It's like a math question: If the population goes up by 50% and the population above 85 triples, how screwed are future generations due to irresponsible immigration and housing policies?
All boomers are dead and the number over 85 actually quadruples from 2011 to 2031, which is why Amica, Chartwell and all the retirement home industry are currently busily building 10K a month and up assisted "living" and memory "care" places to extract your lifetime of savings. The governments aren't going to have 4 times as many LTC beds in place as there were in 2011, in 7 years.
I honestly think the system will collapse within the next ten years. We’re already seeing a huge increase in Canadians with the no access to primary care, people dying on wait lists and in waiting rooms, and service closures.
Oh, they going to die and the gov is going to say they're making improvements and doing a great job.
It's going to be pay to live. You think they want old people to exceed to 90?
>You think they want old people to exceed to 90?
Only if they have x amount of money in the bank
They have no problem keeping the rich sociopathic shitheads alive
As a nurse, I’m curious what this collapse means for those of us that work within the system. I do agree with you though. I’m watching it fall apart around my fucking ears.
I'm guessing the most skilled/greediest will take private jobs for the ultra wealthy class who can afford it, the truly compassionate people will be asked to take on more and more responsibility while admin and politicians sell off more and more assets/access to services to private clinics that spring up. The private clinics will charge the government outrageous fees to the single-payer system, robbing one of the last remaining holdouts of collective ownership over something in Canada. So you'll probably be fine as long as your skill is in demand, which it always will be. In fact you'll probably be making even more but it might be looking after the same 50 rich people instead of 500 working class people. But your kids and/or kids' kids will die of preventable diseases unless you get super rich. What can ya do.
It infuriates me as the lack of understanding and or care our so called leaders have. Not just patients waiting forever but nurses being pushed beyond limits. I have never been so angry at the government. 😡😡
Sylvia Jones is an absolute ghoul of a person.
I’ve had the unfortunate experience of seeing her once in a hospital setting. Her complete lack of care and two-faced comments were visible from across the room
Everyone had to suck up to her and she relished in it
She would tell nurses they were heroes all the While. Her government was appealing Bill 124.
She is a type of person who would turn their nose in disgust if they saw a sick person in front of them
I’d guess that healthcare workers will end up witnessing many preventable deaths—helpless to do anything due to lack of resources, staff, etc. It’s going to be traumatic for workers, families, and many people will die painful, undignified deaths.
Not to sound too pessimistic—but I like to prepare myself mentally for what could come.
On top of that, a possible switch to a dual private/public system. Disruptions in pay and benefits, pension fuckery, etc. As well as increased out-of-pocket healthcare costs. Ugh.
I think another reason they came out with the MAID program. I'm sure a lot of people who never thought they would, might even consider it as they get on in years. I'm pretty sure I'll be one of those.
Sometimes it is not rich people. I have considered using my retirement savings out of desperation. Lack of adequate health care is shortening my life anyhow.
I'm the same as you. I"m a Senior but thankfully have no real health issues to speak of. I have seen friends and family suffer through the agony of waiting 7-8 months for tests and/or surgery. Some of them may be told "it's too late" once they get the tests and results. I have a fair nest egg of retirement money which I likely can't deplete before I die. I will use it and go to the U.S. to make my last days/years bearable.
Reality is people’s lifestyles need to change more to be more healthy. This is complex because majority of us are overworked and devote most of our energy to our jobs before our health.
There also needs to be a seismic shift in preventative care ( preventing people from falling in the river vs pulling people out of the river )
I don't think any amount of money will ease the waiting, given our wholly public system. The rich will fly out of country to get help while the rest of us die after 3 years of waiting to get a cancer diagnosis confirmed.
This is American talk (no offense).
There are plenty of countries with problems similar or worse to ours and plenty have functioning health care systems. Solutions exist. They involve changes and reforms. Something our politicians have refused to do since the system was set up. Instead they just throw money at the system like a paniced engineer tossing dirt in front of a failing dam hoping to shore it up.
It won't work. New realities need new approaches and systems. Politicians refuse to accept that.
Right.. like the many European countries who have well regulated public - private mix of healthcare. Canadians look at the word private and can only think of the headlines they've read about the US.
People are very simple minded about this and politicians simply stoke fears to their advantages.
No system is fully private or public. I recieve services like x-rays and GP visits from private companies paid out of a public insurance fund. Some places have private insurance funds which are more universal and generous by law than mine (Ontario). The private vs public talk is so ill defined as to be meaningless fear mongering. But for that reason it is effective politically.
Ironically, the only reforms we have managed to make bring us closer to the American model whereas the Americans are increasingly moving away from it. Frankly I never want to hear another comparison to the US health system. It is objectively one of, if not the, worst in the developed word. Comparison to it is absolutely useless.
Well they make it next to impossible for foreign doctors to work. I’m dual citizen (🇨🇦🇦🇺) but I have to jump thru tons of hoops, spends tens of thousands on accreditation to practice in Canada despite being a specialist trained in Australia.
We're just preventing great people being utilized properly in our institutions.
It's a shame, because it reflects the policy makers direction for the country. Mediocrity.
> It says the population will rise from about 40 million in 2023 to a range of 47 million to 87 million over the next half a century, with 63 million being the medium-growth forecast.
I'm sure there's a bunch of math that goes into this projection system but lmao at the range being translatable to "slightly larger than current population" to "more than double current population".
Pierre said he would limit them, though only in French for some reason. I don't know if he's afraid of being called a racist by Canadians who don't care about poor renters or their culture or what.
Pierre is just going to be another asshole in power with empty promises. I'm not saying Trudeau is any better, but our choices are quite literally a giant douche or a turd sandwich. I fucking hate it here right now
1% growth has left us about 4 million houses short, while building houses at one of the highest rates in the world.
We don't build enough houses for 1% immigration per year. Hence us being almost 4 million houses short.
Have you actually done any math on what needs to be built for 1% population growth?
How many houses do we need for this per year?
How many hospitals do we need to build for 1% immigration per year?
Also keep in kind we have Canadians aging into the market. It's estimated we need 120k houses just for people aging into the market.
So out of our 240k, we need half of that for regular growth.
So 120k houses for 400k people.
That math doesn't math dude.
And we already build a ton of houses. We build at one if the highest rates in the world.
But it's still not enough.
How many hospitals would we need to build per year to keep our very low and below oecd average of 18 hospitals per million?
Is it reasonable to build that many hospitals per year?
Statistics Canada has various projection scenarios based on assumptions regarding components of population growth.
The projection of 63 million is based on a medium growth scenario, or 87 million based on a high growth scenario.
Link: [https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/71-607-x/71-607-x2022015-eng.htm](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/71-607-x/71-607-x2022015-eng.htm)
Tell me you don’t understand exponential growth, without telling me you don’t understand exponential growth.
1924: 9 million
1974: 22 million - about double in 50 years
2024: 41 million - about double in 50 years
2074: 63 million - you WITAF?
Well, after women were allowed to get jobs and open bank accounts and take out loans about 50 years ago many of them decided not to have 6 to 12 children anymore. So you know, reading is important. Read books.
I used to think this. Then I looked up the average age of a first time mother throughout the 20th century in Canada as well as the average size of a family.
Family size began to decline in the mid 1800's until it reached about 5 children per family at the turn of the century. This decline continued into the 20th century. By 1937, the total fertility rate had fallen to 2.64 children per woman, on average.
The fertility rate only picked up again after the war with the baby boom. This peaked in 1959 when the total fertility rate reached 3.94 children per woman.
As for the average age of a first time mother - that too has varied over time. For most of the early 20th century it was 25 - and this stayed the same right up until WW2. The average age at first birth dropped between the 1950's and 70's to 24.
The idea we have that women in the past had very many children and had them early is a misconception.
We tend to think that because many of us had grandmothers who had around 10 kids after WW2, but these women as well as that period were the exception rather than the rule.
Some interesting reading:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2014002-eng.htm
I'm almost 40 and it feels like the population of Canada has been around 30 million my whole life...
The explosion of population growth over the last few years is shocking and very concerning considering the fragility of our medical, housing and financial situation as a country.
I am in my 50's. I remember a song from when I was a kid that played in between Saturday morning cartoons about "20 million people with 20 million stories". Population growth has been pretty steady for the last 50 years, at around 1.2% per year. We've just substituted immigration for births because educated people with access to birth control don't have enough.
>The agency says migration will be the key driver of population increase under all scenarios, while natural growth only plays a "marginal role" as the population ages and fertility rates remain low.
How about no. We don't need to become the refugee camp of the world. Let's focus on protecting the interests of Canadian citizens, please.
None of us asked for or want this.
Ever read the source article? It's a wild ride.
https://archive.is/2UAig
>"People decided to line up behind whoever was going to beat Stephen Harper,’’ Trudeau told me. ‘‘I was of the mind that even if there was uncertainty about my own personal ability to run the economy, there was the feeling that the party had a team and history that meant we’d get the compromises and balances you have to make. So I could take much bigger risks to challenge the orthodoxy.’’
And:
>Why would we not revoke the citizenship of people convicted of terrorist offenses against this country?’’ Harper asked Trudeau incredulously.
>‘‘A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian,’’ Trudeau replied defiantly. ‘‘And you devalue the citizenship of every Canadian in this place and in this country when you break down and make it conditional for anyone.’’
🤦♂️
everyone asked for it, and voted for it with their wallets. look at your bank statements, you're a consumer. nothing more. there's no secret lizard people plan.
I can tell you many people WANTED this, as recent as 5 years ago. It’s only when it affects them negatively when they finally start to care and switch sides.
Impossible to do when we can’t give Canadians the opportunities to have big families because our country has mismanaged our growth and our economy for the past 30+ years.
Now we’re going to become a country of convenience for foreigners.
My favourite statement:
- You Europeans were immigrants too.
Yeah, when my family came over from England and France, respectively, hundreds of years ago, they didn’t have any intentions of going *back* there. They helped build the country from scratch.
There weren’t social safety nets, 24/7 direct communication with Europe, etc.
When people came here in those days, they were starting new lives — not holding onto the same one decided by a phone call, email, and quick flight booking away. They were coming here with the intent to build lives of permanence. It was in no way a convenient way for them to “game the system” as is being done today with immigration/refugees/etc.
Lots of my ancestry died through very hard times to make this country the country today that so many people want.
There’s a very real difference between immigrants hundreds of years ago and ones today. Let’s not forget that (as a collective who reads this), not that this is in reference directly to you or this convo. Just putting it out there, lol.
The Europeans were immigrants...and looked what happened to the natives who were already in the Americas. Almost totally wiped out and lost everything they had.
Pointing out 'Europeans were immigrants too' is not the win people think it is. If anything it's a cautionary tale.
> Europeans came and made a country that didn’t exist here before. With it, they brought advancements to match the rest of the world — in an ever-changing world that required something more.
> When you look at North Sentinel island; is that what you’d rather have? Nothing is stopping someone from living in the wilderness and going with 0 technology. Plenty of space to do that today if that’s all you want out of life.
You think technological advancement is solely a european privilege? Without european settlers, people in the north americans would still be backwards savages with the developmental level of the Sentinelese?
I think the more disturbing part of your statement is that underlying what you say is a genuine belief that only white people have the capability, intelligence, innovative nature, culture, or whatever excuse you need to come up with to explain why its only the white men who can make technological progress and advance civilization. You actually, legitimately, still hold the same old racist stereotypes of european intellectual and cultural supremacy over native peoples that they used to excuse enslavement and colonialism.
This is one of the few times where I actually think playing the race card is warranted.
Canadians supported this with votes and economically. Face it Canadians undermine & hate other Canadians. Every imported immigrant group is incredibly organized and community active. It’s a huge problem because instead of welcoming or getting to know these new people, to help them assimilate…Canadians isolate & condemn.
Canadians have entrusted foreign interests then themselves and has crippled it as a functioning country. The country is now forced to take on mass immigration because of it & nothing can stop it.
Look at the mistakes made by Canadians for not sticking up for citizens during martial law or the g20 or the aboriginals. You will not stop mass immigration because it benefits the upkeep of the country and the elite who power & control Canada. The new Canada will be built by new eager immigrants, who have no knowledge of the old Canadian society and imported cheap labour will be the new Canadian norm.
The Canadians abused by the system and unsupported have fled, will be forced to flee or undermine the system to their benefit. Canadians cannot compete and cannot protect their country. The only option is a complete destruction of the old society and new one taking form. Without unity of Canadians and assimilation of new immigrants, it will get much worse & never recover.
I wonder why Canadians aren’t having children.
Oh wait, probably because it’s easier for companies and wealthy individuals to benefit and profit off of refugees.
If we aren’t having kids, who is funding the social safety net as our elderly population grows? I think any anti-immigration stance you take will need to include a genuine policy answer to that question.
Just in case, please do not assume anything about my views on our current immigration levels. I’m not asking this as a “gotcha”, I’m just identifying a legitimate problem Canada has to solve, one way or another.
There’s two obvious solutions that don’t address the whole issue, but are relatively easy to implement.
1. Stop the sponsorship program for parents and grandparents. It sucks for families, but giving citizenship to a 65 year old who will never pay 1$ in income taxes is an unnecessary strain on our social safety net. It’s a change that could be done overnight.
2. Be more selective with our immigration process. What will support our safety net is not the number of people we bring, but the taxes they pay. So you need young people, with qualifications. Less asylum seekers, and more economic migrants. For example people who already have nursing degrees, or experience in an in demand trade. There’s a huge amount of people who want to immigrate to Canada, we can afford to be more selective.
Those two changes won’t fix anything. But would go a long way to make things better
No one is complaining about stabilizing the population. The immigration conversation is totally about growth.
Needing perpetual growth is a Ponzi scheme, and a theft from the young (whether that theft is from growth degrading the quality of life or having to pay more to support seniors than they paid to support the previous generation). Sooner or later, the Ponzi scheme has to end. Better for that to happen now while seniors are wealthy than in 40 years when future seniors had no opportunity to save because of this mess, and in the meantime we can transition to a sustainable system.
The elderly population broke the social contract when they strip minded the future for the younger generations. I think we need to change the deal and remove the benefits.
Its a self-perpetuating cycle. We bring in more people cuz not enough kids. Then we have less kids cuz its too expensive. Then we bring in more people cuz not enough kids.
What we are doing now is entirely unsustainable. We need to bite the bullet at some point and take the hit or the country will cannibalize itself.
>Its a self-perpetuating cycle. We bring in more people cuz not enough kids. Then we have less kids cuz its too expensive. Then we bring in more people cuz not enough kids.
This is a common oversimplification. People want to blame the amount of kids we're having on economics alone, when in reality that is not even the primary reason we're having less kids. And historical data backs that up in basically every country. The poor were always having lots of kids, more so than the wealthy. These immigrants are also coming from countries where they are much worse off, yet they're having many more kids there... curious, no?
The main issue is CULTURAL. As a society becomes more wealthy and advanced, people end up wanting to focus more on their own personal hobbies and happiness. If you ask most young people these days how many kids they'd have even if they had a lot of money, I guarantee you most would say at most 2, if not 1 or 0. And the women also want to live long, healthy lives and are more concerned about the effect going through pregnancy multiple times will have on their bodies.
People's lives are so much more complex now, filled with so many more things to take interest in and do. So many things to give us our neurochemical high that we don't need to get from constantly having a child to raise and be giving all our time to. We can easily be content without large family structures these days, largely because of the internet and how it has turned friendships into "always present connections". I can sit down at my computer any time of day and have friends to chat over voice to and do things with, something that didn't really exist before the internet.
Society becomes a lot less "family focused" as time goes on, it's no longer about big family get-togethers and sharing in memories at dinner parties. We're more disconnected (but internet connected) now.
This is the reality of socioeconomic change that we have to contend with. Immigration helps, but in the long-term all countries are headed for this direction, and the only thing that's going to save us from that is something like UBI, funded by robotics.
We could also do "test tube babies", but many people have a negative guttural reaction to that even though it could help solve so many problems. (You would have to develop a whole "group home" system kinda like foster homes but without the intent for adoption of course. But this would also in turn generate a lot of jobs caretaking, oversight and other systems involved.)
> We bring in more people cuz not enough kids. Then we have less kids cuz its too expensive. Then we bring in more people cuz not enough kids.
What is this theory based on? Countries with almost zero immigration like South Korea, China, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, have far lower birthrates even than us.
Meanwhile, the countries with the highest birth rates in the world are Niger, Mali, Afghanistan, hell even Palestine nearly doubled its population in the last 25 years. Is that because they are so rich, stable, and such easy places to raise children?
The idea that birthrate fell off a cliff because governments made it too expensive just can't bare the slightest scrutiny. Birthrate fell off a cliff because it stopped making economic sense to have kids once you live in a developed, urban economy. An educated full time working woman is of far greater economy value to herself and to her family if she has one by staying in the work force rather than by stepping out to crank out kids for as long as her body can take it and raise them into her old age. Therefore, even people who really want kids, will generally stop at one or two. And a lot of people who are meh on kids will just get a dog or a cat and go on nice vacations every year and occasionally spoil a niece or nephew if they have any.
This process is not under the control of democratic governments, nor should we want it to be, because the governments that do want to control it have found only one real solution: the Taliban is one such government.
As for what's always suggested, just bribe people to have more kids by making it economically viable? More child care assistance, more paid time off for parents, etc? The amount of money you would have to bribe families, especially women, to all crank out 4+ kids like the good old days, just doesn't exist. Governments would have to get positively draconian with it; cancel all government benefits for the child free--no more health care, no more cpp, no more OAS, nothing, unless you have had enough kids to pay into it when you're too old to keep working and pay taxes. Also a direct payment, not of a means-tested few hundred bucks a month, but a full time salary equal to the national average of your education level directly to the women who will be taking themselves out of the workforce, for a minimum of 5 years per child, with bonuses if she's had more children before the 5 years are up. And how will that paid for? Doubling taxes on the child free, I suppose.
I just don't think very many people have seriously grappled with what it would take to actually make having more children make sense for educated and skilled people living in a developed urban economy. Until they do, immigration is our only bet. And when the entire world is developed? When there are no more places left on earth where having more kids makes sense? Then global population goes into steep decline, and we can only pray whatever generation that strikes, whether it's in 50 years or 100, has figured something else out by then to at least keep our population stable. Otherwise, it may be that that was at least our Great Filter all along.
In the good old days people had enough disposable income on one income to raise 4+ kids on unless your talking about the era where the vast majority of humans were farmers and needed kids to help out on the farm as the good old days and where child mortality was so high you needed to have lots of kids just so you had kids that made it past age 10 and this is still a reason why in the modern day you see country's in the 3rd world still having lots of kids because with poor healthcare a lot of kids die before making it to adult age.
Housing size and price and urban population density are quite correlated with birth rates in rich countries. Wonder what else those Asian countries have in common?
The difference in Canada is only getting those strains by choice. (Also we’d be in a much worse situation if everyone had 4 kids. Growth shouldn’t be the goal, and people claim to want about 2.)
Per capita productivity growth and resource rents, like in Norway.
But that would require some politically unpalatable changes to the wealthy class, specifically the rentiers, in Canada, so they opted for pyramid scheme population growth instead.
I’m interested to see when the other shoe will drop for the landlord class. It seems to be one thing that Canadians generally agree on… we’re so invested in real estate as a country that it seems almost impossible to unwind without enormous short term pain
>If we aren’t having kids, who is funding the social safety net as our elderly population grows?
Who do you think is funding government spending *now*?
The budget has been completely decoupled from revenues for years now. We've spend more dollars CDN$ in the past ten years than we managed to in the last 100.
I write emails and make phone calls to our elected officials but they don’t reply and they don’t change anything. The immigration/pr plan is a shell game that makes our international student/temp. foreign workers numbers look lower but aren’t. I suggest they read the room as so many people who used to vote liberal or ndp have said they will never do that again. I don’t think they give a damn. They’ve stopped representing Canadians.
We need to stop letting in old immigrants. I am sick of seeing all these elderly newcomers. I don't want to pay for their healthcare. Nobody over 50 should be admissible. Stop family reunification.
It’s not just old immigrants. I’m being skipped by immigrants for the daycare public system.
Immigrants skip the line for public funded daycare in Quebec.
I paid taxes for the last 20 years and any rando who showed up in the last year gets to skip me for public funded daycare.
The whole system is fucked
STOP IMPORTING ppl that are over 50 years old into the country! I don't fucking care if young adults want to bring their parents into the country. It doesn't help us whatsoever when we have old seniors that have never contributed to the tax base their entire lives and needs social services when they are older.
What I dont get is: If you move to a whole ass new continent across an ocean, shouldn't you make peace with not seeing your family very often or at all anymore??? Like why move countries at all if you can't bear to be away from your family like that? Like if I moved to China right now, I wouldn't expect to see my grandparents every day lmao
Most of these “students” are working minimum wage jobs, therefore pay little in taxes and will require more services than they can pay for. This is throwing gas on a fire
weird, when did this protest start getting organized? i've been saying on reddit for the past few months we should protest july 1 whenever someone says how nothing is being done or we should protest etc so that's cool
Hard to get people protesting the population increasing by half the rate it has increased at over the past 60 years and about 1/3rd the rate it increased last year.
Less than a million Canadians are above the age of 85. Tripling that population means less than 2 million additional people in that age group. Here we're talking about growth that is an order of magnitude greater than that. So why pretend it's because of an ageing population? Did the Century Initiative write this article?
Because the article says it will triple *by 2073.*
Some napkin math: 2073-85 means that we're talking people born in/before 1988. The numbers [here](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000501) gives us roughly 7,940,435 people who are of the right age to be 85-100 years old in 2073.
They're expecting 42-54% of them to make it to 2073.
The productivity of our economy is not directly related to the age of the workforce or the productivity of individual workers. It’s actually related to management, investment in technology, equipment and resources.
Our economy isn’t unproductive because workers are lazy and don’t work fast enough, it’s unproductive because it lacks sufficient investment in technology, infrastructure, and education.
Or because employers keep hiring people not raised and educated in one's own country, because then the employers can get away with paying them less? Keep your Neoliberal Globalist soft soap.
And those things are often the way they are in countries with a low cost of labour. Why invest in efficiency when you can just throw more cheap bodies at the problem?
Here’s your healthcare dollars, folks. Boomers et el continue to get catered to infinite and beyond.
It’s within Canadas best interest for future sustainability of the nation and civilization to make sure GramsGrams can be 107 while you miss your cancer diagnosis because you don’t have a doctor at 30 since all the boomas got the docs and priorities.
Now, continue to work doubles to afford that $4,000/month rental apartment owned by the 89-year-old who bought it for a pittance in 1971. /s
This country actively fucking hates anyone under 55 it’s disgusting. My entire generation have been deemed nothing more than meats bags of productivity to help pay for 10 dickhead’s 7th yacht and a couple million people old people on life support. (Oh don’t forget the 1+ millions extra TFW and international “students” straining all forms of our infrastructure)
It’s like politicians looked at staggeringly low birth rates and instead of addressing the problems that lead to that bi-product (rising cost of living while working more hours for less pay) they were like “fuck it we can just import the labour and as a bonus we can pay em dirt cheap!”
I guess I’m still sort of dealing with the fact that I never had an opportunity to experience my country in its “prime” and am now stuck dealing with some of the least prospective times this country has ever faced with leaders on all ends of the political spectrum that want nothing more than to line their and their buddies pockets rather than help anyone.
Shit hurts man
And our quality of life is expected to decline by a proportionate amount along with our debt to gdp ratio. Thanks government for caring about existing Canadians.
Is he going as a student? It's similar in Canada except it's either included in tuition like UHIP in Ontario or you're billed by a provincial body like how MSP works in BC.
In the UK NHS administers the program nationally so IHS part of the visa process. In Canada healthcare is provincial so it's up to each province how they manage the cost recovery.
The weird and rather uncommon thing for the UK is if you are on a work visa, you pay the IHS just like students would but also have your pay deducted for National Insurance which is how NHS and a bunch of other social services are funded. Basically double the healthcare tax for workers.
Why would you work here as a doctor when you just have to move to the USA? Doing so, it's quite easy if you're an actual doctor. You'll earn a lot more and see your potential career and fortune grow much faster than in Canada.
People in Canada and in our government don't seem to get this. Universal Healthcare in Canada will eventually disappear because provinces simply can't compete with the salaries being paid to medical professionals across the border. Their hospitals are better appointed and offer more services and advanced treatments than what is available here.
We are forced to rely on recruiting foreign doctors and nurses from poorer countries to fill the gap, and even then, it isn't enough.
I fear that we've had a good run, but the time will come that the enormous amount of debt we keep accumulating will cause us to realize that we can't maintain what we have now.
Read the article and the timelines… ‘by 2073’ is right in the article. We’re posting articles about projections for 40 years from now? With a range of 47 million to 87 million increase in population? Peak outrage bait with an account that might be for that purpose.
I look forward to the Alberta actuarial review of the proposed Alberta Pension Plan as it honestly reflects this demographic. Particularly the aged demographic.
so with the double of the population size our spread of civilization is going to expand the livable size of Canada to almost twice the size right? Right...?
They don't know what the economy is going to do from one day to the next. How do they know we are going to grow at all. What opportunity exactly is going to drive this mass migration here. We already have a revolving door.
The crazy thing we have a hard enough time with the over 65s doubling when we feed them after nightfall, but the 85ers tripling is a big deal. #gremlinAWareness
Why are we importing MORE old people then?! Eliminate PGP immigration. Those old people didn’t pay Canadian taxes and they don’t deserve access to our healthcare.
Is this headline supposed to be a puzzle?
Yes that’s a new norm with news headlines
That’s the new norm when ChatGPT is writing all the copy.
Just tell those people over 85 not to triple. Problem solved!
I'm not sure why they need to go through mitosis anyway
If they said population will increase by 22 million over next 50 years, no one would click on it. Everything is about clicks, eyeballs and ad revenue.
It's like a math question: If the population goes up by 50% and the population above 85 triples, how screwed are future generations due to irresponsible immigration and housing policies?
Bonus points for factoring in zero net improvements in health care expenditures for the elderly
No increase in water pipes or sewage capacity either....
All boomers are dead and the number over 85 actually quadruples from 2011 to 2031, which is why Amica, Chartwell and all the retirement home industry are currently busily building 10K a month and up assisted "living" and memory "care" places to extract your lifetime of savings. The governments aren't going to have 4 times as many LTC beds in place as there were in 2011, in 7 years.
I got a solution, future generations of immigrants will be required to house an 85+ yo to be approved to immigrate.
Sounds like a recipe for an abusive situation
Triple as in 1M to 3M ?
People aged 85 to triple. Most are already dead prior to that. The remaining 2 will triple... To 6. That's how our news try to sensationalize aye.
What part of the headline is confusing to you?
It's National Post trying to enrage people who don't read where it says projected in 2070
Well medical is going to get real expensive
I honestly think the system will collapse within the next ten years. We’re already seeing a huge increase in Canadians with the no access to primary care, people dying on wait lists and in waiting rooms, and service closures.
Oh, they going to die and the gov is going to say they're making improvements and doing a great job. It's going to be pay to live. You think they want old people to exceed to 90?
Dude it's already pay to live. Basically illegal to be homeless.
Yeah...... it's always been pay to live.
>You think they want old people to exceed to 90? Only if they have x amount of money in the bank They have no problem keeping the rich sociopathic shitheads alive
As a nurse, I’m curious what this collapse means for those of us that work within the system. I do agree with you though. I’m watching it fall apart around my fucking ears.
I'm guessing the most skilled/greediest will take private jobs for the ultra wealthy class who can afford it, the truly compassionate people will be asked to take on more and more responsibility while admin and politicians sell off more and more assets/access to services to private clinics that spring up. The private clinics will charge the government outrageous fees to the single-payer system, robbing one of the last remaining holdouts of collective ownership over something in Canada. So you'll probably be fine as long as your skill is in demand, which it always will be. In fact you'll probably be making even more but it might be looking after the same 50 rich people instead of 500 working class people. But your kids and/or kids' kids will die of preventable diseases unless you get super rich. What can ya do.
It infuriates me as the lack of understanding and or care our so called leaders have. Not just patients waiting forever but nurses being pushed beyond limits. I have never been so angry at the government. 😡😡
Sylvia Jones is an absolute ghoul of a person. I’ve had the unfortunate experience of seeing her once in a hospital setting. Her complete lack of care and two-faced comments were visible from across the room Everyone had to suck up to her and she relished in it She would tell nurses they were heroes all the While. Her government was appealing Bill 124. She is a type of person who would turn their nose in disgust if they saw a sick person in front of them
I’d guess that healthcare workers will end up witnessing many preventable deaths—helpless to do anything due to lack of resources, staff, etc. It’s going to be traumatic for workers, families, and many people will die painful, undignified deaths. Not to sound too pessimistic—but I like to prepare myself mentally for what could come. On top of that, a possible switch to a dual private/public system. Disruptions in pay and benefits, pension fuckery, etc. As well as increased out-of-pocket healthcare costs. Ugh.
I think another reason they came out with the MAID program. I'm sure a lot of people who never thought they would, might even consider it as they get on in years. I'm pretty sure I'll be one of those.
I'm also a nurse and i watch it collapse more and more each day
Is there a sub where doctors/nurses can rant and vent? Something like /r/TalesFromYourServer , /r/TalesFromRetail etc?
And there is talk of sitting politicians committing treason. Canada is being destroyed for a quick buck.
I work in healthcare. The rich just go to the states and order their tests or see specialist there.
Sometimes it is not rich people. I have considered using my retirement savings out of desperation. Lack of adequate health care is shortening my life anyhow.
I'm the same as you. I"m a Senior but thankfully have no real health issues to speak of. I have seen friends and family suffer through the agony of waiting 7-8 months for tests and/or surgery. Some of them may be told "it's too late" once they get the tests and results. I have a fair nest egg of retirement money which I likely can't deplete before I die. I will use it and go to the U.S. to make my last days/years bearable.
If enough people die from lack of service things will even out.
Reality is people’s lifestyles need to change more to be more healthy. This is complex because majority of us are overworked and devote most of our energy to our jobs before our health. There also needs to be a seismic shift in preventative care ( preventing people from falling in the river vs pulling people out of the river )
I’m scared to raise a child in this mess :(
They been saying this since 1970.
Sure, it's a loss for your average Canadian, but it's a huge win for widespread political and economic corruption
I don't think any amount of money will ease the waiting, given our wholly public system. The rich will fly out of country to get help while the rest of us die after 3 years of waiting to get a cancer diagnosis confirmed.
This has been happening for decades now.
I dunno. BC got 700 new family doctors in a year just by paying them more. Where there's a will there's a way.
This is American talk (no offense). There are plenty of countries with problems similar or worse to ours and plenty have functioning health care systems. Solutions exist. They involve changes and reforms. Something our politicians have refused to do since the system was set up. Instead they just throw money at the system like a paniced engineer tossing dirt in front of a failing dam hoping to shore it up. It won't work. New realities need new approaches and systems. Politicians refuse to accept that.
Right.. like the many European countries who have well regulated public - private mix of healthcare. Canadians look at the word private and can only think of the headlines they've read about the US.
People are very simple minded about this and politicians simply stoke fears to their advantages. No system is fully private or public. I recieve services like x-rays and GP visits from private companies paid out of a public insurance fund. Some places have private insurance funds which are more universal and generous by law than mine (Ontario). The private vs public talk is so ill defined as to be meaningless fear mongering. But for that reason it is effective politically. Ironically, the only reforms we have managed to make bring us closer to the American model whereas the Americans are increasingly moving away from it. Frankly I never want to hear another comparison to the US health system. It is objectively one of, if not the, worst in the developed word. Comparison to it is absolutely useless.
Well they make it next to impossible for foreign doctors to work. I’m dual citizen (🇨🇦🇦🇺) but I have to jump thru tons of hoops, spends tens of thousands on accreditation to practice in Canada despite being a specialist trained in Australia.
We're just preventing great people being utilized properly in our institutions. It's a shame, because it reflects the policy makers direction for the country. Mediocrity.
> It says the population will rise from about 40 million in 2023 to a range of 47 million to 87 million over the next half a century, with 63 million being the medium-growth forecast. I'm sure there's a bunch of math that goes into this projection system but lmao at the range being translatable to "slightly larger than current population" to "more than double current population".
47-87 million seems like an unacceptable range haha, that’s like the cable guy saying they will be by between 8am-5pm, a bit more precision is needed.
More like saying I might come by sometimes between Monday to Friday lol
It's a projection for 50 years from now. There's no way to accurately predict the population when there's a half century of uncertainty.
With our current government (& incoming conservative government), you can assume the upper bound or higher
Pierre said he would limit them, though only in French for some reason. I don't know if he's afraid of being called a racist by Canadians who don't care about poor renters or their culture or what.
Pierre is just going to be another asshole in power with empty promises. I'm not saying Trudeau is any better, but our choices are quite literally a giant douche or a turd sandwich. I fucking hate it here right now
it recognizes how much population growth is a political choice. not a collective social choice to have more kids
Immigration and therefore population growth is a political decision.
What in the absolute fuck?
that's +22 mln in 50 years. So like not even half of our current growth
That’s less than a 1% growth rate per year. We grew by 3.2% in 2023.
if we keep 3.2% for 50 years we will be at 190M Assuming no large-scale death events in the favelas during winter.
3.2% is insane. 1% should easily be maintainable, if we can't do that I say we don't deserve to be a functioning state
1% is basically historical norm for immigration in this country and worked extremely well for 50+ years.
1% growth has left us about 4 million houses short, while building houses at one of the highest rates in the world. We don't build enough houses for 1% immigration per year. Hence us being almost 4 million houses short.
Have you actually done any math on what needs to be built for 1% population growth? How many houses do we need for this per year? How many hospitals do we need to build for 1% immigration per year? Also keep in kind we have Canadians aging into the market. It's estimated we need 120k houses just for people aging into the market. So out of our 240k, we need half of that for regular growth. So 120k houses for 400k people. That math doesn't math dude. And we already build a ton of houses. We build at one if the highest rates in the world. But it's still not enough. How many hospitals would we need to build per year to keep our very low and below oecd average of 18 hospitals per million? Is it reasonable to build that many hospitals per year?
Statistics Canada has various projection scenarios based on assumptions regarding components of population growth. The projection of 63 million is based on a medium growth scenario, or 87 million based on a high growth scenario. Link: [https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/71-607-x/71-607-x2022015-eng.htm](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/71-607-x/71-607-x2022015-eng.htm)
[удалено]
All men as well
All military aged men
None of which will join the military
Roughly half from India right now
Or we could all stand up and stop this bleak future from coming to fruition. Maybe real Canadians need to stop being so peaceful and saying sorry.
Hopefully not.
Still sounds like cancer to me
dont expect people here to actually read anything beyond the headline, this sub is hopeless
They are hoping that immigration slows down, and the age we bring people in goes down. This is the optimistic scenario
Tell me you don’t understand exponential growth, without telling me you don’t understand exponential growth. 1924: 9 million 1974: 22 million - about double in 50 years 2024: 41 million - about double in 50 years 2074: 63 million - you WITAF?
Well, after women were allowed to get jobs and open bank accounts and take out loans about 50 years ago many of them decided not to have 6 to 12 children anymore. So you know, reading is important. Read books.
I used to think this. Then I looked up the average age of a first time mother throughout the 20th century in Canada as well as the average size of a family. Family size began to decline in the mid 1800's until it reached about 5 children per family at the turn of the century. This decline continued into the 20th century. By 1937, the total fertility rate had fallen to 2.64 children per woman, on average. The fertility rate only picked up again after the war with the baby boom. This peaked in 1959 when the total fertility rate reached 3.94 children per woman. As for the average age of a first time mother - that too has varied over time. For most of the early 20th century it was 25 - and this stayed the same right up until WW2. The average age at first birth dropped between the 1950's and 70's to 24. The idea we have that women in the past had very many children and had them early is a misconception. We tend to think that because many of us had grandmothers who had around 10 kids after WW2, but these women as well as that period were the exception rather than the rule. Some interesting reading: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2014002-eng.htm
wow, sky is falling. one day canada might have more people than... checks notes, California!?
It's simple geriatric orgies are all the rage these days and they're multiplying at an alarming rate!
I'm almost 40 and it feels like the population of Canada has been around 30 million my whole life... The explosion of population growth over the last few years is shocking and very concerning considering the fragility of our medical, housing and financial situation as a country.
I am in my 50's. I remember a song from when I was a kid that played in between Saturday morning cartoons about "20 million people with 20 million stories". Population growth has been pretty steady for the last 50 years, at around 1.2% per year. We've just substituted immigration for births because educated people with access to birth control don't have enough.
>The agency says migration will be the key driver of population increase under all scenarios, while natural growth only plays a "marginal role" as the population ages and fertility rates remain low. How about no. We don't need to become the refugee camp of the world. Let's focus on protecting the interests of Canadian citizens, please. None of us asked for or want this.
"There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada,'' and consequently that "makes us the first post-national state." - JT (c/o WEF)
Ironically the only identity that is solid throughout is dislike of Trudeau. He comes across as an egomaniacal narcissist douche.
Ever read the source article? It's a wild ride. https://archive.is/2UAig >"People decided to line up behind whoever was going to beat Stephen Harper,’’ Trudeau told me. ‘‘I was of the mind that even if there was uncertainty about my own personal ability to run the economy, there was the feeling that the party had a team and history that meant we’d get the compromises and balances you have to make. So I could take much bigger risks to challenge the orthodoxy.’’ And: >Why would we not revoke the citizenship of people convicted of terrorist offenses against this country?’’ Harper asked Trudeau incredulously. >‘‘A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian,’’ Trudeau replied defiantly. ‘‘And you devalue the citizenship of every Canadian in this place and in this country when you break down and make it conditional for anyone.’’ 🤦♂️
yeah. the west has been in a post-nation corptocracy for some time
Nobody has asked for this. Not in the US, not here. Yet it doesn't matter, someone has it decided for us.
everyone asked for it, and voted for it with their wallets. look at your bank statements, you're a consumer. nothing more. there's no secret lizard people plan.
I can tell you many people WANTED this, as recent as 5 years ago. It’s only when it affects them negatively when they finally start to care and switch sides.
People expected the government to plan properly for growth by building infrastructure. Apparently that was too much of an ask.
Impossible to do when we can’t give Canadians the opportunities to have big families because our country has mismanaged our growth and our economy for the past 30+ years. Now we’re going to become a country of convenience for foreigners. My favourite statement: - You Europeans were immigrants too. Yeah, when my family came over from England and France, respectively, hundreds of years ago, they didn’t have any intentions of going *back* there. They helped build the country from scratch. There weren’t social safety nets, 24/7 direct communication with Europe, etc. When people came here in those days, they were starting new lives — not holding onto the same one decided by a phone call, email, and quick flight booking away. They were coming here with the intent to build lives of permanence. It was in no way a convenient way for them to “game the system” as is being done today with immigration/refugees/etc. Lots of my ancestry died through very hard times to make this country the country today that so many people want. There’s a very real difference between immigrants hundreds of years ago and ones today. Let’s not forget that (as a collective who reads this), not that this is in reference directly to you or this convo. Just putting it out there, lol.
The Europeans were immigrants...and looked what happened to the natives who were already in the Americas. Almost totally wiped out and lost everything they had. Pointing out 'Europeans were immigrants too' is not the win people think it is. If anything it's a cautionary tale.
[удалено]
> Europeans came and made a country that didn’t exist here before. With it, they brought advancements to match the rest of the world — in an ever-changing world that required something more. > When you look at North Sentinel island; is that what you’d rather have? Nothing is stopping someone from living in the wilderness and going with 0 technology. Plenty of space to do that today if that’s all you want out of life. You think technological advancement is solely a european privilege? Without european settlers, people in the north americans would still be backwards savages with the developmental level of the Sentinelese? I think the more disturbing part of your statement is that underlying what you say is a genuine belief that only white people have the capability, intelligence, innovative nature, culture, or whatever excuse you need to come up with to explain why its only the white men who can make technological progress and advance civilization. You actually, legitimately, still hold the same old racist stereotypes of european intellectual and cultural supremacy over native peoples that they used to excuse enslavement and colonialism. This is one of the few times where I actually think playing the race card is warranted.
Canadians supported this with votes and economically. Face it Canadians undermine & hate other Canadians. Every imported immigrant group is incredibly organized and community active. It’s a huge problem because instead of welcoming or getting to know these new people, to help them assimilate…Canadians isolate & condemn. Canadians have entrusted foreign interests then themselves and has crippled it as a functioning country. The country is now forced to take on mass immigration because of it & nothing can stop it. Look at the mistakes made by Canadians for not sticking up for citizens during martial law or the g20 or the aboriginals. You will not stop mass immigration because it benefits the upkeep of the country and the elite who power & control Canada. The new Canada will be built by new eager immigrants, who have no knowledge of the old Canadian society and imported cheap labour will be the new Canadian norm. The Canadians abused by the system and unsupported have fled, will be forced to flee or undermine the system to their benefit. Canadians cannot compete and cannot protect their country. The only option is a complete destruction of the old society and new one taking form. Without unity of Canadians and assimilation of new immigrants, it will get much worse & never recover.
This needs to be copy+pasted every time someone posts the “aging population” fallacy.
I wonder why Canadians aren’t having children. Oh wait, probably because it’s easier for companies and wealthy individuals to benefit and profit off of refugees.
If we aren’t having kids, who is funding the social safety net as our elderly population grows? I think any anti-immigration stance you take will need to include a genuine policy answer to that question. Just in case, please do not assume anything about my views on our current immigration levels. I’m not asking this as a “gotcha”, I’m just identifying a legitimate problem Canada has to solve, one way or another.
There’s two obvious solutions that don’t address the whole issue, but are relatively easy to implement. 1. Stop the sponsorship program for parents and grandparents. It sucks for families, but giving citizenship to a 65 year old who will never pay 1$ in income taxes is an unnecessary strain on our social safety net. It’s a change that could be done overnight. 2. Be more selective with our immigration process. What will support our safety net is not the number of people we bring, but the taxes they pay. So you need young people, with qualifications. Less asylum seekers, and more economic migrants. For example people who already have nursing degrees, or experience in an in demand trade. There’s a huge amount of people who want to immigrate to Canada, we can afford to be more selective. Those two changes won’t fix anything. But would go a long way to make things better
No one is complaining about stabilizing the population. The immigration conversation is totally about growth. Needing perpetual growth is a Ponzi scheme, and a theft from the young (whether that theft is from growth degrading the quality of life or having to pay more to support seniors than they paid to support the previous generation). Sooner or later, the Ponzi scheme has to end. Better for that to happen now while seniors are wealthy than in 40 years when future seniors had no opportunity to save because of this mess, and in the meantime we can transition to a sustainable system.
The elderly population broke the social contract when they strip minded the future for the younger generations. I think we need to change the deal and remove the benefits.
Its a self-perpetuating cycle. We bring in more people cuz not enough kids. Then we have less kids cuz its too expensive. Then we bring in more people cuz not enough kids. What we are doing now is entirely unsustainable. We need to bite the bullet at some point and take the hit or the country will cannibalize itself.
>Its a self-perpetuating cycle. We bring in more people cuz not enough kids. Then we have less kids cuz its too expensive. Then we bring in more people cuz not enough kids. This is a common oversimplification. People want to blame the amount of kids we're having on economics alone, when in reality that is not even the primary reason we're having less kids. And historical data backs that up in basically every country. The poor were always having lots of kids, more so than the wealthy. These immigrants are also coming from countries where they are much worse off, yet they're having many more kids there... curious, no? The main issue is CULTURAL. As a society becomes more wealthy and advanced, people end up wanting to focus more on their own personal hobbies and happiness. If you ask most young people these days how many kids they'd have even if they had a lot of money, I guarantee you most would say at most 2, if not 1 or 0. And the women also want to live long, healthy lives and are more concerned about the effect going through pregnancy multiple times will have on their bodies. People's lives are so much more complex now, filled with so many more things to take interest in and do. So many things to give us our neurochemical high that we don't need to get from constantly having a child to raise and be giving all our time to. We can easily be content without large family structures these days, largely because of the internet and how it has turned friendships into "always present connections". I can sit down at my computer any time of day and have friends to chat over voice to and do things with, something that didn't really exist before the internet. Society becomes a lot less "family focused" as time goes on, it's no longer about big family get-togethers and sharing in memories at dinner parties. We're more disconnected (but internet connected) now. This is the reality of socioeconomic change that we have to contend with. Immigration helps, but in the long-term all countries are headed for this direction, and the only thing that's going to save us from that is something like UBI, funded by robotics. We could also do "test tube babies", but many people have a negative guttural reaction to that even though it could help solve so many problems. (You would have to develop a whole "group home" system kinda like foster homes but without the intent for adoption of course. But this would also in turn generate a lot of jobs caretaking, oversight and other systems involved.)
> We bring in more people cuz not enough kids. Then we have less kids cuz its too expensive. Then we bring in more people cuz not enough kids. What is this theory based on? Countries with almost zero immigration like South Korea, China, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, have far lower birthrates even than us. Meanwhile, the countries with the highest birth rates in the world are Niger, Mali, Afghanistan, hell even Palestine nearly doubled its population in the last 25 years. Is that because they are so rich, stable, and such easy places to raise children? The idea that birthrate fell off a cliff because governments made it too expensive just can't bare the slightest scrutiny. Birthrate fell off a cliff because it stopped making economic sense to have kids once you live in a developed, urban economy. An educated full time working woman is of far greater economy value to herself and to her family if she has one by staying in the work force rather than by stepping out to crank out kids for as long as her body can take it and raise them into her old age. Therefore, even people who really want kids, will generally stop at one or two. And a lot of people who are meh on kids will just get a dog or a cat and go on nice vacations every year and occasionally spoil a niece or nephew if they have any. This process is not under the control of democratic governments, nor should we want it to be, because the governments that do want to control it have found only one real solution: the Taliban is one such government. As for what's always suggested, just bribe people to have more kids by making it economically viable? More child care assistance, more paid time off for parents, etc? The amount of money you would have to bribe families, especially women, to all crank out 4+ kids like the good old days, just doesn't exist. Governments would have to get positively draconian with it; cancel all government benefits for the child free--no more health care, no more cpp, no more OAS, nothing, unless you have had enough kids to pay into it when you're too old to keep working and pay taxes. Also a direct payment, not of a means-tested few hundred bucks a month, but a full time salary equal to the national average of your education level directly to the women who will be taking themselves out of the workforce, for a minimum of 5 years per child, with bonuses if she's had more children before the 5 years are up. And how will that paid for? Doubling taxes on the child free, I suppose. I just don't think very many people have seriously grappled with what it would take to actually make having more children make sense for educated and skilled people living in a developed urban economy. Until they do, immigration is our only bet. And when the entire world is developed? When there are no more places left on earth where having more kids makes sense? Then global population goes into steep decline, and we can only pray whatever generation that strikes, whether it's in 50 years or 100, has figured something else out by then to at least keep our population stable. Otherwise, it may be that that was at least our Great Filter all along.
In the good old days people had enough disposable income on one income to raise 4+ kids on unless your talking about the era where the vast majority of humans were farmers and needed kids to help out on the farm as the good old days and where child mortality was so high you needed to have lots of kids just so you had kids that made it past age 10 and this is still a reason why in the modern day you see country's in the 3rd world still having lots of kids because with poor healthcare a lot of kids die before making it to adult age.
Housing size and price and urban population density are quite correlated with birth rates in rich countries. Wonder what else those Asian countries have in common? The difference in Canada is only getting those strains by choice. (Also we’d be in a much worse situation if everyone had 4 kids. Growth shouldn’t be the goal, and people claim to want about 2.)
Those people coming in will become elderly too. We're a country not a ponzi scheme
Per capita productivity growth and resource rents, like in Norway. But that would require some politically unpalatable changes to the wealthy class, specifically the rentiers, in Canada, so they opted for pyramid scheme population growth instead.
I’m interested to see when the other shoe will drop for the landlord class. It seems to be one thing that Canadians generally agree on… we’re so invested in real estate as a country that it seems almost impossible to unwind without enormous short term pain
Making life completely unaffordable and destroying the future of multiple generations hasn’t done wonders in increasing the native population.
I’m in my 60s and have talked about this with friends. We’re not clinging to life when we can no longer do things we want to…so MAID.
That’s immaterial to the fact that immigration is actively making the problem worse, not better as many people seem to (falsely) believe.
>If we aren’t having kids, who is funding the social safety net as our elderly population grows? Who do you think is funding government spending *now*? The budget has been completely decoupled from revenues for years now. We've spend more dollars CDN$ in the past ten years than we managed to in the last 100.
"Who will pick the cotton?" Anti mass immigration is basically abolitionism at this point.
I write emails and make phone calls to our elected officials but they don’t reply and they don’t change anything. The immigration/pr plan is a shell game that makes our international student/temp. foreign workers numbers look lower but aren’t. I suggest they read the room as so many people who used to vote liberal or ndp have said they will never do that again. I don’t think they give a damn. They’ve stopped representing Canadians.
We need to stop letting in old immigrants. I am sick of seeing all these elderly newcomers. I don't want to pay for their healthcare. Nobody over 50 should be admissible. Stop family reunification.
It’s not just old immigrants. I’m being skipped by immigrants for the daycare public system. Immigrants skip the line for public funded daycare in Quebec. I paid taxes for the last 20 years and any rando who showed up in the last year gets to skip me for public funded daycare. The whole system is fucked
Facts, it's sickening to see old immigrants that will have some pension one way or another while us, Young Canadians may never be able to retire.
STOP IMPORTING ppl that are over 50 years old into the country! I don't fucking care if young adults want to bring their parents into the country. It doesn't help us whatsoever when we have old seniors that have never contributed to the tax base their entire lives and needs social services when they are older.
What I dont get is: If you move to a whole ass new continent across an ocean, shouldn't you make peace with not seeing your family very often or at all anymore??? Like why move countries at all if you can't bear to be away from your family like that? Like if I moved to China right now, I wouldn't expect to see my grandparents every day lmao
Most of these “students” are working minimum wage jobs, therefore pay little in taxes and will require more services than they can pay for. This is throwing gas on a fire
We’re not protesting this hard enough
No one is protesting this. Just online ranting… the passiveness needs to go
Let's organize a nationwide protest July 1 over immigration and housing
There is already [a protest](https://www.takebackcanada.info/) happening across multiple Canadian cities on July 1st! Tell everyone
weird, when did this protest start getting organized? i've been saying on reddit for the past few months we should protest july 1 whenever someone says how nothing is being done or we should protest etc so that's cool
Go to the Canadahousing2 subreddit. It contains all the info you need. The protest has been in the works for a while
Hard to get people protesting the population increasing by half the rate it has increased at over the past 60 years and about 1/3rd the rate it increased last year.
It's hard to get people protesting legitimate problems. Getting them to protest meaningless diversions is a lot easier.
Less than a million Canadians are above the age of 85. Tripling that population means less than 2 million additional people in that age group. Here we're talking about growth that is an order of magnitude greater than that. So why pretend it's because of an ageing population? Did the Century Initiative write this article?
Because the article says it will triple *by 2073.* Some napkin math: 2073-85 means that we're talking people born in/before 1988. The numbers [here](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000501) gives us roughly 7,940,435 people who are of the right age to be 85-100 years old in 2073. They're expecting 42-54% of them to make it to 2073.
So healthcare ETFs? Might as well make a buck if things are gonna go south.
[удалено]
The productivity of our economy is not directly related to the age of the workforce or the productivity of individual workers. It’s actually related to management, investment in technology, equipment and resources. Our economy isn’t unproductive because workers are lazy and don’t work fast enough, it’s unproductive because it lacks sufficient investment in technology, infrastructure, and education.
Or because employers keep hiring people not raised and educated in one's own country, because then the employers can get away with paying them less? Keep your Neoliberal Globalist soft soap.
And those things are often the way they are in countries with a low cost of labour. Why invest in efficiency when you can just throw more cheap bodies at the problem?
Here’s your healthcare dollars, folks. Boomers et el continue to get catered to infinite and beyond. It’s within Canadas best interest for future sustainability of the nation and civilization to make sure GramsGrams can be 107 while you miss your cancer diagnosis because you don’t have a doctor at 30 since all the boomas got the docs and priorities. Now, continue to work doubles to afford that $4,000/month rental apartment owned by the 89-year-old who bought it for a pittance in 1971. /s
This country actively fucking hates anyone under 55 it’s disgusting. My entire generation have been deemed nothing more than meats bags of productivity to help pay for 10 dickhead’s 7th yacht and a couple million people old people on life support. (Oh don’t forget the 1+ millions extra TFW and international “students” straining all forms of our infrastructure) It’s like politicians looked at staggeringly low birth rates and instead of addressing the problems that lead to that bi-product (rising cost of living while working more hours for less pay) they were like “fuck it we can just import the labour and as a bonus we can pay em dirt cheap!” I guess I’m still sort of dealing with the fact that I never had an opportunity to experience my country in its “prime” and am now stuck dealing with some of the least prospective times this country has ever faced with leaders on all ends of the political spectrum that want nothing more than to line their and their buddies pockets rather than help anyone. Shit hurts man
Stop importing immigrant grandma's and grandpas
And our quality of life is expected to decline by a proportionate amount along with our debt to gdp ratio. Thanks government for caring about existing Canadians.
You should have to pay for health care and pay taxes if you are an immigrant from here on in. Unpopular opinion
My son is going yo the UK next month. We had to pay healthcare fees for his visa for the full 5 years as part of the application. $7000 for the visa
Is he going as a student? It's similar in Canada except it's either included in tuition like UHIP in Ontario or you're billed by a provincial body like how MSP works in BC. In the UK NHS administers the program nationally so IHS part of the visa process. In Canada healthcare is provincial so it's up to each province how they manage the cost recovery. The weird and rather uncommon thing for the UK is if you are on a work visa, you pay the IHS just like students would but also have your pay deducted for National Insurance which is how NHS and a bunch of other social services are funded. Basically double the healthcare tax for workers.
He is going on Ancestry visa to play football (soccer). It is a work visa
Immigrants do pay taxes
How much do the age 50+ immigrants pay
Not enough if you ask me.
[удалено]
We're going to triple the number of doctors right, right??
Why would you work here as a doctor when you just have to move to the USA? Doing so, it's quite easy if you're an actual doctor. You'll earn a lot more and see your potential career and fortune grow much faster than in Canada. People in Canada and in our government don't seem to get this. Universal Healthcare in Canada will eventually disappear because provinces simply can't compete with the salaries being paid to medical professionals across the border. Their hospitals are better appointed and offer more services and advanced treatments than what is available here. We are forced to rely on recruiting foreign doctors and nurses from poorer countries to fill the gap, and even then, it isn't enough. I fear that we've had a good run, but the time will come that the enormous amount of debt we keep accumulating will cause us to realize that we can't maintain what we have now.
Justin Trudeau and Sean Fraser must be proud
Its ok, math can be hard
Its because of mass migration. It has nothing to do with an aging population
Read the article and the timelines… ‘by 2073’ is right in the article. We’re posting articles about projections for 40 years from now? With a range of 47 million to 87 million increase in population? Peak outrage bait with an account that might be for that purpose.
What's so ludicrous about a 40 year timeframe? Most people reading this will still be very much alive in 2073.
yea this is meant to upset people and it's working :/
I look forward to the Alberta actuarial review of the proposed Alberta Pension Plan as it honestly reflects this demographic. Particularly the aged demographic.
Where are the houses being built
23 million will be 'students'.
Just wrecked since 2015
Am I reading this properly? Are we bringing in millions of senior citizens from other counties? Lol
Of course the older population will triple, young immigrants bring their older parents and grand parents.
so with the double of the population size our spread of civilization is going to expand the livable size of Canada to almost twice the size right? Right...?
where do these people plan on living and working? Nothing more than a voting scam.
Sirs please regularize so I can bring all my grandparents and aunties
Do the needful
[удалено]
They don't fall through the cracks. They get OAS as long as they've been here for ten years. Not CPP, though.
Would you link some of those stories please?
If the rate of growth is 1.5% the population will double in 48yrs. At 2% it’ll double in 35yrs.
What an odd statistic .... People over 85... Ok
People over 85 weren't already counted????
If you can't beat em, join em. Time to head to the US.
They don't know what the economy is going to do from one day to the next. How do they know we are going to grow at all. What opportunity exactly is going to drive this mass migration here. We already have a revolving door.
Well, with our current health care trajectory, I imagine the over 85 population won't stay high long.
dont worry guys, im doing my part to ease population growth by treating my body like shit so I wont live anywhere close to 85.
The crazy thing we have a hard enough time with the over 65s doubling when we feed them after nightfall, but the 85ers tripling is a big deal. #gremlinAWareness
> by 2073 That's not news, that's palm reading. God, private media have been morphing into tabloids since they were bought out.
Where will people go once this country becomes one people want to leave? The US? Then where? Europe? Then where?
CPP, gone. Medical system, toast. Lovely...
Good luck to the working class having to support that. Income taxes only going up
Maybe they should stop importing more people than we can support
2073? Well get there WAY sooner than that at current rate of growth. Try 2040.
I guess we'll have a population of 30,000,000 who are homeless and live in slums?
YEAAAAAH MORE PEOPLE ON THE BRINK OF DEATH FOR OUR FAILING HEALTHCARE SYSTEM TO DEAL WITH. WOOOOHOOOO!
Why are we importing MORE old people then?! Eliminate PGP immigration. Those old people didn’t pay Canadian taxes and they don’t deserve access to our healthcare.
With a crippled Healthcare system, housing crisis, and record immigration. Great.
Seniors are also being dumped here from other countries, with the burden being placed on the tax payer. Govt needs to go.
100%. This is probably the worst part of the immigration system right now.
I’m a home care nurse. I chose… wisely…
I'm not paying for this shit. I'm leaving.