[waterlooman]

And if 28% population growth over 25 years results in insane housing affordability for younger generations, why are you still fine with that? I really don't understand this argument. You value total population growth and total economic growth over standard of living? Because with current trends it should be obscenely obvious that this approach isn't working.

Population growth (at a much lower more sustainable rate) can be incentivized by literally paying people more money to have Children. And did it occur to you that perhaps our low birthrate has something to do with the increasing lack of opportunity to improve in this country?

Finally, I am actually against the concept that the country must have constant population growth. Population growth comes in natural waves where some decades it will be high, and in others it will be low. The drop in birthrates many believe will cause a "sky to fall" scenario, which simply isn't true. It is parasitic to expect and demand constant population growth, especially at the cost of people's standard of living.

[otoburb]

>>Population growth [...] can be incentivized by literally paying people more money to have Children.

Some countries tried this approach with mixed results.[1] Given that we're both worried about the debt-to-GDP (i.e. profligate deficit spending by the federal and some provincial governments) I think the budgets are better spent attracting immigrants with skills, education and in many cases capital assets they bring to the country rather than baby bonuses.

Quebec still pays a baby bonus[2] but a Stats Canada study[3] showed their fertility rate over four decades was only 1.59 vs. Ontario's 1.46 -- still well below a steady-state no-growth replacement rate of 2.1.

>>And did it occur to you that perhaps our low birthrate has something to do with the increasing lack of opportunity to improve in this country?

This plays a role, but a lot of economic thinking (rightly or wrongly) finds a strong correlation between how developed a country is and declining TFRs even when there is a boom period of economic growth and opportunity.[4][5][6]

[1] https://www.prb.org/low-fertility-countries-tfr/

[2] https://www.rrq.gouv.qc.ca/en/programmes/soutien_enfants/pai...

[3] https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2018001/article...

[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255510/

[5] https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/events/pdf...

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

[waterlooman]

I am not sure what you are showing other than that you believe our population growth from mass immigration needs to continue despite the negative outcomes.

In 1985 our population was 25 million, and today it is now 38 million. Most of that population growth can be attributed to mass immigration. But we have no new cities or towns. We are simply crowding ourselves out of the minimal amount of cities and arable land along a southern strip that we can inhabit.

Also I don't think Japan is a negative example of population decline. They are an example of a country being able to maintain its standard of living, productivity, and its economy despite a stagnant population.

I strongly believe that if population growth through mass immigration continues (and mostly likely will), standards will continue to worsen across most of the country.

[otoburb]

>>I am not sure what you are showing other than that you believe our population growth from mass immigration needs to continue despite the negative outcomes.

Perhaps to put a more human perspective, I graduated with a STEM degree during a recession and it was horrible. Many classmates had their careers set back by many years.

If I have to choose again between prosperity and economic growth that seems to be strongly correlated with a growing and educated population via immigration vs. affordable housing coupled with few economics opportunities, I'll choose the first option almost every time.

There's no point being able to afford housing if there are no economic opportunities in the area. Detroit at its peak in the 1950s had a population of 1.8M and was the 5th largest city in America, but is now a shadow of its former glory due to various factors and it's population only 680K (37% of its peak). Incidentally, nearby Windsor seems to have experienced very gradual population growth (less than Toronto) but its economic prospects still look pretty bleak.

It seems like you believe something like that could never happen to Toronto because the Golden Horseshoe is one of the few habitable places to live in Canada, in which case we'll just have to agree to disagree on this counterfactual.

[waterlooman]

You are resting your pov on the assumption that more people = more and better jobs. This isn't necessarily true if there is an oversupply of workers to employers.