[dahusbandofbath]

New projections out via the Ontario Population Projection to 2046.

Ontario population projections

Learn about the 2020-2046 population projections for Ontario and its 49 census divisions.

www.fin.gov.on.ca

They have a number for the GTA, excluding Hamilton, of 10.2M in 2046

If you assumed that the rest of the numbers in the chart above flatlined from 2041 (there is no GGH number in today's link)

You get 11,000,000 for the GTAH, 15.1M for the GGH

The 2046 number for the City of Toronto is now 4.27M

I'm glad you saw this 4.27 million number for Toronto, too, because it looks like it's been revised down to 3.73 million. I was starting to think I'd imagined the higher number. Nevertheless, with regards to earlier comparisons with Greater London, at 3.73 million people in Toronto with an area of 630.2 km2, we'll have a population density of 5,925 people /km2. By comparison, in 2019, Greater London had a population of 8,899,375 and an area of 1,572 km2 for a population density of 5,671/km2. This comparison may not be entirely apples-to-apples as Greater London is significantly larger geographically and has considerable amount of unurbanised land around its edges (probably protected). Still, Toronto is moving into a different echelon of cities, which I find fascinating.

 

[dahusbandofbath]

If they removed zoning regulations that protect the suburban built-form and introduce right-to-build laws, I bet you that large portions of Toronto's suburbs will be densified extremely quickly by its immigrant population.

By simply allowing 50' lots to be cut in two, the GTHA could increase its population density quite meaningfully without dramatically disrupting neighbourhood ecosystems. I admit that I, too, would be annoyed if a 20-storey condo sprouted right next door to my detached Scarborough house. However, if my neighbours each built two narrow homes on their presents lots, the impact on me (once construction was done) would be insignificant.

 

[Northern Light]

I'm glad you saw this 4.27 million number for Toronto, too, because it looks like it's been revised down to 3.73 million. I was starting to think I'd imagined the higher number. Nevertheless, with regards to earlier comparisons with Greater London, at 3.73 million people in Toronto with an area of 630.2 km2, we'll have a population density of 5,925 people /km2. By comparison, in 2019, Greater London had a population of 8,899,375 and an area of 1,572 km2 for a population density of 5,671/km2. This comparison may not be entirely apples-to-apples as Greater London is significantly larger geographically and has considerable amount of unurbanised land around its edges (probably protected). Still, Toronto is moving into a different echelon of cities, which I find fascinating.

I not only saw it; I just found it again........thanks to www.archive.org.........

I need to talk to Ministry officials..........having 500,000 (future) people disappear in six months is problematic! LOL

This is the url:

https://web.archive.org/web/2020060.../economy/demographics/projections/table4.html

As it appeared on June 5th, 2020.

 

[dahusbandofbath]

I was thinking in terms of allowing landowners to subdivide their lots for a profit rather than the state taking my home and relegating my family to one room in it!

 

[Northern Light]

A new report out from BILD, authored by Mike Moffatt who many will be familiar with just rips into Hemson for misforecasting population growth.

*ahem, I've been saying that here for awhile now*

Star article here (non-paywalled): https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...estimated-housing-stock-says-bild-report.html

From the article above:

Looking strictly at the above statement you have an exacerbated housing problem to the tune almost exactly 100,000 units over 5 years (population divided by average household size equals unanticipated demand of ~ 74,000 households)

But you also see something else, that the greater error was on demand, than supply.

Had population growth come in at projected levels, that would have ameliorated 75% of the problem!

Of particular note is the role of foreign student growth:

 

[Northern Light]

Thanks to @evandyk I now have the link to the actual report being discussed above.

Here: https://institute.smartprosperity.ca/sites/default/files/BILD Report - FINAL.pdf

 

[Undead]

From the report's high level summary: "Cooling demand by slowing population growth is not the solution to the region's housing shortages."

I can't believe anyone can say that with a straight face; no mention of interest rates either. Then again, this report is funded by BILD, so it's about as biased as you can get.

edit to add: I'm willing to bet in 10 years there will be an identical report as to why forecasts failed again. Provided we don't collapse under our weight.

 

[allengeorge]

I’m in favor of aggressive population growth in Canada.

But I also believe that if you want that you have to set other parts of the system up for success. We’ve definitely not done that.

 

[Northern Light]

I’m in favor of aggressive population growth in Canada.

Sincere question; why?

 

[evandyk]

To pay taxes when all of us retire!

 

[Northern Light]

To pay taxes when all of us retire!

You only need to hold the working age demographic constant for that.

And even then, there's wiggle room; because we can and should bump the retirement age to 70 as many OECD countries have.

Taken from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/a05b71b5-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/a05b71b5-en

The idea of people being non-working for 17 years (retirement 65, average age of death 82) is nuts, when the typical working career is only 43 years (age 22-65)

Suffice to say, we don't require explosive/aggressive population growth to sustain retirees, we need to avoid population decrease, and hold steady on the working cohort.

 

[evandyk]

The idea of people being non-working for 17 years (retirement 65, average age of death 82) is nuts, when the typical working career is only 43 years (age 22-65)

I don't think it's nuts. Who wants to still have to work beyond that age when you've already been working for 43 years? I'm hoping to retire even sooner! And that's with a desk job that is not physically taxing in any way.

 

[Northern Light]

I don't think it's nuts. Who wants to still have to work beyond that age when you've already been working for 43 years? I'm hoping to retire even sooner! And that's with a desk job that is not physically taxing in any way.

Its math.

You're asking in essence that you be allowed to sit around and not contribute, while physically and mentally able to do so for more than 1/3 of your productive years.
That's very unproductive, hideously expensive, and for most people results in a marked deterioration in health as physical exercise and mental stimuli tend to decline in retirement.

****

An enormous benefit, by the way, of delaying the retirement age to 70 would be that we could increase benefits by a whopping 40% under CPP/OAS without increasing deductions at all.
Given that Canada has relatively low public pension benefits which leave many low and lower-middle income seniors in the lurch, (CPP/OAS w/the supplemental CPP generally replace about 46% of your income).
By bumping the retirement age, could increase than 46% by 1.4x to just over 64% of working income.

****

What we should do, however, is also raise our paid vacation minimums in parallel w/the above, to the OECD norm of 4 weeks per year minimum.

This would allow greater work/life balance and rest when needed.

We could also provide, as Australian labour law does in some areas/sectors for an extended vacation/sabbatical every few years.

From Wikipedia:

 

[evandyk]

Its math.

You're asking in essence that you be allowed to sit around and not contribute, while physically and mentally able to do so for more than 1/3 of your productive years.

Yeah. That's why we need the additional tax base! And luckily, Canada is big enough and empty enough that we could keep this going for a lot of generations, at which point computers and robots will do all the work anyways, so we'll all be retired 100% of our lives. We just need to build enough houses and apartments.

 

[toraerach]

Its math.

You're asking in essence that you be allowed to sit around and not contribute, while physically and mentally able to do so for more than 1/3 of your productive years.
That's very unproductive, hideously expensive, and for most people results in a marked deterioration in health as physical exercise and mental stimuli tend to decline in retirement.

[***]

What we should do, however, is also raise our paid vacation minimums in parallel w/the above, to the OECD norm of 4 weeks per year minimum.

This would allow greater work/life balance and rest when needed.

We should be careful not to equate earning a paycheque with contributing to society. Retired people—particularly women—often contribute a substantial amount of unpaid labour, whether through formal volunteer work, caregiving (e.g., grandchildren, infirm spouses and, increasingly, older parents) or otherwise. There are many worthwhile pursuits that, despite benefiting society and providing a sense of personal fulfillment, are poorly paid or not paid at all: I would propose additional programming to facilitate seniors contributing that way, particularly as autonomation continues to eliminate jobs. Additionally, in many cases, every year an older person stays in a job is a year a younger person is left unemployed, underemployed or without promotion. As we saw through the pandemic: When the eligible retire on time or ahead of schedule, the value of young labour and opportunities for growth shoot up substantially.

I am in complete agreement with the increased paid vacation piece.