Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Canadian population 100 Million?

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    989

    Canadian population 100 Million?

    http://www.immigration.ca/can-canada...each-100m-2100
    http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedi...2100-1.4860172

    How will 100 million people in Canada help our economy? In one reference there is a reference to the US population in the 1920's. That was a labour intensive economy (today we have robots so that is not on the same playing field). Seems someone tends to think that having over 100 million people will help the economy using the US as a reference. Today we have 4-5 % unemployment (not included are retirees). Today in Cities we do not have the infrastructure to support the current population (just look at the traffic jams on the roads and commuter trains). How will it be if the population doubled, tripled?

    When I was growing up in the 70s, the school teachers were saying stuff about how fast the world's population was growing, by the 1990s parents were having less than 2 children (at least the people I know), mostly because of quality of life for the 2 children they had and (mostly the women didn't feel like going through labour again). Religious people, welfare people, Native Aboriginals and politicians are the only sets of the population that are having more than 2 children. I think they think future voters or something like that or they are fucking without birth control....

    China has a limit of 1 child (to limit their population growth). China and India have about 1 billion people. If you have ever been to those Countries, due to the mass of people, most of the people are poor. There are alot of poor people in Canada too. These people are on welfare or have min wage jobs, barely making ends meet at the end of the month. Food banks are active across the country. People live on the streets and immigrate to Vancouver and Victoria where its warmest in winter.

    So with most people in the country burning fossil fuel to keep their house warm in the winter months, how will tripling households help climate change (prevent you from burning carbon to produce heat for your home in winter)?

    My Grandparents had 8 to 12 siblings, my parents 4 to 5 siblings, my generation has 2-3.

    Right now we are taking in over 200,000 immigrants a year, Canada can not afford to support most of these people on welfare, most will find min wage jobs, but will they get better jobs?

    How will the education system work? Canada barely puts out young people from high school that can spell without a spellchecker (computer). Will universities be tripled in size to accommodate the increase in people, where will they expand to? Will universities have to lower their standards to support more people attending?

    If we don't have the infrastructure now to support our population, how will it be if it is tripled to 100 million? Canada economy is mostly resource base and we take that and give it very cheaply to the rest of the world.

    The only thing I see with 100 million people is that the system will create more welfare people (dependent on the government), creating a voting block for social parties.

  2. #2
    Growing an economy is what keeps the ponzi, fiat, fractional reserve banking financial system from collapsing. If all the loans got paid off and nobody to borrow, there wouldn't be any money left in circulation. That said, 200,000 per year would likely keep the financial system in tact. Environmentalists have to start pushing for a sound money system that can survive without growth.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    winnipeg
    Posts
    1,200
    It's fairly simple. Canada is too large of a country in terms of its cities and infrastructure. We need a lot more people or need to start looking at downsizing our cities. Winnipeg is a great example. For the land mass it takes up it should easily have a population of 4 million without seeming crowded. Regina and Saskatoon are other great examples. So do we need 100 million? Absolutely if we want to be able to support what we have built.

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Lower Mainland, B.C.
    Posts
    2,243
    Quote Originally Posted by johnnydepth View Post
    It's fairly simple. Canada is too large of a country in terms of its cities and infrastructure. We need a lot more people or need to start looking at downsizing our cities.
    I had not really thought about it, but you are likely correct. This is why are infrastructure is starting to crumble. The Liberals have promised to start some major infrastructure projects, but the Conservatives had promised if they became the ruling party to shut at least some of these projects down. More people, meaning more tax payers, would help to finance these infrastructure projects.

    JD

  5. #5
    I'm envisioning a rather Orwellian scheme, in which a totalitarian theocratic government in Canada moves towards a scheme that "rewards" families/mothers for having children - well not just one, but multiple children - something similar to the Nazi era Mothers Cross with differing grades based on how many children are had (Bronze/Silver/Gold, etc...). Let's face it, with the Capitalist system hinging on perpetual growth - or the whole system collapses - the only way to keep things going is to have a perpetual pool of dirt cheap labour. Bringing back child labour would help, gutting labour laws in general would as well, and otherwise stripping workers of all protections currently afforded. Another run at a Gulag Archipelago, work until you die, do it for the mother/father-land type thing.

    As for where to expand, once the average temperature goes up another few degrees it'll be much easier (and certainly more attractive) to settle further and further North into the hinterland.

    Edit: Forgot to quote the fellow who mentioned his grandparent's generation having much larger family groups - the reason was often to have a labour pool on a farm or homestead - but also due to significantly higher child mortality rates. A similar cycle can be seen around the world as mortality rates improve, where women once had many children and few survived; as the likelihood of survival increases and eventually is more or less assured, women will have fewer children. Birthrates for most "developed" nations quickly decline to levels that render population growth that is insufficient to maintain let alone grow nations. The only option becomes immigration...

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Westwood
    Posts
    5,997
    Note the immigration dot ca website linked above is not a Government of Canada website.
    It is run by an immigration lawyer/consultant. He makes money by helping immigrants so his oipinions may be biased.
    Two hands helping do more good than a thousand hands clasped in prayer

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    PQB/ CDN
    Posts
    328
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Agreed & Liked !!

    I did a post about this with a S Molyneux, but was sent to my room without squat.
    You got to post it Licks

    VT

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by JimDandy View Post
    More people, meaning more tax payers, would help to finance these infrastructure projects.

    JD
    if that was the case, we should have everything built/paid for already

    or have you never listened to some old guy

    you know the one's who "built this country, paid their taxes"

    if they did, why do we need to keep building, have debt? lol

    it doesn't matter how many more you add, you just create more demand for infrastructure

    if we can't afford it now, which we can't, adding more people isn't going to make it more affordable

    it's called diminishing returns

    something no one wants to talk about

    to determine what the sweet spot is, for people

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by JimDandy View Post
    More people, meaning more tax payers, would help to finance these infrastructure projects.

    JD
    That's assuming current infrastructure has excess capacity to support more people, otherwise we'll need even more money to build even more, vicious circle.
    Then there's assuming those people will in fact be gainful tax payers or importers of new wealth to Canada, which means less refugees, and more pragmatic immigration.

  10. #10
    Canada has a lot of land, but not much of it is really arable. I can imagine 50 million, but 100M ? That would be a real stretch. In any case, if the world is so overpopulated by then that we absorb that much migration, then the whole world is fucked (even more than now) and won't survive for long.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    2,440
    Quote Originally Posted by rlock View Post
    Canada has a lot of land, but not much of it is really arable. I can imagine 50 million, but 100M ? That would be a real stretch. In any case, if the world is so overpopulated by then that we absorb that much migration, then the whole world is fucked (even more than now) and won't survive for long.
    Mass Immigration will FUCK Canada just as it has FUCKED Britain and the entirety of Europe.When you have someone like George Soros both cheering for it and himself pouring money into it....well you just KNOW it is bad.

    My parents immigrated to Canada from Britain back in 1967 or so.I am the only member of my family born in Canada and I hold dual citizenship.I have also lived in Britain for 9 months and worked there and I have seen the Societal change all thanks to the usual leftist buzzwords like "multi-culturalism" "Inclusiveness" and so on and so forth.Hell my grandmother lived through WW1 and WW2 in Britain and was so conditioned to "rationing" that she snuck packets of sugar and those lil tubs of jam from Husky truck stops...she could not help it.If she were alive now....and seeing how bad Britain has sunk she would be OUTRAGED.

    Canada does not need 100 MILLION as a population...the fucking Lieberals want that as a fucking tax base so they can spend MORE.

    SR

  12. #12
    The 100 Million+ countries give us a taste of what’s to come. Pakistan, China, India - Indonesia - get ready for some really weird pooning:

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/782915...wice-her-size/


  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Republic of Asshat
    Posts
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobby1968 View Post
    The 100 Million+ countries give us a taste of what’s to come. Pakistan, China, India - Indonesia - get ready for some really weird pooning:

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/782915...wice-her-size/

    I suppose it's a step up from boinking sheep and goats.

  14. #14
    In a FIAT currency system, growth and the velocity of money (more times a dollar can move from one party to another) is paramount

    Ironically, for every dollar the government creates and gives via welfare, it creates $1.10 in revenue (because welfare recipients don’t save the $, they spend it in the local economy immediately, and thus repaid in income and sales taxes immediately)

    Give me 1 dollar and it’s likely going in my RRSP, where the government would be paying ME a tax refund

    Welfare/Government nanny state is good for business and keeps the wheels turning. More people paying into the system keeps the government in business

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •