The Soon to come-- End of white Majorities in the US and Canada

[Wazzzup]

Opponents of Canada's wide-open immigration policy have good reason to complain. This country embarked on a massive social experiment in the early 1990s, when the Mulroney government opened the immigration floodgates. That experiment is radically altering the ethnic makeup of the population. Yet that decision was never properly debated. Has the time come for such a debate, or is it too late?



A report this week from Statistics Canada forecasting the country's demographic makeup in 2036 suggests it's too late. The transformation of Canada is already far advanced, and continuing. By 2036, the agency predicts, as many as 30 per cent of all residents will not have been born in Canada. Another 20 per cent of the population will be native-born, but with at least one immigrant parent. Since the vast majority of immigrants come from Asian or Pacific nations, within 20 years Canada will likely be as brown as it is white.[/quote]
However, I find this interesting

Conservatives should welcome immigrants. The Philippines, India and China accounted for 40 per cent of new arrivals in 2015. They are economically and socially more conservative than many of the native-born; many of them voted for Mr. Harper in 2011, and they are a natural constituency for the Conservative Party.

color may not be the issue but rather group values.



If canada becomes a more conservative country that is mostly non white, but its biggest minority group is skilled Asians How does that compare with where America is headed,-- becoming a more liberal country, that is non white majority with lower skilled Hispanics and blacks as its largest minority groups??



Something to consider.

[Anonymous]

Opponents of Canada's wide-open immigration policy have good reason to complain. This country embarked on a massive social experiment in the early 1990s, when the Mulroney government opened the immigration floodgates. That experiment is radically altering the ethnic makeup of the population. Yet that decision was never properly debated. Has the time come for such a debate, or is it too late?



A report this week from Statistics Canada forecasting the country's demographic makeup in 2036 suggests it's too late. The transformation of Canada is already far advanced, and continuing. By 2036, the agency predicts, as many as 30 per cent of all residents will not have been born in Canada. Another 20 per cent of the population will be native-born, but with at least one immigrant parent. Since the vast majority of immigrants come from Asian or Pacific nations, within 20 years Canada will likely be as brown as it is white.

However, I find this interesting

Conservatives should welcome immigrants. The Philippines, India and China accounted for 40 per cent of new arrivals in 2015. They are economically and socially more conservative than many of the native-born; many of them voted for Mr. Harper in 2011, and they are a natural constituency for the Conservative Party.

color may not be the issue but rather group values.



If canada becomes a more conservative country that is mostly non white and its biggest minority group is skilled Asians How does that compare with where America is headed,-- becoming a more liberal country that is non white majority with lower skilled Hispanics and blacks as its largest minority groups??



Something to consider.[/quote]
Refugees are a natural voting block for the Grits. But, immigrants from Asia are more conservative than white Canadians. Shen Li posted something about Chinese who had been in Canada more than ten or fifteen years voting Conservative by a wide margin.

[Wazzzup]

Opponents of Canada's wide-open immigration policy have good reason to complain. This country embarked on a massive social experiment in the early 1990s, when the Mulroney government opened the immigration floodgates. That experiment is radically altering the ethnic makeup of the population. Yet that decision was never properly debated. Has the time come for such a debate, or is it too late?



A report this week from Statistics Canada forecasting the country's demographic makeup in 2036 suggests it's too late. The transformation of Canada is already far advanced, and continuing. By 2036, the agency predicts, as many as 30 per cent of all residents will not have been born in Canada. Another 20 per cent of the population will be native-born, but with at least one immigrant parent. Since the vast majority of immigrants come from Asian or Pacific nations, within 20 years Canada will likely be as brown as it is white.

However, I find this interesting

Conservatives should welcome immigrants. The Philippines, India and China accounted for 40 per cent of new arrivals in 2015. They are economically and socially more conservative than many of the native-born; many of them voted for Mr. Harper in 2011, and they are a natural constituency for the Conservative Party.

color may not be the issue but rather group values.



If canada becomes a more conservative country that is mostly non white and its biggest minority group is skilled Asians How does that compare with where America is headed,-- becoming a more liberal country that is non white majority with lower skilled Hispanics and blacks as its largest minority groups??



Something to consider.

Refugees are a natural voting block for the Grits. But, immigrants from Asia are more conservative than white Canadians. Shen Li posted something about Chinese who had been in Canada more than ten or fifteen years voting Conservative by a wide margin.[/quote]

I remember her posting about this, but I didnt see the big picture as clearly.  I could be wrong, but this is a much better situation for you guys IMO.  



Unfortunately I see no similar good news for America.  Our imigration policy is headed toward making America much more leftist, lower skilled and probably much more susceptable to tribal balkanization and division.  As you said Herm, unless something changes our course, the United States is in serious trouble.

[Anonymous]

I would guess most Korean Canadians over the age of thirty five vote Tory. Moves, like the rapid minimum wage increases by our provincial premier don't discourage that among Korean small business owners in Ontario.



Remember the old joke about the man who kills his parents and then complains he's an orphan?



Something like that unreal grievance applies to Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne's verbal attack on the families that founded Tim Hortons, some of whom still own a franchise. Recall how Ron Joyce Jr., and his wife Jeri Horton-Joyce, recently scrapped paid breaks for employees and will require them to pay for half their health and dental benefits. The move came in response to a 17 per cent increase in Ontario's minimum wage, to $14 from $11.60 on New Year's Day.



In response, Wynne claimed the franchise owner's move was "a pretty clear act of bullying."



The Wynne Strategy: Punch and redirect



Wynne's politically inspired verbal punch allows her to redirect public attention from the real cause of such cuts in employee benefits: her government's policies which have driven up costs for everything for power to pay and unsustainably so for most business owners. Unlike politicians who run red-ink deficits forever, business must remain in the real world. They can't endlessly pay out more than they bring in at the till. That would lead to bankruptcy.



I digress, but let's consider some of the arguments advance in favour of the recent—and rather high—minimum wage hikes.



One is that Ontarians cannot live on $11.60 an hour. Let's call this the pretend-moral argument given it starts with a "should" as opposed to what's possible. (It's akin to telling a blind man to see but without the help of divine intervention.) Such assertions are of little help if the economics of a business such as cash flow or consumer's abilities to pay higher prices are ignored.



To grasp this, forget statistical outliers like the son or daughter of the Tim Hortons founders. Instead, imagine most small business owners. Ponder a small sandwich shop with 10 employees who each work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks annually at minimum wage. Do the calculations back to last September when Ontario's minimum wage was $11.40 and the extra cost is $52,000 annually, a 23 per cent cost increase for that business in just three months. It's also more than the cost of two jobs at that sandwich shop.



That increase is why the Bank of Canada—a source the Wynne government will find difficult to dismiss—warns 60,000 jobs in Ontario and across the rest of the country may vaporize: because small enterprises can't simply spend more on wages, on demand by politicians, much as some might like to operate in such a fantasy land.



To wit, the notion that a business owner and/or consumer should just "pay more" is a magical concept disconnected from reality; there is no guarantee consumers will show up to pay almost one-quarter more for their food now than they did four months ago. Nor are most small business owners awash in cash flow and profits: For some, that extra $52,000 might have been the salary an owner paid herself last year. Now that's gone and she is supposed to work for free?



In general, the focus on the minimum wage skips two useful issues:



First: Is it the best way to help the working poor? Answer: no, because the policy ignores the need for productivity gains and cash flow if wages are to be raised; it also ignores how targeted help is always better than virtue-signalling by governments using other people's bank accounts.



Second: If politicians really wish to help those with minimum skills and poor job prospects, here's some advice: stop killing blue-collar employment relative to the geographic or natural advantages that exist in those same provinces.



That includes manufacturing  jobs in Ontario killed off by ever-higher power prices and well-paid resource sector jobs in B.C., Alberta, Quebec and in Atlantic Canada—oil, gas, mining and forestry exists in all those places—that get killed or are never created in the first place because of government policy and/or chronic opposition to development.



Consider, when Alberta's energy sector was allowed to thrive, the minimum wage debate in Alberta was peripheral. Between 1997 and 2014, just 1.7 per cent of Albertans made the minimum wage, the lowest proportion in the country. That's because investment was gushing into the province. With help-wanted signs everywhere, employees—not employers—had the bargaining edge. Also, the investment flows meant high wages were sustainable. (For the record, the oil and gas sector has recovered south of the border where investment-killing carbon taxes are absent and protests et al. have less effect on that industry.)



Politicians who care to help the working poor and boost low-income wages should enact policies that allow entrepreneurs to flourish in their provinces. That's what drives sustainable wage growth, not politically contrived, economically anti-reality policy which destroys jobs. Or, when coming from the Ontario premier, is also accompanied by the fake cry of a self-made "orphan," a premier who blames businesses forced to grapple with burdens imposed by her own government.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/kathleen-wynne%E2%80%99s-minimum-wage-math-doesn%E2%80%99t-add-up/ar-BBIaIPl?li=AAggNb9&ocid=mailsignout">https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/k ... ailsignout">https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/kathleen-wynne%E2%80%99s-minimum-wage-math-doesn%E2%80%99t-add-up/ar-BBIaIPl?li=AAggNb9&ocid=mailsignout

[Frood]

I would guess most Korean Canadians over the age of thirty five vote Tory. Moves, like the rapid minimum wage increases by our provincial premier don't discourage that among Korean small business owners in Ontario.



Remember the old joke about the man who kills his parents and then complains he's an orphan?



Something like that unreal grievance applies to Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne's verbal attack on the families that founded Tim Hortons, some of whom still own a franchise. Recall how Ron Joyce Jr., and his wife Jeri Horton-Joyce, recently scrapped paid breaks for employees and will require them to pay for half their health and dental benefits. The move came in response to a 17 per cent increase in Ontario's minimum wage, to $14 from $11.60 on New Year's Day.



In response, Wynne claimed the franchise owner's move was "a pretty clear act of bullying."



The Wynne Strategy: Punch and redirect



Wynne's politically inspired verbal punch allows her to redirect public attention from the real cause of such cuts in employee benefits: her government's policies which have driven up costs for everything for power to pay and unsustainably so for most business owners. Unlike politicians who run red-ink deficits forever, business must remain in the real world. They can't endlessly pay out more than they bring in at the till. That would lead to bankruptcy.



I digress, but let's consider some of the arguments advance in favour of the recent—and rather high—minimum wage hikes.



One is that Ontarians cannot live on $11.60 an hour. Let's call this the pretend-moral argument given it starts with a "should" as opposed to what's possible. (It's akin to telling a blind man to see but without the help of divine intervention.) Such assertions are of little help if the economics of a business such as cash flow or consumer's abilities to pay higher prices are ignored.



To grasp this, forget statistical outliers like the son or daughter of the Tim Hortons founders. Instead, imagine most small business owners. Ponder a small sandwich shop with 10 employees who each work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks annually at minimum wage. Do the calculations back to last September when Ontario's minimum wage was $11.40 and the extra cost is $52,000 annually, a 23 per cent cost increase for that business in just three months. It's also more than the cost of two jobs at that sandwich shop.



That increase is why the Bank of Canada—a source the Wynne government will find difficult to dismiss—warns 60,000 jobs in Ontario and across the rest of the country may vaporize: because small enterprises can't simply spend more on wages, on demand by politicians, much as some might like to operate in such a fantasy land.



To wit, the notion that a business owner and/or consumer should just "pay more" is a magical concept disconnected from reality; there is no guarantee consumers will show up to pay almost one-quarter more for their food now than they did four months ago. Nor are most small business owners awash in cash flow and profits: For some, that extra $52,000 might have been the salary an owner paid herself last year. Now that's gone and she is supposed to work for free?



In general, the focus on the minimum wage skips two useful issues:



First: Is it the best way to help the working poor? Answer: no, because the policy ignores the need for productivity gains and cash flow if wages are to be raised; it also ignores how targeted help is always better than virtue-signalling by governments using other people's bank accounts.



Second: If politicians really wish to help those with minimum skills and poor job prospects, here's some advice: stop killing blue-collar employment relative to the geographic or natural advantages that exist in those same provinces.



That includes manufacturing  jobs in Ontario killed off by ever-higher power prices and well-paid resource sector jobs in B.C., Alberta, Quebec and in Atlantic Canada—oil, gas, mining and forestry exists in all those places—that get killed or are never created in the first place because of government policy and/or chronic opposition to development.



Consider, when Alberta's energy sector was allowed to thrive, the minimum wage debate in Alberta was peripheral. Between 1997 and 2014, just 1.7 per cent of Albertans made the minimum wage, the lowest proportion in the country. That's because investment was gushing into the province. With help-wanted signs everywhere, employees—not employers—had the bargaining edge. Also, the investment flows meant high wages were sustainable. (For the record, the oil and gas sector has recovered south of the border where investment-killing carbon taxes are absent and protests et al. have less effect on that industry.)



Politicians who care to help the working poor and boost low-income wages should enact policies that allow entrepreneurs to flourish in their provinces. That's what drives sustainable wage growth, not politically contrived, economically anti-reality policy which destroys jobs. Or, when coming from the Ontario premier, is also accompanied by the fake cry of a self-made "orphan," a premier who blames businesses forced to grapple with burdens imposed by her own government.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/kathleen-wynne%E2%80%99s-minimum-wage-math-doesn%E2%80%99t-add-up/ar-BBIaIPl?li=AAggNb9&ocid=mailsignout">https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/k ... ailsignout">https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/kathleen-wynne%E2%80%99s-minimum-wage-math-doesn%E2%80%99t-add-up/ar-BBIaIPl?li=AAggNb9&ocid=mailsignout

Well said but falls on mostly deaf ears these days.

[Angry White Male]

Every Western nation will eventually cease to be White, unless we take drastic action, but that will never happen.



Maybe we need a nation just for ourselves...  Something like Liberia, except for white people.

[Anonymous]

I would guess most Korean Canadians over the age of thirty five vote Tory. Moves, like the rapid minimum wage increases by our provincial premier don't discourage that among Korean small business owners in Ontario.



Remember the old joke about the man who kills his parents and then complains he's an orphan?



Something like that unreal grievance applies to Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne's verbal attack on the families that founded Tim Hortons, some of whom still own a franchise. Recall how Ron Joyce Jr., and his wife Jeri Horton-Joyce, recently scrapped paid breaks for employees and will require them to pay for half their health and dental benefits. The move came in response to a 17 per cent increase in Ontario's minimum wage, to $14 from $11.60 on New Year's Day.



In response, Wynne claimed the franchise owner's move was "a pretty clear act of bullying."



The Wynne Strategy: Punch and redirect



Wynne's politically inspired verbal punch allows her to redirect public attention from the real cause of such cuts in employee benefits: her government's policies which have driven up costs for everything for power to pay and unsustainably so for most business owners. Unlike politicians who run red-ink deficits forever, business must remain in the real world. They can't endlessly pay out more than they bring in at the till. That would lead to bankruptcy.



I digress, but let's consider some of the arguments advance in favour of the recent—and rather high—minimum wage hikes.



One is that Ontarians cannot live on $11.60 an hour. Let's call this the pretend-moral argument given it starts with a "should" as opposed to what's possible. (It's akin to telling a blind man to see but without the help of divine intervention.) Such assertions are of little help if the economics of a business such as cash flow or consumer's abilities to pay higher prices are ignored.



To grasp this, forget statistical outliers like the son or daughter of the Tim Hortons founders. Instead, imagine most small business owners. Ponder a small sandwich shop with 10 employees who each work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks annually at minimum wage. Do the calculations back to last September when Ontario's minimum wage was $11.40 and the extra cost is $52,000 annually, a 23 per cent cost increase for that business in just three months. It's also more than the cost of two jobs at that sandwich shop.



That increase is why the Bank of Canada—a source the Wynne government will find difficult to dismiss—warns 60,000 jobs in Ontario and across the rest of the country may vaporize: because small enterprises can't simply spend more on wages, on demand by politicians, much as some might like to operate in such a fantasy land.



To wit, the notion that a business owner and/or consumer should just "pay more" is a magical concept disconnected from reality; there is no guarantee consumers will show up to pay almost one-quarter more for their food now than they did four months ago. Nor are most small business owners awash in cash flow and profits: For some, that extra $52,000 might have been the salary an owner paid herself last year. Now that's gone and she is supposed to work for free?



In general, the focus on the minimum wage skips two useful issues:



First: Is it the best way to help the working poor? Answer: no, because the policy ignores the need for productivity gains and cash flow if wages are to be raised; it also ignores how targeted help is always better than virtue-signalling by governments using other people's bank accounts.



Second: If politicians really wish to help those with minimum skills and poor job prospects, here's some advice: stop killing blue-collar employment relative to the geographic or natural advantages that exist in those same provinces.



That includes manufacturing  jobs in Ontario killed off by ever-higher power prices and well-paid resource sector jobs in B.C., Alberta, Quebec and in Atlantic Canada—oil, gas, mining and forestry exists in all those places—that get killed or are never created in the first place because of government policy and/or chronic opposition to development.



Consider, when Alberta's energy sector was allowed to thrive, the minimum wage debate in Alberta was peripheral. Between 1997 and 2014, just 1.7 per cent of Albertans made the minimum wage, the lowest proportion in the country. That's because investment was gushing into the province. With help-wanted signs everywhere, employees—not employers—had the bargaining edge. Also, the investment flows meant high wages were sustainable. (For the record, the oil and gas sector has recovered south of the border where investment-killing carbon taxes are absent and protests et al. have less effect on that industry.)



Politicians who care to help the working poor and boost low-income wages should enact policies that allow entrepreneurs to flourish in their provinces. That's what drives sustainable wage growth, not politically contrived, economically anti-reality policy which destroys jobs. Or, when coming from the Ontario premier, is also accompanied by the fake cry of a self-made "orphan," a premier who blames businesses forced to grapple with burdens imposed by her own government.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/kathleen-wynne%E2%80%99s-minimum-wage-math-doesn%E2%80%99t-add-up/ar-BBIaIPl?li=AAggNb9&ocid=mailsignout">https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/k ... ailsignout">https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/kathleen-wynne%E2%80%99s-minimum-wage-math-doesn%E2%80%99t-add-up/ar-BBIaIPl?li=AAggNb9&ocid=mailsignout

Well said but falls on mostly deaf ears these days.

Maybe you are right DD, but I am going to keep preaching the gospel of free enterprise and less government.

[Anonymous]

Every Western nation will eventually cease to be White, unless we take drastic action, but that will never happen.



Maybe we need a nation just for ourselves...  Something like Liberia, except for white people.

There are a few of them. Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovakia.

[Lance Leftardashian]

Herman you need to celebrate the differences.

[Anonymous]

Herman you need to celebrate the differences.

You shouldn't hold your breath Lance.

[cc]

Actually, it's a great idea. He can start holding it now



 ac_smile

[Anonymous]

Actually, it's a great idea. He can start holding it now



 ac_smile

 

[Wazzzup]

Ted Kennedy's promises when he backed changes in American Immmigration in 1965

"First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.  Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same...



Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia...



In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think... The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."

fact check time

our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually

America now takes in over a million immigrants per year

the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset

The Hispanic population has tripled since the 1980s.  Three states, California, New Mexico and Texas are now majority nonwhite.  the entire country will become majority non white in less than 20 years.



http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/30/ted-kennedys-real-legacy-50-years-of-ruinous-immigration-law/">http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ation-law/">http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/30/ted-kennedys-real-legacy-50-years-of-ruinous-immigration-law/

[Anonymous]

Ted Kennedy's promises when he backed changes in American Immmigration in 1965

"First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.  Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same...



Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia...



In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think... The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."

fact check time

our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually

America now takes in over a million immigrants per year

the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset

The Hispanic population has tripled since the 1980s.  Three states, California, New Mexico and Texas are now majority nonwhite.  the entire country will become majority non white in less than 20 years.



http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/30/ted-kennedys-real-legacy-50-years-of-ruinous-immigration-law/">http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ation-law/">http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/30/ted-kennedys-real-legacy-50-years-of-ruinous-immigration-law/

Edward Kennedy was a Jew.

 

[Anonymous]

Herman you need to celebrate the differences.

I'll celebrate when I put your jaw through the back of your skull.