Life expectancy up
In 2003, women lived to an average of 82.4 years, while men lived till 77.4 years.
My question is this: Just how in the hell are we going to pay for health care, pension entitlements, etc. when people are living, on average, to 85 or 90? Immigration can't solve everything.
posted by Road Hammer @ 3:50 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
Agreed that immigration cannot solve this very real problem that will only grow more urgent.
False expectations are created by the fiction that Canada maintains a 60-40 split between economic immigrants, and family members and refugees. As the Globe and Mail pointed our in a recent examination of Canada's immigration model, "last year, of the 235,000 newcomers, 56 per cent were counted as economic class. That number included principal applicants (55,000) and their spouses and children (78,500). However, only the principal applicants, and not their spouses, had to pass through the point system, which ensures they are well-educated and speak either French or English. If only principal applicants are counted, economic immigrants comprise just 23 per cent of the total annual intake of immigrants."
That's a far cry from the 60% that is advertised.
Also, while we are told there is an urgent need for more immigrant labour, we are in fact failing to make use of the vast pool of imported human capital already here.
Politicians know that debating immigration is a no-win. The potential loss of coveted immigrant votes in big-city ridings is too great. As is the risk of being branded as not "inclusive", or worse, as racist. It's unfortunate because this results in the Canadian population being denied a solid, policy-based debate on immigration, as well as planning for Canada's economic future.
The looming labour shortage (in addition to our flawed immigration policy) is a real issue that should be addressed.
Countries such as Sweden have tackled similar problems by increasing the retirement age and encouraging women to have more children. Examining the results of such initiatives in other countries to see whether they could be applied here, in addition to making better use of the immigrant labour pool already in Canada, would be steps in the right direction in my humble opinion.
Yes. It's about time someone exposes the "economic class" for the fraud that it is. As you point out, Chiquita, less than 1/4 of immigrants are accepted because they will be economically viable.
I think that it is important that the government start working towards recognition of foreign credentials. It is a shame when I hop into a cab and the driver tells me he is an engineer or a chemist who can't get a job here in Canada. Although I am not convinced that schools in countries around the world are as stringent as we are here with our professional standards, something has to be done to allow immigrants to use their expertise.
The "all immigrants are on welfare" thing is a long-held myth perpetuated by the Liberals and NDP about what economic conservatives think about immigration.
Economic conservatives are big-time pro-immigration as long as there is availability for ESL training, settlement programs, etc. and it doesn't undermine the long-term viability of social programs like health care and pension entitlements. training, settlement programs, etc.
Under current policies, the potential of those immigrants chosen to come to Canada who are able to make real and concrete economic contributions to society takes a big backseat to political concerns when it comes to choosing who gets in and who doesn't. If it didn't, the Gov would be up front about the composition of the economic class, as Chiquita points out.
Where does it say, or even imply, that all immigrants are on welfare in that paper? "Large costs to taxpayers" ... does that not include health care, settlement programs, ESL training, etc.?
If I may go off on a tangent ... the biggest problem with you socialists is that you only talk to yourselves. That's why you can't get your head around anything other than what your own stereotypes say about other points of view on the issues. Case in point - "large costs to taxpayers" = "all immigrants are on welfare"?
Can't discuss the aging population without it denigrating into "the right is racist and intolerant of immigrants". Can't discuss Quebec without it denigrating into "the right is anti-French". Can't discuss health care without it denigrating into "you only want better care for the rich".
If more of you lefties actually listened instead of regurging the Maude Barlow and Linda McQuaig talking points of the day ...
What does "sponging off social assistance", mean, then?
And since when does the right speak with one voice on immigration? I can find you papers from other think tanks on the Right, including some FI staff, who would disagree strenuously with Grubel.
You lefties don't have to listen to constructive criticism if you don't want. Remember, though ... the right has been winning the war of ideas ever since JFK said that "a rising tide lifts all boats" when referring to tax cuts and Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote about how the "war on poverty" undermined black families. And they were Dems - men of arresting ideas, not the glib putdowns of Franken, Dean and Moore.
I'm all about solving problems, baby!!!!!!!!
What is the likelihood of a Road Hammer meet up tomorrow afternoon at around 3 PM? We could invite Suessie himself and find out what the deal is.
As long as he's paying. Maybe he can sell some of those jazz CDs on Ebay to cover it.
Post a Comment
<< Home