News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.2K     0 

wyliepoon

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
2,011
Reaction score
3
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080904.wimmigrants04/BNStory/National/home


Immigrants pass Toronto to follow money West, study finds


MARINA JIMENEZ

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

September 4, 2008 at 4:50 AM EDT

A new study shows immigrants earn more money in Calgary, Regina and Saskatoon than they do in Toronto, a significant trend that could help explain why the city's share of immigrants is steadily declining.

While Toronto remains overwhelmingly the dominant hub for newcomers, its proportion of Canada's total annual immigrant intake dropped to nearly one-third in 2007 from half in 2001. In contrast, the numbers settling in western cities such as Calgary, Edmonton, Regina and Saskatoon have increased every year in the past five years.

"This represents a significant shift in immigration patterns," said Jack Jedwab, executive director of the Association for Canadian Studies, which released the study on immigrant family income this week.

"We think of Alberta and Saskatchewan as a place for internal migration, but now the West is drawing immigrants as well."

Immigrants often settle where family members live, but are also drawn by economic opportunities. The oil and natural-gas booms in Alberta and Saskatchewan have led to huge labour demands and a rise in wages as business owners struggle to fill jobs.

In 2005, the average annual income for an immigrant family in Calgary was $102,118, which is $33,000 more than in Montreal, $22,000 more than in Vancouver and $12,000 more than in Toronto, according to the census data analyzed in Mr. Jedwab's paper.

The average income was $92,932 in Regina and $91,356 in Saskatoon. Between 2001 and 2005, Saskatchewan moved from the bottom three provinces to the top three in terms of average income for immigrant families, behind Alberta and Ontario.

The wage differential between non-immigrant families in Toronto - who earned on average $139,926 a year - and those born elsewhere was 55 per cent. In contrast, the gap narrows to 33 per cent in Calgary, where non-immigrant families earn on average $136,380, and 19 per cent in Edmonton.

In Regina and Saskatoon, non-immigrant families actually earn 1 per cent less on average than their immigrant counterparts. The income gap reflects social mobility. "People are asking the question, 'How am I doing as an individual, and how am I doing compared to others?' " Mr. Jedwab said.

For his study on family incomes, all foreign-born Canadians were considered immigrants. But more recent cohorts of arrivals show a similar trend. Their wages are substantially lower than for the overall immigrant population; however, they still fare much better economically in the West, as well as in some smaller Ontario cities such as Oshawa and Ottawa, than in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal.

For example, the average annual income for an immigrant family who settled in Calgary between 2001 and 2005 was $69,148. The only city where they earned more money was Sudbury, while in Toronto, the average annual family income was $57,239; in Vancouver $53,028; and in Montreal $45,435.

Ottawa's goal has always been to disperse immigrants more evenly across the country and avoid concentrating too many new arrivals in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. In 2007, cities outside the "MTV" received nearly one in three of Canada's total 236,000 newcomers.

This trend is healthy, said Myer Siemiatycki, a Ryerson University professor of immigration and settlement studies, although he noted that Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver still receive the lion's share of immigrants and Montreal has actually increased its share.

Well-educated newcomers may be faring better in smaller cities such as Regina because there is less competition for high-paying jobs. "Saskatchewan traditionally had problems attracting high-end talent," Prof. Siemiatycki noted.

As well, the economy is not as robust and dynamic in Toronto and Montreal as it has been in Alberta and, more recently, in Saskatchewan.

Ratna Omidvar, executive director of the Maytree Foundation, a charity that aims to reduce poverty and inequality in Canada, said Toronto is still a huge draw, as are surrounding cities such as Brampton and Mississauga.

"For sure, there are fewer immigrants coming to Toronto, but they are going to the outlying suburbs comprising the city region," she said.

*****

New Roots

Where new immigrants are finding work and putting down roots in Canadian cities.

The number of foreign permanent residents is rising in these communities:

Charlottetown: +50.2%

Halifax: +44.8%

Moncton: +74%

Edmonton: +52%

Calgary: +32%

Montreal: +36%

...while declining in these cities

Toronto: -20.8%

Vancouver: -1%

SOURCE: SHIFTING PATTERNS OF IMMIGRATION IN CANADA'S URBAN CENTRES BY JACK JEDWAB

0904immigration500big.jpg
 
This is probably a good thing, for Toronto & Calgary. It is a bit absurd that we were absorbing half of the immigrants to Canada. I'm all for immigration and all, but there is no way we could support that. The strain on our ESL classes alone was probably enough to justify a reduction. At the same time, Calgary and Edmonton have a tremendous labor shortage. I am sure we have all heard anecdotes about people getting absurd salaries working at a Timmies in For Mac. It makes sense for more immigration to go there to ameliorate some of the wage inflation.
 
imo it had to happen.

There is just to much labour supply here.
 
I think that there are four demographic indicators of importance: Domestic population growth, Foreign Immigration, Internal migration and American Foreign migration. All four are important for different reasons. We in Toronto have been relying on Foreign immigration for some time to mask regional competitive weakness. In my opinion, contrary to conventional wisdom, domestic population growth is by far the most important indicator of standard of living. A society that can't or choses not to provide incentive for people to replenish population domestically is fundamentally broken. Internal migration is a measure of domestic inter-regional competitiveness. Foreign immigration is a measure of international regional competitiveness (this is the easiest because you are bound to be more competitive than somewhere else in the world). And American foreign immigration is a measure of North-American interregional competitiveness. On this last front all Canadian cities have historically faired very poorly.
 
I think that there are four demographic indicators of importance: Domestic population growth, Foreign Immigration, Internal migration and American Foreign migration. All four are important for different reasons. We in Toronto have been relying on Foreign immigration for some time to mask regional competitive weakness. In my opinion, contrary to conventional wisdom, domestic population growth is by far the most important indicator of standard of living. A society that can't or choses not to provide incentive for people to replenish population domestically is fundamentally broken. Internal migration is a measure of domestic inter-regional competitiveness. Foreign immigration is a measure of international regional competitiveness (this is the easiest because you are bound to be more competitive than somewhere else in the world). And American foreign immigration is a measure of North-American interregional competitiveness. On this last front all Canadian cities have historically faired very poorly.


You make a lot of very good points. In the context of Toronto proper, this signals some serious problems. Already the 905 area is becoming, or already is, the preferred destination of immigrants. Toronto's birth rate and population growth are worrisome. From the 2007 Vital signs..........
Over the past ten years (1996-2006) natural increase in the City’s
population (births minus deaths) has fallen by 49% while it has risen by
14% in the rest of the Region.
• 2006 census figures indicate that 331 of the City’s 531 neighbourhoods
(census tracts) experienced decreases in residents, while 197
experienced increases and 3 remained unchanged.13
• Over the past five years, the median age of the City’s population has
increased from 36.9 in 2001 to 38.4 in 2006.14


I also had a look at the most recent FIR reports. Between 2006 and 2007 the city's youth population decreased by over 10,000. I am sure the TDSB is thrilled.
 
I think that there are four demographic indicators of importance: Domestic population growth, Foreign Immigration, Internal migration and American Foreign migration. All four are important for different reasons. We in Toronto have been relying on Foreign immigration for some time to mask regional competitive weakness. In my opinion, contrary to conventional wisdom, domestic population growth is by far the most important indicator of standard of living. A society that can't or choses not to provide incentive for people to replenish population domestically is fundamentally broken. Internal migration is a measure of domestic inter-regional competitiveness. Foreign immigration is a measure of international regional competitiveness (this is the easiest because you are bound to be more competitive than somewhere else in the world). And American foreign immigration is a measure of North-American interregional competitiveness. On this last front all Canadian cities have historically faired very poorly.


Sorry, but birthrate doesn't seem correlated the success of society at all. Just about every single wealthy, industrialized nation has a low birthrate, and with good reason: children are inferior goods.

Frankly, there are too many humans. We should let the population crest and then decline to a more sustainable number. This is overridingly against our nature, but it's worth a shot.
 
Sorry, but birthrate doesn't seem correlated the success of society at all. Just about every single wealthy, industrialized nation has a low birthrate, and with good reason: children are inferior goods.

Frankly, there are too many humans. We should let the population crest and then decline to a more sustainable number. This is overridingly against our nature, but it's worth a shot.

That is the Elephant in the Room, IMO. A nation's success seems to always be based on its economic growth. How can countries as populous as the United States, Brazil, India, China, Mexico and a few others keep growing at the rates that they are? The planet cannot support it.

A Nobel Prize will go to the economist who can figure out how First World countries can finance their social programs (notably health and retirement pensions) while NOT growing their economies and populations.

What is happening in Japan and Russia could be a warning to us all: ageing population in the former and imploding population in the latter.
 
TA Nobel Prize will go to the economist who can figure out how First World countries can finance their social programs (notably health and retirement pensions) while NOT growing their economies and populations.

Population growth and economic growth need not go hand in hand. No reason the economy can't continue to grow while the population stabilizes or declines slightly.

Hell, even just stabilizing world population of humans would be a huge achievement. Technology will allow us to decrease the footprint of that population continuously so that more of them can become 'wealthy'. As it is, we're making more poor at such a rate that there will always be a problem with poverty.
 
Frankly, there are too many humans. We should let the population crest and then decline to a more sustainable number. This is overridingly against our nature, but it's worth a shot.

It's not the number of people that's unsustainable, it's the lifestyle levels we're living at. You could take away half the population of Africa and India and other 'overpopulated' places and have 2 billion less humans but if the remaining people were to all live "sustainable" Western lifestyles, we're doomed! You can't just assume technology will save us.
 
But there's the Catch-22: we in the West are made to feel guilty for our hedonistic, 'wasteful' lifestyles, while the 'emerging' markets have more potential to rape and pillage the world's environments and resources than we ever could dream of. The Middle Class in China is now larger than the entire population of the United States.

I have no doubt that techology will save the day (just as whale oil begat coal and coal begat petroleum and nuclear - there will be cold fusion or some other advance that will move the goal posts yet again), but the emerging markets have a population boom that is dragging down their efforts to raise themselves to Western standards. The sheer number of babies born in some of those countries guarantees that labor will continue to be worthless there.

If you look at Western history (it has been asserted, for example, that the reason Great Britain became the first modern world power is because of its population boom in the 1500s), we were only able to raise our living standards via expansion of both territory and population. The emerging markets simply won't have that luxury. Although China could cast covetous eyes north to Russia - there is a powderkeg waiting to happen.

If China, Pakistan and India, to name 3 glaring examples, cannot expand their way to prosperity, well, let's just say the alternatives may not be pretty.
 
I propose a Dichotomy drinking game.

Rule no.1) For every mention about forced Western "guilt", take a drink.

P.S. The developing markets are going to cause huge damage - but that's only different because the West has already undergone that process. It will be perceived as a bit of a double standard that the West is allowed to develop and modernize but it is evil when the developing countries do it. Especially in such rampantly anti-Western/American places as China.

But no one in their right mind would deny that the Western lifestyle is wasting more resources per individual than any other.
 
It's always amusing when people would rather guilt the third world into socioeconomic eugenics or some other demographic implosion so they don't catch up to us in large numbers.
 
But there's the Catch-22: we in the West are made to feel guilty for our hedonistic, 'wasteful' lifestyles, while the 'emerging' markets have more potential to rape and pillage the world's environments and resources than we ever could dream of. The Middle Class in China is now larger than the entire population of the United States.
With due respect, I think we in the West should be made to feel guilty.

While we in the West (Europe and North America, but especially Europe) like to criticize Brazil and India for razing parts of the Rainforest, we conveniently forget that the Western World built strong economies by doing exactly the same thing. Many countries in Europe have completely destroyed all remnants of any natural vegetation that may have once existed. There's nothing left to "rape and pillage" from a natural vegetation point of view.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and I hope the devastation of the Rainforest doesn't continue - but at least give thought to one of the reasons that might have caused disparity in the world economies to begin with.
_______

Please note that this post was meant simply as food for thought, and not meant to derail the topic of this forum.
 
With due respect, I think we in the West should be made to feel guilty.

While we in the West (Europe and North America, but especially Europe) like to criticize Brazil and India for razing parts of the Rainforest, we conveniently forget that the Western World built strong economies by doing exactly the same thing. Many countries in Europe have completely destroyed all remnants of any natural vegetation that may have once existed. There's nothing left to "rape and pillage" from a natural vegetation point of view.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and I hope the devastation of the Rainforest doesn't continue - but at least give thought to one of the reasons that might have caused disparity in the world economies to begin with.
_______

Please note that this post was meant simply as food for thought, and not meant to derail the topic of this forum.

Who's doing that? You? Me? The jaded media? I understand only too well that the very condos we are sitting in right now are built on forests that were cut down 200 years ago. I would never lecture Brazilians or Malaysians on what to do with their rainforests. But I am asked to give up my car and walk to work so another 100 million babies can be born in Asia this year?

You see where this argument ultimately ends up? Germany and England lecture the 'new world' on how we treat our aboriginals (after all, they killed all theirs off a thousand years ago), then we turn around and lecture the emerging markets about cutting down their rainforests, even though we've already cut down most of our forests.

Theone, if you think we Canadians have done or are going to do as much damage to the environments as China, India or Mexico ARE doing, you need to give yourself a serious shake. We are NOT the U.S. Our 34 millions are barely a blip on the world stage.
 
This is probably a good thing, for Toronto & Calgary. It is a bit absurd that we were absorbing half of the immigrants to Canada. I'm all for immigration and all, but there is no way we could support that.

I disagree. Immigrants actually contribute to the health of the economy in a positive matter. They're hardworking and generate tax dollars, jobs and businesses. It's no coincidence that Toronto, London, New York, Paris are the economic capitals of their country and have the highest levels of immigrant population
 

Back
Top