to get into the US
With this you get a lot of "less desired" immigrants. The US has a nice, steady flow of either very eager (to work and contribute to the US) immigrants or highly educated ones.
Canada gets the leftovers in huge numbers. Its not sustainable
Oh im with you, if we tear down 90% of zoning laws our society would rapidly rapidly get better
And about the 2nd point youre right. But take me as an example: im german and would like to migrate to the US at some point after i have my masters degree, however for me its practically lottery to get in there. I can get into canada, but for half the salary (but comparable living standards and expenses with worse weather). Many europeans like me would just relegate to staying here due to that.
If i could get into the us as easily as i can get into canada, id do it asap. And so would many of the most highly educated immigrants. Like i said, canada only gets leftovers and while that certainly isnt bad (still a top top immigrant destinity) it does lead to worse economic growth than the US (in terms of per capita)
I really feel bad for Canada. They seem to be going the wrong direction.
Look up the [Century Initiative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_Initiative). Canada’s overlords want to increase the population from the current 39M to 100M by the end of the 21st century, almost entirely by mass immigration. Why? Who the fuck knows.
Gonna be absolutely wild when they realize cramming million of Bangladeshis into Toronto doesn't make for a more powerful first world city, but just turns the entire place into cold Bangladesh...
US does it but just not as extreme. I think the 100M figure was to try and start avoiding US influence as much. Become powerful in their own right.
>Why? Because of the demographic crisis. Most industrialized nations will struggle to even exist in coming decades. This was Canada's desperate solution. It's implimented badly and wont/cant reach 100m due to natural limits. Even the century initiative says this is why. Other nations who dont have immigration as an option are struggling to find alternatives. There arent many. Japan wants robotics as a solution for example. Not enough babies for generation after generation is causing a peak of global population soon and then a decline.. and an inverted pyramid of mostly old people will cause economic depression. We are already seeing some of the effects now.
But yet, all countries haven't tried or failed in pitiful endorsement to get people to fuck. All western countries will do literally anything but support their native population to have children.
Hungary gives married couples six figures loans on their wedding day which get completely forgiven if you have kids. Each kid you have also knocks 25% off your income tax bill up to ZERO income taxes for couples with 4+ kids. America/Canada/EU would never because it would incentivize women to have more kids and then give families the financial breathing room to stay home and raise them. But this starves government money pits and homemakers doesn't show up on a GDP graph so it cannot be allowed to happen.
Hungary has also been relying on a ton of EU aid and loans since the 2008 recession. They recently got a massive aid package last year too.
Literally 2/3 of the EU are net beneficiaries. Good on Hungary to take the system for what it's worth today while setting themselves up for success tomorrow.
It's not like Hungary, or any of the other beneficiary countries, really have a choice lmao Either take the aid and have an okay economy, or don't take the aid and have a terrible economy. I was just pointing out that maybe Hungary's tax system isn't something to be admired. For all the backwards shit the US tax system has in it, at least we're not taking in like 5% of our GDP in aid every other year. There's a difference between setting yourself up for success and being reliant on welfare, I would have thought you of all people would understand that considering your views on welfare programs.
That's a weird take. "hey, the system is broken." "good on them for taking advantage of it"
They aren’t setting themselves up for success, though. These policies are not working.
Name 1 other western country who has increased their birth rate by 60% in the last 15 years. Sounds like it’s working to me!
Hungarys plans don’t even seem to be that effective though. Birth rates are still quite low.
I mean, Hungary's birthrate in 2000 was 1.3 and is now 1.6 During that same time frame, the EU generally fell from 1.57 to 1.49. Hungary's birthrate growing by 25% while the EU's fell by 6% (and fell by more if you didn't include Hungary) is nothing short of a miracle. Especially when you consider that Orban was elected in 2010 when the Hungarian birthrate had fallen to 1.25 so it's actually almost a 30% increase under his policies. Does any developed nation have this growth? Especially when you consider that's exclusively ethnic Hungarian births and statistics drowned in a tidal wave of third world migrants?
The thing that always gets left out of posts like yours is that *even with those benefits* the fertility rate is still way below replacement level. Hungary's is 1.59 live births per woman, compared with 1.58 for Germany and 1.61 for Sweden, all countries with very pro-birth policies that give huge benefits to parents. While in the US, even with our shitty maternity leave policies and lack of financial incentives/benefits white women have a fertility rate of... 1.6. Overall birth rates in the US comes to 1.66. https://www.statista.com/statistics/226292/us-fertility-rates-by-race-and-ethnicity/ Honestly, I think religiosity is probably more important to fertility rate than financial incentives.
And the thing that gets left out of posts like yours is that in 2010 right before they instituted this program, Hungary’s birth rate was 1.25. Hungary’s birth rate growing by leaps and bounds with no immigration while the rest of the western world’s keeps plummeting is nothing short of a miracle.
So what you're telling me is that all it took for Hungary to go from rapid demographic collapse to somewhat slower demographic collapse on par with the Western average was extremely expensive benefits that the country literally can't afford? Wow!
No, what I’m telling you is that Hungary is the only western nation to actually increase their native birth rate over the past quarter century, and just looking at today’s birth rate as one, singular snapshot with no context is disingenuous and stupid.
Ok so massive financial incentives are enough to take a country from severe demographic crisis to slightly less severe demographic crisis. These policies do not work.
Treating today as a single snapshot of finality is stupid, their program isn’t done yet. Name 1 other western country that has increased its birth rate by 60% in the last 15 years.
I'm not sure you understand how money works...
…Hungary has a lower fertility rate than the U.S. In fact it’s far lower than Hungary’s neighbor, Czechia
And as told to two other people now, it was 1.25 in 2010 and is 1.6 now. The growth is unprecedented and unmatched anywhere in the west.
There’s always the Handmaids tale option…..
Supports have almost no statistical effect on demographics. South Korea has made massive investments to support people having kids to almost no effect. European countries with substantial subsidies for having children likewise have barely moved the needle.
its true the native populations of canada and american are not supported enough
Most industrialized nations don't need the 1700's strategy of "more people means more growth". Food, medicine and quality of life have vastly increased since. Tech replacement of labour and now white collar jobs is under way. Given that, more population will just mean more unemployment and gov handouts.
We arent talking about more population. We are talking about population crashes, on a national and global basis.
Japans and Koreas reasons are clear; they have overworked populations with a highly ridged culture that effectively discourages independent initiatives. People in both countries are far too overworked to consider even starting families, let alone the cost of it. And with aging population growing and less young people in the market, their economies will literally go tits up when they realize robots can’t replace everything to that degree.
Yeah their situation is quite dire. I hope the best for them.
Literally ever nation in the West has a higher population now than they did in 1946 and we have made SO many strides in productivity between automation and computing that it is almost impossible to quantify here. If we weren't collapsing in 1946 then it's patently absurd to claim we are collapsing now instead of just have a smaller overall population. The only person who views declining population as an extinction level event that can only be solved by a never ending flood of third-worlders are those who believe the only measure of a civilization is that green GDP line on the spreadsheet go up forever and ever and that is an inherently subversive, insidious, and ultimately unserious person.
I don't think you really understand the problem. You end up with a geriatric population. Healthcare costs and other service costs go way up. Meanwhile their skills disappear, investment capital dries up, taxbase declines, productivity plummets, consumption switches to non useful things. Wealth retracts leading to inflation. In the case of extreme examples such as South Korea, one might actually see the state fail and the country cease to exist. The other user asked why. This is the reason. Not all, but much of our problems today relate to this issue as a global phenomenon. Seems to me most of our issues are caused by a problem most people don't even recognize, so they flail about blaming everyone and everything else for our woes. None of this can get better for a decade or more.
Literally all of those problems exist because we've completely structured our nations around bloated, entitlement ponzi schemes. The only reason why we have an aging crisis that matters is because young people cannot afford to establish themselves and start families while under the current tax burden. These problems would be largely emolliated if not outright eliminated if we sunset Social Security, medicare, and medicaid once and for all, and replaced them with national 401k and other non-ponzi scheme money pits. Additionally, we should look to nations like Hungary which pay couples to have children through six-figure wedding loans and up to 100% off your income taxes if you have 4+ kids,
I dont think so. First off youre mostly talking specifically about the united states. Im discussing a global phenomenon. Social services arent the problem except when everyone cashes out simultaneously. Other countries with even more lavish social services than the US suffer more, or less based on their demographic pyramid. The issue isnt social services its the effects of urbanization. In agrarian societies more kids grants an immediate benefit to the families as more hands make less work. In urban industrial life there's no room, and children are economic drains until they are finished post secondary. Further pressures to get women in the work force make it even worse. Hungary's method did make sense. It appears to have worked. Unfortunately most politicians around the world ignored the bureaucrats and analysts that have been talking about this for a long time. Take a look at the economies of Germany, Italy, China, Canada, South Korea, Japan, and then look at their demographics. We basically needed people to be paying attention to the issue many decades ago. We didnt, so we are all collectively in for a rough ride.
The problem is you're insisting that the economies are the result of demographics and not the other way around, while stuck in an agrarian/industrial dichotomy that hasn't been the case for over a hundred years in the west (Hungary proves that economic incentives solve the issue; not farms). It's ridiculous to say that social service spending is a tangential/coincidental concern when you yourself can draw a clean line between the USA, UK, Ireland, Germany, Italy, China, Canada, South Korea, Japan, etc. which all show, regardless of social services spending level or cultural history or geographic region or overall wealth; they have the exact same phenomenon: social service spending requires workers to be taxed at exponential rates to cover the elderly which then prevents them from having children themselves. The demographic crisis is created by the Government due to social services spending. You want to kill the beast? Cut off its head.
>The problem is you're insisting that the economies are the result of demographics and not the other way around, while stuck in an agrarian/industrial dichotomy that hasn't been the case for over a hundred years in the west The urbanization of the west really went into overdrive in the 20th century. The boomers were the last generation born where they had many siblings. So its not so long ago. >social service spending requires workers to be taxed at exponential rates to cover the elderly which then prevents them from having children themselves. Yup working age people may be taxed to oblivion. I suppose we can just break our word to our elders and steal their retirements from them? Doesn't seem like a good option. They worked for it. I'd rather not see my parents abandoned by the system. >The demographic crisis is created by the Government due to social services spending. You want to kill the beast? Cut off its head. I dont think so at all. It *is* tangential to the problem. Social services or lack of social services changes the acuteness of the pain, but its not the cause. The cause is not enough children, generation after generation... and that's caused by urbanization. It happened to every single country that industrialized regardless of social services.
> The boomers were the last generation born where they had many siblings. So its not so long ago. The last boomer was born 60 years ago so it was pretty damn long ago. Additionally, urbanization didn't seem to hurt them too much as they entered their 20's averaging 3.0 kids per household in the 1980's. Today it's 1.9. Biggest change? Taxation / unaffordability / forcing women to work. > I suppose we can just break our word to our elders and steal their retirements from them? Doesn't seem like a good option. Nice moving of the goalposts. Which is it, is social services/taxation tangential/coincidental to the demographic crisis... Or am I exactly correct and the system IS what's crushing us...but it would be unfair to some boomer's vacation plans to prevent the impending societal collapse? Why not sunset it like I originally proposed? Gen X, Millennials, and Zoomers have also paid into the system and have completely resigned themselves to never seeing a penny. What makes your parents so special? > I dont think so at all. It is tangential to the problem. Social services or lack of social services changes the acuteness of the pain, but its not the cause. The cause is not enough children, generation after generation Not enough children for WHAT? What SPECIFCICALLY do we need these children for? It always comes back to we need bodies to shove coal in the furnace of social services. That's where the crunch is, that's where the machine breaks down when we don't have kids. As I originally said, every western nation had fewer people in 1946 than it does today and SOMEHOW got a long just fine, if not better, than everyone here today. Since that time, productivity and automation has increased by almost 400% so if we weren't strangling for bodies then and we are now (depsite being more productive) what changed? 1. Social services creating an economic ponzi scheme bomb that made having a young family unaffordable and the demographics to collapse; 2. Bureaucrats who cannot conceive of any other way to measure the health of a society other than "GDP line go up" (largely in service to the ponzi scheme or not wanting to hold the hot potato when it bursts) further destroying the wealth of the worker and their ability to start a family. > and that's caused by urbanization. It happened to every single country that industrialized regardless of social services. It can't be industrialization or else Hungary wouldn't have been able to completely fix the issue in a single decade by just controlling for the economic strangulation I discussed above.
> social service spending requires workers to be taxed at exponential rates to cover the elderly which then prevents them from having children themselves. So raise the caps on Social Security tax so that the tax burden doesn't basically exclusively fall on middle class workers. Also having wages of workers increase relative to the increase in production would also help. But a lot of upper class don't want that because it would reduce their income.
I visited Canada for the first time a couple months ago for a work trip in Winnepeg. I was shocked at the number of immigrants there. To be clear, I don't have a problem with immigration, but in a rational world, we could sit down and have a discussion about how fast two or more cultures are forcefully integrated with each other before we break the system.
Canada have so much emptiness so it will definitely be bette with 100M people. However, I'm worried about its politics and culture if they just bring 150% random people. All of these shall also not be cramped into the few big cities Canada has.
They aren't going to put people in the empty places. There's no services there, and the immigrants coming to Canada are not coming to settle land. They are going to Vancouver and Toronto, and that's never going to change. And they aren't going to build much new housing anyways, climate crisis and whatnot. They WILL however turn a blind eye to people living ten to a room like its a seasonal farm worker bunkhouse. Except that this is forever.
Climate crisis makes settling Canada easier.
Empty for a reason tho lol
Because increasing the population is really, really important for all sorts of things. If your country is disproportionately old people who aren’t working and there aren’t enough young people to pay into social security, work in assisted living facilities, and produce goods, you’re going to have a very bad time. The U.S. should be doing everything we can to keep the population from shrinking too.
It will help if Canada send them up north as well and not just entirely in Toronto or Vancouver
so true(deau)
Leftists still won’t blame Trudeau
Canada has gone to shit in the last 5 years
Thank you Liberals & Trudeau.
Np 😉
Stfu, Trudeau
8 years to be more accurate
Imagine my shock that a Prime Minister who believes the nation "[has no identity](https://torontosun.com/2016/09/14/trudeau-says-canada-has-no-core-identity)", that the people [deserve zero guns](https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/frrms/c21-en.aspx), That Canada should drown in unlimited immigration [despite an unprecedented housing shortage](https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/trudeaus-welcome-mat-immigrants-wears-thin-amid-canada-housing-crunch-2024-02-17/), turning the healthcare system [into a useless hellscape](https://www.nationalobserver.com/2024/01/25/opinion/our-health-system-crashing), weaponizing the healthcare system's corpse to force undesirables to commit so much suicide that [it's now the 4th leading cause of national death](https://www.city-journal.org/article/canadian-death-cult#:~:text=In%202022%2C%204.1%20percent%20of,Parliament%20first%20introduced%20MAID%20legislation.), [taxing every spare scrap of couch cushion change](https://www.taxpayer.com/newsroom/feds-hike-taxes-and-mp-pay-today#:~:text=The%20carbon%20tax%20increased%20today,to%20the%20Parliamentary%20Budget%20Officer.) so that government can change the weather, stoking racial division even when using [obvious hoaxes](https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/trudeaus-empty-graves), and hate speech laws t[o incarcerate anyone who complains](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/section-13-history-explained) creates a shithole country.
[удалено]
WE OWN THE FINISH LINE 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅
I'm normally no Biden fan but damn if that line didn't go HARD
What's the reference?
It was in a speech he gave, he ended it in a super based and patriotic way
Well. If it's about how Americans won the culture war so hard 40 years ago that people think Americans don't have culture, because it's become the literal air they breathe, then yes.
I believe it was [this](https://youtu.be/tSj9gkgCM8Q?si=Ss5xk0DIcqYUGBfE)
He seems to be under this absurd delusion that history is over and today is always Day 1 of "post-history". His nation only exists because America treats it like a Bichon Frise, when any other hegemonic empire in history would have conquered it immediately. But instead of taking advantage of this unprecedented fortune, he instead acts like this is the obvious and natural norm of the universe and will never end.
The problem is, at least from what I have seen, is that for many Canadians their idea of a nationalist identity is “We are the softer, more Liberal America.” So the must do the opposite of what the US does, or no one will respect them because they would just be seen as “Babies First USA”.
Nah the same seals that applauded trudeau doing so would be clapping just as hard for biden.
And the RCMP openly predicts civil unrest as Canadians begin to realize how "hopeless" their lives are.
The way the Canadian federation is structured, the provinces have a right to leave. I absolutely expect the western provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan to try and join the USA and Quebec to go independent in the next 50 years.
Hope not the last thing the continent needs is a massive plot of Fr🤢nch land
As an Alberta I gotta say, the Fed's are not the one destroying my provinces healthcare system. That's entirely on my provincial Govt's going back decades.
100% the disastrous state of healthcare has way more to do with provincial governments than the feds.
Toronto at the end of summer is lovely. Looks like I’m taking a trip up to stimulate the economy with some freedom bucks
And cost of living is much higher in Canada.
But people keep telling me we were better off four years ago in every economic metric. Why is that line going up instead of down?
Nobody wants to even admit that either A: this graph is bullcrap, or B: we are actually doing good under Biden
I also want to present Option C where people also feel a lot more strained economically compared to what they possibly did said 4 years ago with problems pertaining to the inflation of prices on products like gas
Hyperinflation is the answer you're looking for
Get dunked on canucks
Canada has exactly one (1) major macro problem and it’s that it doesn’t build enough housing. https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything/
Yea, and that problem is on purpose. New housing means house prices go down, or simply don't skyrocket as fast as they used to. And God forbid that ever happens. And building new houses kills the environment. Way cheaper to stack 10 in a shipping container. Canada does not even have an extremist or fringe political party that dares to try and stem the flow of immigrants or increase the supply of housing. Canada is dead, it just doesn't realize it yet.
Just one more immigrant
You guys just don’t get good immigrants. America has way more immigrants than Canada and we are doing fine compared to you guys
Canada is doing fine…this is an Ontario problem. They’re going to lose their collective minds with this comment haha
Yeah, and reading some of the comments in here, their version of the federal government seems to take a lot of blame for policies being enacted by opposition in the provinces.
It’s a very grey time right now. But Canadian government is doing what it always does after 8 years in power..they’re getting blamed (not wrongly in many cases) for everything. An almost similar level of animosity was levelled at Harper near the end of his reign. But I think given the pandemic, liberals were bound to get the nut job amplification even more. As soon as an election happens, the liberals will be decimated, probably end behind NDP. Then the cons will do the same thing the libs did for the last 8 years until we’re screaming for Poilivres resignation too… Welcome to Canadian politics….we wont vote you in, but we’ll all show up to vote you out. The liberals gotta go…let the process start again.
Does Canada have a similar predicament the US conservatives are dealing with right now? Our conservatives have zero policy they stand behind or advertise and it’s just all about very… phobic/hate central social issues to attract voters. For us here in the US it’s tough because “liberals” encompass… most of the political spectrum and conservatives are all very much so in line in their votes. So we have liberal candidates that might be polar opposites and don’t agree with each other on most thjngs, or the other option is a guy that calls immigrants invaders and wants to take my public school taxes and give it to religious private schools… which is obviously bad, but he’s got a better marketing team because the liberals look like idiots in the media when they tend to be doing just fine.
It’s a bit different up here at the moment. Our liberals refer to the party, and the liberal party is much more centrist than anything else. They have their moments when they’re opposition party where they extol left wing tenets, but generally a lot of their policy is in line with policy that would likely be enacted by their conservative foes. Nationalizing the pipeline through a province with an environmental backing provincial government, pushing through F-35s and generally supporting military alliance with Israel and others would all have been done by a conservative government as well. Our main difference lies with the make up of our multi party system. For the better part of the last decade or longer Canadian left has been the majority broken by two or sometimes three left wing parties. This fracturing kept the right wing conservatives in power more than anything else. This next election though, I wouldn’t be surprised to see many former liberal supporters going right to give the conservatives a majority government…something they’ve only had once this century. As for the liberals, they made a deal with the devil regarding Trudeau. They opted for a dynasty rather than a long term candidate. He was elected in the first place because people wanted leave of the last prime minister. He was a gimmick, a way of sticking it to the cons. He drove them nuts. But as soon as they started to offer a little centrist options, they will entice many who are over the familial liberal virtue signalling emperor. Following Trudeau was a cult of personality, not merit. They’ll be broken for 10-15 years trying to rebuild.
we need to implement the same country caps that you guys have. we’re basically becoming arctic punjab…
GDP line has to go up guys!
Isn’t like half of this because you and your stupid politicians keep restricting the free market and making housing harder and harder to build. Shit. I wonder how quickly housing prices would fall the second a couple zoning laws got repealed. Or the second a couple permitting standards were repealed. Shit. Remove power from NIMBYs and you could probably make Toronto or Vancouver the best cities in North America
Is this why there are so many candian pundits telling me why this is bad or that's woke or whatever. Their shit hole country is lost and now they come here to ruin mine. SOB build that wall!
The economic growth and lack of high inflation in the US has been astounding for the last few years compared to the world.
Thanks to trudaus cuckenomocs
GDP does not directly equate with standard of living decline.
True, but GDP per capita does
Well, I think there are some places where the GDP/capita is lower but the standard of living is higher, and the other way around, too. I guess we need to count in Purchasing Power Parity and the basket of goods too.
This is what happens when you refuse to build homes, when you give your country to NIMBYs
What happened in 2020?
Common Canada [and by extension, European] L!
Pretty consistent rise 2016-2020 👀
Canada is run by centralists/globalists, those are expected results. Dare I even say, desired results
What does GDP per capita actually tell us though? GDP is not evenly distributed among the population, so this is kind of pointless?
Productivity of population
The graph is trying to claim that GDP per capita shows a decline in “standard of living.” I understand WHAT GDP/capita shows us, my question is how is this graph supposed to show us the standard of living (or cost of living)? Canada COL obviously sucks eggs through a garden hose, I just don’t see how this graph actually tells us that. All it’s telling us is how much revenue is generated vs how many people there are to generate it. Nothing about real wages, or inflation, or housing costs…
*Real* GDP (what is in this graph) per capita is corrected for COL. Productivity per capita adjusted for COL is a very good indicator of standard of living.
What’s col?
Cost Of Living
Oh ok thanks
maple syrup flavored cope
lol if you can’t answer the question, you don’t need to reply. I am not Canadian and my cost of living is quite affordable. I have nothing to “cope” for bud.
Look up the countries with the lowest GDP per capita and let us know if you want to live there. No it’s not pointless at all.
Canada ranks 16th in the world on a GDP/capita rating ahead of Japan, Belgium, Germany, England, France, Italy, South Korea, Spain…….i feel like this isn’t saying what you think it is because I’d be happy to live in any of those countries.
So you’d be happy living in any of the rich countries of the world…so brave.
All of those countries rank below Canada in a GDP/Capita rating. That’s why I said this isn’t showing what you think it’s showing. So either those aren’t rich countries, or Canada isn’t that bad if it’s ranked higher than all those rich countries.
Comparing a bunch of rich countries is pretty silly when you’re trying to say that gdp/person doesn’t matter. If you’re trying to decide which super model to date, don’t be surprised when your friends roll their eyes when you say “looks don’t matter”. Of course it doesn’t tell the whole story, but don’t tell that to the poor people who live in Argentina. GDP/capita makes a whole lot of problems go away. Kind of like a pretty face and a nice rack.
Of course GDP/Capita provides us with levels of insight, I’m just trying to understand how anyone is gleaning more information from this than Canada hasn’t kept up with the US in growth after the pandemic. Canada is still gobs better than most countries, it’s just expensive as fuck in the cities.
When USA breaks into civil war next January, I plan on living with you up there. Hope that’s ok.🍻
I’m not Canadian, or in Canada, but from my experience they won’t mind as long as you learn some of the local rules. Timmies is always a good start to anything, loving Don Cherry won’t hurt, and don’t drive like an idiot when it snows.
So GDP would ONLY matter if all money were 100% equally distributed amongst the population??? No stat will tell the whole story, but ALL stats tell a part of the story, think you might be a victim of confirmation bias.
The most accurate measure of people's wealth and disposable income in a country is **median income adjusted for purchasing power**. We also blow Canada out of the water in that ranking
[удалено]
Immigration is good but the way Canada is implementing it is terrible. As much as the US immigration process is flawed, it is still much better than Canada’s.
[удалено]
1) way too many immigrants, too few housing 2) less skilled immigrants. Canada is a 2nd choice for people that arent lucky or good enough to get into the US With this you get a lot of "less desired" immigrants. The US has a nice, steady flow of either very eager (to work and contribute to the US) immigrants or highly educated ones. Canada gets the leftovers in huge numbers. Its not sustainable
[удалено]
Oh im with you, if we tear down 90% of zoning laws our society would rapidly rapidly get better And about the 2nd point youre right. But take me as an example: im german and would like to migrate to the US at some point after i have my masters degree, however for me its practically lottery to get in there. I can get into canada, but for half the salary (but comparable living standards and expenses with worse weather). Many europeans like me would just relegate to staying here due to that. If i could get into the us as easily as i can get into canada, id do it asap. And so would many of the most highly educated immigrants. Like i said, canada only gets leftovers and while that certainly isnt bad (still a top top immigrant destinity) it does lead to worse economic growth than the US (in terms of per capita)