this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2023
49 points (96.2% liked)

Canada

7106 readers
424 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Regions


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social & Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Is it just me, or should the government figure out a way to determine a good population goal that leads to optimum quality of life and aim to keep the population stable at whatever that number is?

Infinite growth won't work.

Our birth rates are below replacement, so this still leaves a lot of room for immigration.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think many economists point to the fact that western countries need younger workers to help pay for the growing percentage of the population that will be retired and needing more government services. So population increase at the rate we have may be needed even with some of the negatives it brings.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I doubt we need that many to balance that particular problem out quite honestly, I'm pretty sure the current rate is just to suppress labour cost inflation.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I disagree. We are already seeing the results of aging population. here is a report from stats Canada about it: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220427/dq220427a-eng.htm

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

We aren't immigrating a lot of children, so that report isn't particularly helpful at determining the actual balance. We also probably shouldn't set our entire economy up to handle the wave of baby boomers, otherwise we'll be simply creating another boom cycle in 40 years.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unfortunately we've kind of seen what people think when the government wants to step in more directly to help make people's lives better, this kind of thing would just make people cry about 'freedoms.'

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

I think the β€œfreedom” crowd would be on board. With housing costs being the way they are and them being racists, cutting back on immigration until we have more affordable housing wouldn’t be a hard sell.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Trudeau is aiming at 100 million people, I don't know where they will live however, in the streets?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

It’s not Trudeau, stop blaming everything on him.

https://www.centuryinitiative.ca/why-100m

Even before this initiative was brought up we were still on pace to hit 100 million people before 2100.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

don't know where they will live however, in the streets?

Canada does have the second-largest land area of any country on Earth, second only to Russia. I wouldn't think that space would be a terrible constraint for Canada.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Canada has more area in total, but China and the USA have more land area specifically.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

finally we're catching up to metro tokyo's total population

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

With the population there now declining, it's not really a surprise.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Now we gotta get all 40 million to join Lemmy.ca 🀣

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

oof we'd need a beefier server!

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί