5:49 pm
October 29, 2017
HermanH, the labour force participation ratio does not include those too young, too old, unable to work, or not wanting to work. Every person immigrating to Canada, that wants to work, does increase the ratio.
Edit: I have remembered the definition incorrectly, the participation rate is based on the labour force as a percentage of the total adult population. I was remembering it as the employed people of the labour force. Sorry
6:23 pm
April 14, 2021
6:36 pm
October 29, 2017
HermanH said
The fact that the (retired) parents and grandparents of the new immigrants will also need health services and retirement homes means that there won't be much or any alleviation of staffing shortages in those fields.
Yep. They use services. But they also consume and that does help. Hopefully it’s a positive net contribution of all.
11:37 pm
October 29, 2017
As I was pointing out earlier, that the BoC wasn’t following its mandate! Well it has changes now. And that one point I was making, was that they were protecting the recovery at the expense of high inflation. They added that very thing! Lol
It’s out the window now.
7:34 am
March 30, 2017
Vatox said
Yep. They use services. But they also consume and that does help. Hopefully it’s a positive net contribution of all.
My personal experience:
My inlaws fit the immigrant seniors definition. Never earn a penny while in Canada, so pay no tax. Collect OAS, GIS, free drugs coverage, GST rebate OHIP etc (I may have missed a couple others).
Yes they consume but at best its a breakeven for the govt. In the sense they spend what was given to them for free....
8:28 am
October 21, 2013
If your in-laws have lived here long enough to qualify for full OAS, and weren't earning an income, then they must have either brought money with them or someone in the family has been supporting them.
How did they spend their time all those years? Were they providing free babysitting, cooking or housekeeping, or contributing to a family business? or did they just sit in front of satellite TV all day?
8:37 am
October 29, 2017
savemoresaveoften said
My personal experience:
My inlaws fit the immigrant seniors definition. Never earn a penny while in Canada, so pay no tax. Collect OAS, GIS, free drugs coverage, GST rebate OHIP etc (I may have missed a couple others).
Yes they consume but at best its a breakeven for the govt. In the sense they spend what was given to them for free....
I was referring to the entire extended family as a net positive. The working age adults and the much needed children for the future.
This is getting political again, so let’s just agree that immigration is needed so we don’t end up like Japan.
EDIT: Loonie’s point is excellent, it was posted while I was reading and writing. There is a lot more to contribution than just employment and paying taxes.
8:58 am
October 29, 2017
9:39 am
October 27, 2013
savemoresaveoften said
Yes they consume but at best its a breakeven for the govt. In the sense they spend what was given to them for free....
Perhaps but at least we know on a 100% basis that the EI (Economic Impact) multiplier of about 7 generates $7 for every dollar spent. Imagine if the taxpayer had kept that dollar in a savings account and not spent it... or the bank that holds that $1 did not lend it out.
Sarcasm aside, that is a fundamental premise of macro-economics. Pushing money through the system keeps the economy going. Freeze it, as in the Great Depression, and the economy seizes up. It took a long time for central bankers to have learned from FDR's New Deal.
9:49 am
October 27, 2013
Vatox said
Let’s talk more about that altered BoC mandate!
I don't see change in actual practice and some analysts are calling this additional tweak that way. Within the key mandate of inflation management, employment and/or unemployment has always been an underlying conscious factor in rate setting. It is simply now more formalized and more in line with the US Fed where the BoC has no choice but to emulate to some degree to keep the loonie within certain guideposts.
I submitted a number of comments earlier this year when BoC was soliciting public input into 3? potential scenarios as regards its mandate. Not only the questionaire but written comments as well. What we are seeing is where I had landed... with the caution that inflation fighting still had to be the primary goal. One couldn't let inflation get above 3% very long before pulling the levers strong enough to bring it back (at the cost of jobs if necessary).
10:30 am
April 14, 2021
Vatox said
This is getting political again, so let’s just agree that immigration is needed so we don’t end up like Japan.
Can't do that as the current immigration scheme is problematic. It is one thing to only allow productive young people into the country. It is a whole other thing if an entire extended family must be granted status at the same time.
Bringing in care-givers to attend long-term old-age facilities may be necessary, but they are also creating a problem if they also bring along their own old people to fill them up. There is no gain if you pay a dollar to save a dollar.
10:48 am
March 30, 2017
Vatox said
so let’s just agree that immigration is needed so we don’t end up like Japan.
I dont disagree Canada can bring in immigration to fill in the gap, especially when there are really not many true native Canadians.
On the other hand, when the rules are so lax that almost any family gathering reason is basically granted, regardless of whether the family is drag on our welfare system or not, that is something I cant fully agree with.
Same as if a McDonald owner opens his store 24 hrs, but the revenue does not even cover the extra salaries, what is the point of doing it...
12:22 pm
October 29, 2017
As I’ve been saying, the inflation is the bigger issue, in the past I would be agreeing with what’s transpiring. But the situation is so different now that it’s causing damage that can’t be repaired, later, by a full economic recovery. They are clearly putting the recovery as priority and they better hope inflation goes down fast with that mindset.
12:52 pm
March 30, 2017
Vatox said
They are clearly putting the recovery as priority and they better hope inflation goes down fast with that mindset.
Yes its like chemotherapy. Deal with what kills you first, then deal with the side effect afterwards. Nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately its never perfect, one way or the other.
2:04 pm
April 6, 2013
savemoresaveoften said
u mean if there is no inflation btw now and Aug 2022, then it will still be a 2% per annum ? With food prices schedule to rise 5-10% next year, and everything that I spend money on (my physio just advised me on 5% price increase Jan1) ARE going up in price, its hard for me to see CPI coming back at 2% any time soon.
Yes. The October Consumer Price Index is 143.9. The index would have reached that in August next year had inflation been 2% per annum from January 2020.
As long as prices don't go up 5% each year from now on, it is easy to have 2% inflation. Have the 5% increase next year and then 2% per annum from that point on. After 12 months, that widely publicized YoY inflation rate will be 2%!
2:10 pm
October 29, 2017
savemoresaveoften said
Yes its like chemotherapy. Deal with what kills you first, then deal with the side effect afterwards. Nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately its never perfect, one way or the other.
No, a slower recovery is not the cancer. It’s the inflation being forced on an increasing, fixed income population. A slower recovery won’t kill us, but inflation just might. Inflation better decrease very soon! The labour force participation doesn’t pack the same punch it once did.
4:30 pm
October 27, 2013
Very few people are on actual fixed income. I don't know where you get that data but I'd like to see the references. It's not really the way our system works. For working people, there are increases in wages (minimum and otherwise) and tax brackets. For retirees, there are CPI increases in CPP, OAS, GIS and at least some DP pensions (fully or partially COLA'd). Even savers will see HISA and GIC rate increases as bond yields move up.
The biggest issue, as I previously noted, is CPI movements in all of those lag actual impacts by 6-10 months or so. Not so bad with 2% inflation. Harder with 4-6% inflation.
5:19 pm
October 29, 2017
AltaRed said
Very few people are on actual fixed income. I don't know where you get that data but I'd like to see the references. It's not really the way our system works. For working people, there are increases in wages (minimum and otherwise) and tax brackets. For retirees, there are CPI increases in CPP, OAS, GIS and at least some DP pensions (fully or partially COLA'd). Even savers will see HISA and GIC rate increases as bond yields move up.The biggest issue, as I previously noted, is CPI movements in all of those lag actual impacts by 6-10 months or so. Not so bad with 2% inflation. Harder with 4-6% inflation.
Perhaps fixed income is the wrong description. How about lower incomes without proper means to easily increase income during high inflation.
5:58 pm
September 11, 2013
Actually Canada's official poverty rates have declined measurably since 2015, increased gov't supports, etc. The gov't itself has previously said "The federal government's Poverty Reduction Strategy is already showing promising results in meeting Canada's commitment to reduce poverty by 20% by the year 2020. From 2015 to 2018, the overall poverty rate in Canada fell from 14.5% to 11% of people living under Canada's Official Poverty Line." So that group is not growing, it's diminishing.
So unless I'm provided with specific data re why that 11% or so demographic needs special attention re inflation I'd instead support fighting inflation with a more generalized, macro approach looking at the whole economy. At the same time you can always increase existing gov't support amounts for the poor if poverty rate begins to increase.
Please write your comments in the forum.