These are exactly the kind of immigrants any country should be desperate to have.
The majority of costs a person will typically have on a country are their initial K-12 education, and their health care costs later in life. Immigrants like these will never cost the government that first major cost.
At the same time, they are far more likely to have higher than median salaries when employed. That means higher taxes paid.
So from a purely economic point of view, an H-1B immigrant is a perfect profit center for government taxes.
Meanwhile a Canadian who gets their K-12 education here, gets a highly government subsidized post-secondary degree, then moves to the USA to work and pay taxes there is a huge loss, economically.
We should shift our perspective on our native-born citizens. Because they're such a massive economic drain we should _stop_ investing in them completely. I know it sounds radical but hear me out. We can realize higher economic utility for our society if A) we stop all investments in non-skilled, non-working-age citizens and B) export those people who are a burden on our society (children, the elderly, the sick, people who enjoy EDM, you get it).
In this way Canada can achieve higher economic utility for itself. I'm imagining a system where everyone in the society is brought in on a temporary basis. They are imported after their post-secondary education and exported maybe 10 years before their retirement. In this way we avoid all the costs associated with having "people" in our country and instead we reap the economic reward of their labor!
I guess I shouldn't say "our" country. I would be exported fairly quickly... But! To those glorious (and brave) few on the executive committee entrusted to leading Canada Inc. through these difficult times, the society they get to inhabit will undoubtedly be the economic envy of the world!
And a computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross section of necessary skills. Of course it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition. Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time, and little to do. But ah with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say, twenty years.
You think our government respects people taking time to rear offspring? Of course not! They're not contributing their labour to our economy while being parents so we've structured the incentives to start families in such a way that they're driven back to work ASAP. Strictly speaking: having children is bad for our labour force and should be avoided.
This is the paradox of the child in modern society.
In terms of across the board consumption, there is nothing as productive as a modern child. Clothes, consumable goods, travel sports, recreations, hobbies, and diversions all lead straight to the consumption that is so vital to our economy.
And yet, with sicknesses, evening activities, and other problems, there is nothing that disrupts an individual worker's productivity as a child.
I'm not sure I am smart enough to come up with an equation, but, it's in there somewhere to tell us whether a child is a net positive or negative influence on our Economy than the other.
> there is nothing that disrupts an individual worker's productivity as a child.
I have two kids and it isn't that bad at all. Very small loss of productivity for me except when I took parental leave for 3 months. I have grandparents that live nearby and they can help with sickness and other babysitting though.
I have a feeling a lot of people don’t have that kind of support network. I certainly don’t. If someone’s taking care of my kids, it’s me (or I’m paying them).
Just so happened that my family had to move for work, health, etc. I love raising my kids so it’s fine. It has been the equivalent of drop kicking my career against a brick wall occasionally, if I’m being honest.
My country quite literally needs every able bodied man or woman in the workforce.
People with university degrees sitting at home raising kids is almost treason at this point considering it was the government who paid for their education.
Can I ask which country you’re in? That’s an interesting consideration when education is publicly funded like that. Where I am, it’s a bit of a both… Public money is a major factor up until post secondary school, then it’s part of the picture but there’s also substantial private tuition — especially for international students. I’m not sure anyone considers a duty to their country really, despite how much public money makes their education possible.
For all those taking this seriously, the parent comment was sarcastic and this comment is almost a direct quote from Dr. Strangelove about how to repopulate the Earth after a nuclear apocalypse.
This is one of those situation where I wish there was a good loan-word like "schadenfreude": The dilemma of choosing whether to explain a joke/reference for those who aren't getting it, versus playing along and extending it.
@babyshake, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?
Fully agree on it. Kids are another great source of profit center that have not been fully utilized. Also we need to explore if un-exportable olds can be mined for parts. That would another win-win.
The person in the article applied because of health problems.
>Denise said she hasn’t cancelled her MAID application because she still suffers from painful chronic health problems that haven’t been properly handled.
She's not going around doing cartwheels, but in a civilized country she wouldn't be applying for medically assisted dying. Her health problems are, at least arguably, manageable in fairly straightforward ways via a rational medical system.
She'll never have healthy-millionaire quality of life, but this isn't what medically-assisted dying is meant for.
In this case what she recognized as the treatment is managed by something other than the medical system. I would assume this is the same in other places, unless doctors in Europe can write prescriptions for apartments.
Given the current zeitgeist, I feel there's only a 70% chance that's an autocorrupt of Alzheimer's.
Or did, until I saw the alternative font in the comment box and realised that's a lowercase L not a capital i.
My mum died of that. Technically liver or kidney failure from dehydration, but that in turn was from refusing food in the care home and not having the awareness to get liquids separately.
I think it was worse for us than it was for her, overall, though there were a few occasions where her self-awareness of the nature of her condition caused her unhappiness.
Happy we are making progress with that and other degenerative diseases. I just wish we all had the opportunity to choose how our life ends, not just for our own suffering but also for those that suffer for us.
There is a far gap between the conservatives fixated on vaccines and the people pointing out that they have a physical handicap and otherwise want to live but are not being given disability benefits to pay for rent and food and feel forced into signing up to be euthanized.
Nobody is being Forced into Euthanasia. I sincerely hope you and no one close to you ever has to consider this as an option, but if they did should they not have the dignity to choose?
I'm not disagreeing that there's problems to be solved around how to support our sick and disabled.
But the recent outrage over it is definitely an overreaction, and is being brought up by the same people that were complaining about vaccines and masks 2 years ago.
I think, in your response of sarcasm you are brushing over a lot of valid points the OC is making.
They're not saying that we should get rid of natural-born folks. They're just saying that often times the people who most want their nation to not allow other folks in, don't appreciate all of the things that those other folks provide for them. i.e. Immigration is subsidizing a lot of the things you probably enjoy about your life, and we should probably be considering it more as a blessing than a curse.
Nobody is trying to replace you. They're just trying to help you, and provide a better opportunity for their children once they've bought into the same system your parents bought into.
I'm trying to replace me! Humans are first and foremost economic units. Fungible and replaceable. There's absolutely no reason to prefer any one human over another -- except for their ability to produce economic output.
Society is a vain illusion for the true foundation of civilization -- economic produce. Things like care for the elderly or education of children only exist to maximize the future labor of the young and to deceive the middle-aged. We should cut these vestiges from our society and embrace a new future where only the economically gifted are permitted to remain.
I know at first this is hard to accept but its only through this radical, but sensible, plan that every citizen in Canada will be able to afford a Netflix account with password sharing.
There's a meaningful point at which I think humans are going to have a reckoning. I think the cause of that reckoning will probably be Climate Change, but maybe I'm wrong.
Regardless, we don't currently see ourselves as the same as everyone else on this planet. We're too stuck on competition and being better than everyone else that we don't realize the only way forward is gonna be to accept people for who they are. There are ways to be selfish that don't mean making everything worse for everyone else. We need to have a symbiotic relationship with ourselves that's at least commensalist, and ideally mutualist. The parasitism that has been our goto for all of human existence isn't going to cut it.
This type of immigration is strictly for economic and quality of life purposes.
It’s pretty bonkers to say people who immigrate to the US on H1-B visas are doing so out of an altruistic desire to “help” anybody but themselves and their families (not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
People seem to still prefer immigrating to the United States over Canada even though Canada’s immigration system is far more reasonable. They’re trying to scoop people up with policies like this but I think it’s worth taking a step back and reflecting on why that is. I think a big part of it is Canada’s cost of living especially wrt housing is even worse than the US’s and salaries are lower.
And I say this as an expat currently living in Mexico with a fair amount of Americans and Canadians. So this isn’t a pro United States comment, it’s just a reality check. The US has draconian immigration rules and hoops to jump through… but it seems like the demand is such that they can get away with it.
Yeah, I knew there'd be someone on here still terrified immigrants are trying to replace them. IDK what TF that even means, but I can promise you no one thinks that if they just remove all of the existing Canadians that they're somehow, ship of Theseus-style, going to have a brand new Canada.
And while they may not explicitly be trying to help you, their goals are such that "helping Canada helps themselves." Way more than you give them credit for. But that's okay, please join the fear-mongering of "the great replacement."
It's precisely the immigrants who come to a country like Canada, education already completed who pay for the investments for others. An adult Indian programmer costs the Canadian taxpayer nothing but contributes immense amounts, and is even more likely to start a business than a native.
This notion that Bob from Podunk rural Canada with an IQ of 80 competes with an immigrant with a PhD makes no sense. The latter finances the welfare of the former. You need to create wealth first before you can redistribute it and keeping the strongest wealth creators out of the country is one of the stupidest damage you can inflict on yourself.
This sarcasm drenched replacement fantasy is the exact opposite of reality. Only if you have a strong economy you can continue to maintain public welfare.
That's incorrect, Canada has literally published data on the question:
"Garnett Picot and Yuri Ostrovsky revealed based on data from 2016 that immigrants are 41.7 per cent more likely than Canadians who were born in Canada to either start a business or be self-employed.[...]Leaving aside self-employment, immigrants were found to be 30 per cent more likely to own a privately-incorporated business that provided jobs for others than were native-born Canadians."
And maybe even more important, from US data:
"Immigrants have started more than half (319 of 582, or 55 per cent) of America’s start-up companies valued at $1 billion or more,"
IIRC among AI related startups the number of immigrant founders or co-founders is even close to two-thirds. Attracting top tier human capital is pretty much North America's greatest advantage.
I'm referring to Indian Programmer who came to Canada to start their own company to stay with the context.
Not "in general, Immigrants formed corp more than Canadians born in Canada".
US is different. Cost of business in Canada is high due to red-tapes and lower RoI than US (plus less Capital to go around).
The romanticization of Indian programmers creating a successful tech company in Canada (just like they did in US) is just that for now, romanticization.
Indian, specifically Punjabis, done better as Entrepreneur in non-tech in Canada.
You kid, but it’s a valid argument. I’ve known a good few Canadians over the years who went down to the U.S. for work experience and some have even lost their PRs because of some newer policy requiring that they spend half their time in Canada. It’s something that really backfired hard. I’m actually really sad and disappointed for Canada that it is like this. Historically it’s much easier to leave the country than enter it if you’re a skilled person.
This is a big deal. Back in the early 2010s, software developers moving to SF pretty much willed into existence the tech industry up there. Before then, companies would start in SF and move down to the valley. If skilled folks want to move to your area, it can be a boon, and if I’m not mistaken, Canadian tax policy is better suited to redistribute the gains from that than U.S. tax policy.
> some have even lost their PRs because of some newer policy requiring that they spend half their time in Canada.
Not a new policy. Gotta put in your time as a PR to qualify for a citizenship (that mostly can’t be taken away from you ever).
It anything, the physical presence requirements have been diluted because politicians realize they’re more likely to get your vote if they have you citizenship.
So the point your making is that the government shouldn't concern itself with increasing the number of citizens that are net contributors to the system?
I have two words for you. Tundra. City. That's right; we did it. We took the Canada you love and made it _more_ Canada. Up to _twice_ as cold as the previous generation of cities. More that _six_ times as remote. No other competitor is offering this kind of performance. I want to be clear this is a _generational_ leap over the competition. We're at least five years ahead of other major countries. And, boy, you better believe we patented it!
I'm picturing a rail line that just goes north, and in every town along the way the people are a few years older than the last. You can still live wherever you want, but the subsidies for your age group make it a sweet deal to keep moving down the line toward Centenarian City. Known for its large glue factory and landfills.
> How can you export the people who are a burden? You can’t leave them stateless.
Sure you can. The only reason nations avoid allowing people to become stateless is an appreciation of the burden that places on those people. But if we're pursuing a modest proposal where the government shifts its perspective to focus on "realize[ing] higher economic utility for" itself, that becomes less a concern.
At the very minimum you can "export" those low-economic-utility people by sticking them them on a barge and towing it to well into international waters where the currents will take it away (and if you're a nice government, just outside the territorial waters of some other country).
As you know, its impossible to prove a negative, so who's to say they won't wash ashore a luxurious beach resort where they will be welcomed with daiquiris and sexual favors?! I say give them this once in a lifetime chance!
I hear Britain is taking all types and putting them up in 4 star hotels, as long as you land on a British beach by a boat. Just chuck em all that way, problem solved.
"A young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout."
Have worked with quite a few H1-Bs with absolutely no special skills. Large off-shoring firms soak up quite a few of them for people coming out of degree mills.
The only advantage to businesses is that these people are modern indentured servants, due to their immigration status being dependent on their employer. I'm all for getting rid of that but I also think there should likely be a smaller number with a salary based bidding system (e.g. if you aren't paying in the 80th percentile or above for a person in the industry of that age, you're not getting H1-Bs, and yes age not years of experience since the latter is easily fudged). Otherwise, it simply continues to be a way for companies to suppress wages.
Then theoretically, these changes for H1-Bs should both protect them from the indentured servitude, and by removing that leverage, remove the motivation for H1-B abuse.
If companies can't bring someone over that they can overwork and underpay at threat of deportation, they'll rethink the MBA-brained "optimizations" and be forced to create a more resilient workforce rather than a loose collection of people to rugpull every time the rate of profit increase dips by .0004%.
These days H1B is strictly a wage suppression tool and filled with low skill workers from India based degree mills and body shops. Actual skilled workers are coming in on L-1 or O-1 visas.
The issues are complex - but one of the side affects are indeed artificial suppression of wages for citizens.
We have software titans bursting at the seam with imported labor - yet our domestic universities are also churning out more CS graduates than ever before. Some of these graduates are indeed from foreign countries - but not all.
It's very hard to believe companies need to import labor for commoditized software engineering positions when there are plenty of available workers already here.
We should be importing top-tier talent - the types of folks that are working in complex fields, inventing new fields, developing things that haven't been done before, etc. We should not be importing basic CS graduates and filling basic SE jobs.
H1B's are often cheaper to hire, and do not enjoy the same mobility freedoms a citizen does. In some ways, they are beholden to their sponsor company, and whatever wages that company offers - which may not necessarily be market wages.
Clearly H1Bs are suppressing wages as proven by the fact that software engineers have seen wages rise more than any other job profile in the country for over the past decade.
Just as much reason to believe it would be lower than higher. There aren't a fixed number of jobs. A talented engineer who comes to America can go on to start up his own company (and there are many examples of this occurring), creating many more high-paying jobs for other engineers. A company that fails because they can't hire enough engineers puts the engineers they do have employed out of work.
I don't claim that H1Bs have the effect of increasing pay, but rather that their effect on pay is non-obvious, and any assertion that they do depress wages should be backed up by evidence.
> Just as much reason to believe it would be lower than higher.
That seems like some wild calculus. Fewer people willing to accept lower pay and be stuck at a specific company = higher pay. There's no other way to make the math work, particularly for extreme-demand positions like SE.
> I don't claim that H1Bs have the effect of increasing pay, but rather that their effect on pay is non-obvious, and any assertion that they do depress wages should be backed up by evidence.
there would be fewer/no startups and fewer jobs with less wages, as H1Bs themselves create jobs via startups and product development at traditional companies.
if you carefully look at silicon valley companies (even large ones) - most of product R&D and IP and innovation comes from immigrants. Native born americans are mostly working in admin jobs like HR, Admin, Sales, Operations, Finance, etc
R&D is exactly who H1B is supposed to be for - ie. highly skilled, specialized, and educated positions. Not regular SE jobs.
If you look at your Googles, your Facebooks, your Microsofts, you will find a glut of H1B's working regular SE jobs, such as maintenance and feature development. That's exactly who H1B's are not supposed to be for - and that is the issue.
Mega corps laying off huge engineering teams while simultaneously importing more H1B's tells you everything you need to know. Follow the money, as they say.
Most companies call a significant amount of their SWE work as R&D. R&D isn’t always “inventing totally new things” but rather closer to “an investment of resources in which there is some amount of novelty and for which the outcome is uncertain”. A lot of SWE qualifies for that, even software that we’d consider fairly mundane and un-exciting.
H-1B is for regular skilled immigration, those with bachelors degrees or equivalent, e.g. regular software engineer jobs. For more highly skilled, specialized, and educated positions there exist O-1, EB-1, and EB-2 NIW visas.
Guarantee it's below average at most outsourcing firms. They may play games like advertising a position as a "junior engineer" but require 10 years of experience and then bill clients for a senior engineer but, knowing the billing rates for several vendors, there's absolutely no way they pay market rates.
You understand that immigration is fundamentally different from standard supply and demand? Immigrants create both supply and demand. Producing more eggs doesn't increase the demand for eggs.
The parent post doesn't dispute that - it's just adding that in addition to the plenty of skilled engineers part there are also a bunch of low skill workers from degree mills coming as well.
Even if that was true, that would be absolutely fine. Getting one Jensen Huang, Satya Nadella, Lisa Su, Sundar Pichal, etc. would make absorbing 10,000 or even more low/mediocre skilled workers along with them worthwhile. The technological and economic benefits makes it a no brainer.
Jensen Huang emigrated at the age of 4, Lisa Su at the age of 3, Satya and Sundar both came over as part of college visa programs.
I don't see what that has to do with mass importation of low skill workers to hammer down high middle class wages in the US?
They might have moved here as part of college visa programs but they needed H1B to work and build their skill set. The college visa (F1/ J1) does not come with a work authorization beyond 3 years.
The H-1B situation is also a problem for people who come from overseas to study for their degrees in the U.S. They get F-1 OPT, and join US companies that then cannot retain them because of the over-subscription of the H-1B.
It's also bogus to say that H-1B is more problematic than L-1B for body-shopping: all the well organized body-shops do massive amount of intra-company transfers.
In theory yes but if the premise for why we allow disproportionately large immigration from certain countries is that we're bringing in unique skills, and we decide that premise is flawed, then it would also be cause to reevaluate the immigration policy.
If you’re already in the US and eventually want a GC (typical Us graduate), both of those are not very good option and H1-B is better bc of its dual intent.
If the visa does not require sponsorship from a company (like the current H1-B does), does that help reduce the 'indentured servants' part and lessen the appeal of it for certain types of companies?
It is always a matter of perspective. As a tech worker, the average H1-B worker you know is probably close to the average of the other tech workers you know like you.
But you have to compare their skills and education to the global average of society to understand the benefit they bring.
As a patriotic American, I applaud Canada's plan. The H1-B is a badly run program in many ways, it is a vehicle for large tech and staffing firms to commit graft, entrench their market dominance and enrich themselves, by exploiting H1-B workers and pitting them against Americans. Like so many things it masquerades as beneficial for America but in reality the benefits accrue mainly to the small parasite class which makes the rules and revolves between Washington and private industry.
If what's needed to shake this program up and shine a light on the corruption is some competition from our neighbors to the north, sounds great to me. Maybe Canada should extend this program to Americans who don't have health insurance, too. The resulting surge of expatriates just might force the parasite class to rethink America's archaic and corrupt health care system as well.
>”The majority of costs a person will typically have on a country are their initial K-12 education, and their health care costs later in life. Immigrants like these will never cost the government that first major cost.”
Something about this is horribly depressing. It’s bad enough that the private sector is doing everything humanly possible to maximize profit.
It makes me wonder what the point of citizenship is if government officials and elected representatives see the cultivation of those born in the country as more expensive and burdensome than just bringing people in. And, it sounds like the government is more interested in higher salaries for new arrivals than longtime constituents.
And it’s not like this is sustainable either. All these much more profitable immigrants are going to become settled and have their own children, who will then become just as expensive to educate.
It's not as simple. My country (UK) has skilled workers visa that has wage requirement set often at half the market rate for given job. For instance, company can pay a software developer as little as £35k.
Given that it is much more expensive to gain skill when you are a native, the government somewhat pulled the rug from underneath the locals who spend a lot of money to go to uni etc and were hoping to have a decent return on their investment in education.
This also creates disincentive for locals to learn these in-demand skills.
If you combine this with the fact that companies can rent out these cheap workers at £500 or more a day, while avoiding paying taxes it is a poor deal that only benefits big corporations.
I mostly agree but 'half the market rate' glosses over a lot of things.
For example, according to WhatUni [1], the average computer science graduate salary after leaving uni is £27K. Even after a year or two of pay increments, the average (median? not sure) CS graduate could be earning less than the £35K threshold. It's not just the "unis" that deserve double quotes with this kind of salary range: Exeter is Russell Group, but the same site says their graduates have a £28K average starting salary.
Staying with Exeter, their 2023 pay scales [2] have postdocs starting at £31K, and lecturers in the £40K-50K range; by the time you're earning double of £35k, you're well into associate professor territory.
Sure, you won't get a good senior developer for £35K. But if your business model is lots of juniors and high churn, you'll get plenty of people in that range.
Now consider that why would company hire a CS graduate for £27k, if they could get a seasoned developer who will be happy to work for £35k and get the foot in the door? Also see that the threshold for a web developer is only £26.8k.
Please won't you think about the economic utility of this arrangement? There's more to life than "concern" and "care" for your relatives, neighbors, and the "next generation". What about money? We can make _more_ money this way. I know _you're_ not making more money but have you considered that you just didn't work hard enough? Maybe if you immigrated to Bangladesh you could re-tread tires while you studied computer science. One day you might earn yourself an H1-B visa in the UK. I hear that's a nice country.
>Given that it is much more expensive to gain skill when you are a native
We can go abroad to study it for much cheaper. Alternatively, foreign nationals can come to study here: they'll pay twice as much as us to do so. Our higher education is subsidised. Likewise, we don't have to work in this country. Immigration is not a one-way system.
The number of companies that can sponsor a Tier 2 Visa is limited. Those that do have to pay £1000pa for each individual they sponsor. The individual themselves will have to pay >£600pa to subsidise the NHS for you and me.
We no longer have the Resident Labour Market Test - it was abolished because unemployment rates were extremely low - but most people who have passed the 2 year curfew to be allowed to take an employer to tribunal are in a job where their employers first had to prove the job couldn't be filled by local talent.
Perhaps the government should update the SOC code for software engineers to be higher. They determine the going rate to hire into these 'skilled occupation' roles.
Right, someone will go abroad to study cheaper only to come back and get a poor wage. Sure.
> The number of companies that can sponsor a Tier 2 Visa is limited. Those that do have to pay £1000pa for each individual they sponsor.
Tier 2 visa has been replaced by Skilled worker visa and there is over 80,000 companies registered as sponsors. The £1,000 pa is nothing if you take into account how much profit company can make on such worker.
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody starts suggesting this. Since the rulers have determined that it is better to hire foreigners as it is so expensive to educate locals, then it shouldn't take long before a business genius comes up with the idea to send all native children to these foreign countries at birth, to be educated for cheap and then sent back to work. I mean, it only makes business sense, doesn't it?
Yes: his wage is artificially depressed by "market conditions" due to the willingness of foreign workers to make less. This is especially harmful to entry level developers who haven't had time to build up a niche/profitable specialty.
> So from a purely economic point of view, an H-1B immigrant is a perfect profit center for government taxes.
It is just all things being equal and they are specially not equal in this case.
If they were so great countries producing them would have used them for no-downside profit but it is not happening. US being hub of thousands of high tech companies also not finding much use of them lately.
I guess good on Canada for finding such a profit booster in times of economic downturn.
The problem is that for a productive H-1B holder in the US, they have no incentive to move to Canada if they're already doing well. Canada's wages will be less than half of what they would get in the US and healthcare in the US is better if you have good insurance.
What's more likely to happen is the people who take Canada's offer will be the ones that were let go for performance reasons or have other productivity or efficiency issues.
While I would agree with you in an otherwise normal year, in the year of layoffs, this policy may be the kind of fast-thinking that actually makes sense.
Or those from the wrong country with extreme green card waiting times, those who roll the wrong lottery number, or were working at companies that went under.
Man this applies to me. I got an bioengineering degree and had to go to the US to find work. I started at $30K in the US and now I'm up to over $350K/yr. Would love to come back to Canada but the horrible expereince of applying for over 100 jobs and no interviews was disheartening.
5 years to Canadian citizenship is a strong reason to stay. Indians on H1B in the US are looking at about 7-10 years for a Greencard, and then an additional 5 years after that for citizenship.
As a datapoint: I immigrated to the US in 2008. After 5 years on an F1 visa and 10 years on an H1B, I'm still at least 10 more years away from being freed from the immigration and visa hassle.
Could it be because you and I both know that FAANG companies' Canadian offices are basically places to stash those who cannot and will not ever get US visas, plus the occasional native Canadian who does not want to move to the US for family reasons?
> and overestimating how high salaries in the US are compared to Canada
As an American STEM worker in Canada: salaries are definitely higher in the US. Not even close in some cases, easily a 40%
difference for high-end roles. And while COL is high in SF or NYC, it's just as crazy in Greater Toronto or Vancouver but the salaries have not kept up.
Make no mistake, you can still do pretty well, but I could probably double my salary if I moved back to the big US East Coast city that I'm from.
Long-term I'm not optimistic about the US economy and culture, and my wife wouldn't be a fan, so I'm willing to miss out -- but sometimes it stings knowing what options are out there.
I feel you, it can be hard knowing that you could be making more money across the border.
However, I don't know if I agree with you about SF and NYC being equivalent to Toronto and Vancouver. They're just not. We complain about rent in Canada, but SF/NYC rent is another level of bullshit. And general expenses are definitely more expensive as well, I know I feel it whenever I travel to the US.
The other thing is that in most US cities you have to pay for a car. That's just not true in Canada. This makes up a huge part of the income gap.
First, your answer has nothing to do with my question to xbonez about why, despite his being stuck in the US H-1B morass, he did not mention planning to take up this offer.
Second, your supposition of my under/overestimation has nothing to do with the factual composition of FAANG and other US tech companies' Canadian offices. As I said, they are a) mostly people who cannot and will not ever get US visas (i.e., those who didn't make the first hurdle that xbonez was lucky enough to cross), and b) a few native Canadians who for one reason or another don't want to move to the US.
I am a US citizen who moved to Vancouver from the Bay Area three years ago.
I took a small pay cut when I moved (from ~135k USD to ~125k CAD, after a few years of raises I'm over 140k CAD now), but certainly not cutting my salary in half. Yes, Canada has its issues, but I'm overall happier living here than I was in the Bay. We have a regional train system that runs every 3-6 minutes instead of the 15-20 you get from BART and better accessibility to the outdoors (I can get to a ski mountain on the bus). I had better accessibility to healthcare in California, but here I don't have to worry about being out thousands of dollars for healthcare if I get laid off.
I work for a smaller tech company founded and headquartered in Vancouver, but I've seen the big tech companies making huge investments in this city over the last couple years. Amazon is in the final stages of building a new tower that will house 6000 employees [0] and Microsoft recently moved into 75,000 sqft of office space and is working on another 400,000 sqft [1]. The tech industry in this city is booming and it's certainly not all driven by companies stashing employees who can't get US visas.
Can totally understand wanting to leave the Bay Area for a Canadian city or any other developed place. Personally I went to San Diego instead, and I'm happy with that.
Yeah it's definitely an A-tier part of the US. I would've settled for pretty much anywhere outside the Bay Area, but SD is even better than the nice parts of LA I used to live in.
> I took a small pay cut when I moved (from ~135k USD to ~125k CAD, after a few years of raises I'm over 140k CAD now), but certainly not cutting my salary in half.
125k CAD is 94k USD. Going from 135k to 94k USD is not trivial, and Vancouver is pretty expensive as well. Skytrain is pretty awesome though.
The relative costs didn't change for me significantly, I was paying 2600/month USD in rent in the Bay and 2700 CAD in Vancouver, so while it was a significant paycut if you look at the value in USD, the day to day wasn't noticeable.
So in absolute terms, you took a paycut, and in relative terms, you still had to pay more? I hope you really like Canada, because that sounds like a bitch slap to say the least.
Again, literally not true. There's plenty of people that would hate to live in the US, and much prefer Canada. Plenty of immigrants. Those people work in the Canadian offices.
I don't know if you know this, but the rest of the world considers the US to be kind of a terrible place. Sure, it might be better than home, but Canada is way better than both.
> There's plenty of people that would hate to live in the US, and much prefer Canada.
For what reasons?
Having worked with a lot of Canadians over the years, I've discovered that a significant number of them have this very negative perception of the USA that is not accurate. I can see a lot of these reasons being based on incorrect assumptions, especially when considering how educated upper-middle class people live.
I spent a lot of time in Toronto about 7-8 years ago and I couldn't imagine living there as an American. Everything is so expensive (housing in particular), traffic is terrible, the weather sucks, and my role in Canada paid like 25% less. The food was pretty good, but that's about it.
Sure mate, you can think the assumptions are incorrect, but you're clearly biased towards the US. Everyone else isn't. If a bunch of people are telling you they don't like your country, maybe believe them.
Sounds like you moved to Toronto and tried to live like you were in the US. No wonder you had a bad time.
I presume he's among those I wrote about, the ones stuck in Canada because they cannot and will not ever be able to get a US visa. And/or believes everything he reads in /r/worldnews and /r/politics.
Are you saying it's harder to get Canadian citizenship, and that's the only reason people go to the US instead? A lot of my college friends were Chinese-Canadian-Americans alleging that Canada was just their stepping stone to the US, but that's only my experience.
> A lot of my college friends where Chinese-Canadian-Americans alleging that Canada was just their stepping stone to the US.
Basically, yes. According to the Canadian government <http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2010002/article/11287-...> (table 1), for every two Canadian-born people moving to the US, one person born outside the US or Canada moves from Canada to the US. Given that during 2001-2006 20% or less of Canada were immigrants <https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/221026/g-a00...>, that implies that a Canadian resident born outside the US or Canada is about 50% more likely to move to the US than a Canadian native.
I've heard that New Zealand is similarly used by those seeking to move to Australia.
No, that's what the guy I'm replying to is saying. I disagree, plenty of people go to Canada as a first choice and love it there.
The Chinese Canadian thing does happen. It's usually 1st generation immigrants with very few ties to Canada and highly competitive families. They're parents usually barely speak English, and their entire families are still in China. Canada let a lot of Chinese immigrants come in during the 80s, and did very little to integrate them, and this is the result I guess.
I'm Canadian and every single Canadian with a computer science degree I know either has moved to the US or is actively trying to. We are essentially trading in highly skilled developers with low skilled ones, with some exceptions, of course
Well, I'm Canadian and I wouldn't move to the US over Canada so you can add me to the list! Now you know someone!
Also, most highly skilled Canadian devs I know just negotiate remote positions with US based companies. That's what I used to do: US salary living in Vancouver
> We are essentially trading in highly skilled developers with low skilled ones, with some exceptions, of course
The exact same thing happens across the board, as I cite elsewhere <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36512411>: The best Canadian scientists move to the US, while an equal number in absolute terms of (presumably not the top) American scientists move to Canada.
>Sure, it might be better than home, but Canada is way better than both.
Sorry to shatter your illusions, but historically, every year four Canadians move to the US for every American going the other way. According to the Canadian government, this has not changed in the 21st century <http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2010002/article/11287-...>.[1] According to Reddit, Texas is basically one step from Nazi Germany, but Texas is those Canadians' fourth-favorite state <http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2010002/t/11287/tbl002...>; if you exclude Florida and its retiree-heavy flow, it is their third.
From the Canadian-government analysis:
* "Canadian-born persons who emigrated to the United States between 2000 and 2006 were relatively young", with a median age of 31. Unsurprisingly, "Nearly two-thirds of recent Canadian emigrants to the United States were employed".
* They are also younger than Canadians in general: "Lastly, Canadians who emigrated recently were also generally very young compared to the Canadian population where the median age according to the 2006 Census was 39.5."
* Canadian migrants have become younger in recent years, implying that retiring is further decreasing as a cause of migration: "While the median age of all Canadians residing in the United States was 49 in 2006, the median age was only 31 for Canadians who emigrated between 2000 and 2006. In addition, many of these recent emigrants were of prime working age: over one-half (approximately 53%) were between 20 and 44 years of age. Only around 10% were aged 60 or older."
* While retirement was an important factor for Canadian migrants to Florida and Arizona, those states only received under a quarter of all Canadian migrants to the US, with correspondingly higher median ages.
According to that above-mentioned survey, if you are a Canadian scientist, there is a 16% chance <https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/37lgxg/the...> that you will move to the US. That's not "16% of all Canadian scientists that move out of the country move to the US". Let me repeat:
*16% of all Canadian scientists move to the US.
* They're also likely to be among the top Canadian scientists, too.
By comparison, 5% of all American scientists move to another country, of which 32% go to Canada, so about 1.6-1.7% total. Since the US has nine times more people, that means that in absolute numbers the 1.7% of American scientists is about equal to the 16% of Canadian scientists, but there is no reason to think that the 1.7% makes up the top tier of American scientists; why would the best move north of the border? In other words, the US is receiving the best of Canadian scientists in exchange for an equal number of its non-best.
[1] It is true that from 2010 to 2012—during which the Canadian economy genuinely performed better than the US's—70,000 Americans moved north while only 20,000 Canadians moved south <http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/americans-mov...>, but this still puts the per-capita ratio considerably in the US's favor.
You claim I'm the one with Reddit comments, but you're the one vomiting a bunch of numbers to support your stance at me hahahaha
Anyway, I'm not denying any of those things. That still doesn't mean people think the US is a good place to live. They think they can make more money there, and the tradeoff is worth it.
But there's also plenty of people for whom that tradeoff is not worth it. Those people don't use Canada as a stepping stone, they just like living there. Because the US is kind of a shithole.
"Meatball Ron's Floridian dystopia" has one of the highest share of immigrants living there of any us state. 21% of the state is immigrants. Compare to 27% California, and 23% NJ/NY. Given that NJ/NY and CA have the two largest cities in the country which are natural destinations, I actually think florida looks all the more impressive. Miami is large, but not LA / NY large.
Look... we get you don't like him, but his state is home to more immigrants than most of the country, and pulls above his weight. How about we let the immigrants decide what state best suits them?
Doubt it. It’s not only about money, and Canadian salaries are improving dramatically. I moved to Canada in 2019, already have permanent residency with plans to get citizenship this year. There are many non-monetary reasons to live in Canada (healthcare, Childcare for $10/day, etc).
All statements are true. The thing that is glossed over and usually just dismissed is the impact on locals and impacts those immigrants have on wages and unemployment rate.
If we trying to maximize profit for the government - that's correct.
On another hand, extra people would make extra pressure on the housing market (especially well paid developers, especially on the overheated market in Canada).
So, that means inflation and it is bad for the regular citizens. If before they needed to work forever to afford their own housing, now they would have to work even more.
To play devil's advocate: why should I care what immigrants my government is desperate to have? My government would probably love to deport me, a native-born citizen with disabilities. I'm not as valuable as a H1-B AI developer. So by this logic, what right do I have to stay here?
Canada does have an issue with brain drain. It's kinda funny how the US has awful K-12 education but world-class university and post-grad opportunities, so immigrants come here once they're almost ready to be productive.
H-1B and other immigration paths make sense if the goal is to collect the most tax money. But the country has to (at least somewhat) work by the will of its people. Even many immigrants who have gained citizenship are opposed to easing the immigration policy.
Yeah, I'm thinking of private schools too, but not many people go to them. Otherwise I would say the education is decent. End of the day, average American graduating grade 12 probably didn't get much. Everyone I know from other countries loves the US except for the K-12 public education.
There are (or were?) second or third world countries where private is the majority and only really poor people go to public.
Canada is doing this wrong. What will happen in practice is someone who lives in the US with an H-1B will move to Canada to get that "easy" job, all the while applying for jobs in the US. As soon as they find one in the US, they will leave again. This solution is a band-aid and Canada will be used as a doormat, as it often is.
No, unless there is a worker shortage which would push up wages in the shorter term but reduce the number of jobs in the longer term as companies flee to countries that have available workers, or implement automation.
Basically there isn't a fixed number of jobs. As you add people you need more jobs to provide goods and services for those extra people.
Totally not a scheme to keep wages suppressed and avoid having to pay market rates to people who are already in the country, and have the skills needed.
It’s also not a big risk at all as the US has basically already vetted them by way of the H-1B visa application. Really it's a win win and as you say, minimal cost.
Purely economic points of view were also used to justify slavery. Many times with exactly the same arguments that are used for labour migration today.
I've heard your arguments time and time again, and sadly most people think like this. Even though any economic advantage of labour immigration is mostly reaped by big businesses.
A society has failed completely if it depends on abusing foreign labour to function. Let's not pretend that they are hiring the foreigners because it would be too expensive for them to hire locals of the quality they need. You can either side with the employers and think that this is great, or you could side with the people and think this is wrong.
I was born in a place were the school children are in the absolute top of the world in their knowledge as measured and awarded by Pisa. And I know from hiring local people, that the youth there are smart, hard working and honest. At the same time it is a place where the media together with politicians and businesses continuously blast out how there is a "shortage of competent labour" and that they need more immigrants. The truth is of course that they don't want to pay. I think it's just audacious to claim there is a shortage of competence, when there is nothing wrong with the stock material. There is a shortage of willingness to pay a decent salary for labour. And there is a fairly high amount of hatred from older generations towards younger generations. A hatred that I have never understood, but it is there out in the open.
Nobody has the right to cheap labour. If your business cannot turn a profit without paying lower than market rate salaries - you are simply a failure. You don't go demanding more immigrants so you can cut wages. You don't go demanding child labour so you can cut wages. You have to improve your business or admit that you are a failure and close shop.
No sympathy for businesses and sectors that cannot survive without abusing labour. They are not needed.
The talk about expensive education for native children is completely false, and just weird. Children are not expensive to educate anywhere in the world. Education turns expensive because corrupt practices of the governments that administrate education. The same government that then turns around and says the country needs more foreign labour because their own children are too expensive and incompetent.
Let's compare it with a farm. The owner of the farm notices that he can get more milk to sell by not letting the calves have any milk, letting them die instead. So soon he has no more cows and he goes on buying more cows from another farm. "Great! These cows start milking right away, no need to feed them for a year like I would have to with those annoying calfs"
And so on the farmer keeps milking his cows dry and just buying more from his neighbours. All the while people are complementing him for what an economic mastermind he is and how horrible those calfs where that were just drinking all his milk. That is the idea that has taken hold today.
In my opinion this will only worsen Canada's tech scene, compensation bands for tech workers, and the type of work done here, while undermining our university system and local talent development. It will just push us more in a mediocre "near shoring" direction and undermine actual local innovation and discriminate against homegrown talent.
Here's why:
Remember that Canadian graduates from engineering/CS university programs here can go directly south to the US without much hassle under a TN NAFTA VISA. They have a lot of advantages over H1B holders.
So what this really ends up being is an exchange between local talent -- who will go south to where the salaries are much better under TN -- for immigrant talent that currently struggles in the US.
Remember that the local talent was developed under subsidy by Canadian universities. Our tuition rates are a fraction of the US private universities -- while being very high quality. And while they're not free, they are highly funded by the gov't. So... indirectly, we are subsidizing US tech employers with Canadian taxpayer dollars.
I've heard numbers as high as 75%, 80% for the number of e.g. University of Waterloo (highly respected CS/SWE school) graduates who go south after graduating.
Meanwhile H-1B type candidates who come up to Canada will likely be doing it only as a stop-gap before returning to the US; because compensation here is on the whole not competitive with the US, the US was the destination they likely had in mind in the first place, and the selection of employers and interesting companies here is far worse.
And this will only worsen the compensation gap between here and the US by flooding the market with talent; which will thereby encourage more of our own homegrown talent -- who wants to get fair compensation -- to go south ... along with a bunch of these H-1B holders. Vicious circle.
The structure of things are such that Canada has already simply become on the whole a "landing pad" for talent before they relocate to the US. This only further entrenches that.
While I'd say this was not the case for Google Canada (where I worked before) it is the case for most other large US-based employers. And the local companies are on the whole choosing to underpay and take advantage of fresh-off-the-boat talent from overseas at lower cost.
Most shops here aren't doing much of interest, and the VC community here is fairly insular and conservative. The kinds of businesses that will generally succeed here will be places that can take advantage of large work forces of 'meh' imported talent, while the high quality talent finds ways to get to Silicon Valley.
It's also not a great deal for the immigrants who come here; they will find that cost of living here is terrible while compensation rates are lower. There's already a growing recognition/bitterness among many that the Canadian gov't is selling an image of prosperity and potential to skilled immigrants that it can't deliver on when they arrive. And it used to be that at least one could hope one's children would prosper, but the state of the real estate market here is such that most will never able to own a home or get out of debt.
That said, remote work may change this somewhat for some. At least it has for me, giving me a wider pool of (American) employers to choose from.
All in all, I don't think this is much of a good move for Canada. Canadian employers need to learn how to compete with the US for quality talent by offering quality interesting work with better compensation that matches the insanely high cost of living in cities like Toronto or Vancouver -- cities with Bay Area real estate prices & rent but with compensation ranges far lower.
You clearly haven't been following the Canadian tech market. Salaries have been SKY ROCKETING the last 3y in Tech. Very reasons:
- Due to COVID and people being able to work from anywhere/choosing Canada. As as well
- Companies tired of US immigration system
- etc.
100k for senior was good 5y ago, nowadays 300-400k is very doable
> These are exactly the kind of immigrants any country should be desperate to have.
People of often having a cultural, religious and moral background completely different to more-or-less original value Canadians? How will that work?
Oh i guess by appeasing everybody to create that multicultural society with less & less identity of its own, just the same bland globalized aftertaste. The major Canadian cities beside Montreal and Quebec are already taken.
"Original value Canadians" sounds like a dog whistle to me but ignoring that, I grew up in a melting pot city and all of the different cultures intertwining ends up creating a unique culture in itself. LA is different from NYC. Seattle is different from Toronto. All of these cities have many different types of immigrants co-mingling but none of them are the same.
Eh, democratic values and norms are not universally held and essential to the health of a republic. The proper question is whether the inbound population is statistically different from the native one; in America, I’d argue immigrants strengthen our democracy.
The people I grew up with in North Carolina are much less committed to democratic norms than the immigrants I currently live with and among. As well, those "native" folks were virulently anti-intellectual and tormented me for loving mathematics and working hard to learn mathematics and computers, something very few immigrants seem to find sensible.
Many immigrants do come in order to work extremely hard to gain prosperity for themselves and their families, which honestly seems pretty in line with US values, but many come explicitly for the culture of freedom, freedom to do and think as they choose without having to constantly battle neighbors relatives over every little thing unconventional thing they want to do. They have given up the convenience of living near family, often given up the social status of being top in their society, for freedom, as embodied in the US culture of fast cars, eccentric geniuses, rock and roll, artistic and intellectual freedom and expression, and so on. The very living avatars of the US thirst for freedom, free of the entitlement and fear of hard work that seems to be a common outcome for growing up here.
I don't think it's surprising in all this debate about free speech on the internet over the last few years, a lot of the 'anti-free-speech' enforcers that Americans complain about are immigrants. To be frank, some of them like Vijaya at Twitter and Sundar Pichai at Google have expressed views on free speech (not the legal concept... the social one) that rightfully shock most Americans. And yet, when I've asked other H1B holders about how they view 'free speech rights' (A very basic American value) many of them seem to agree that their ought to be legal limits on non-threatening political speech! Most are shocked to learn the United States has no laws against shocking the public conscience (which are common in Asia and Europe).
Being a second-generation immigrant of Indian-American parents myself, I see how different the H1Bs are compared to my own family. My family left India because we were mistreated. Now, the very people that mistreated them are coming here and bringing their regressive values with them. We value the rights we have in this country because they were denied to us in the old country. We honestly need less skilled migration, or if we do have skilled migration, we need to show that those skilled migrants are from a class that is being oppressed in their own country. The last thing we need are high-status foreigners with the means and social capital to bring their own foreign values. Better to have poorer immigrants, like my own family, who adapt to the culture. Moreover, those who fled their own country don't need to be re-terrorized here.
So many times my dad has been told to basically go to hell by other Indian immigrants because we're not the right caste. Once we had a wife of coworkers pretend to feel ill just speaking to my mother because of the caste difference; in professional environments! Hearing white people speak about all these things in the abstract is one thing. Having them actually play out is another. To come to this country, you should have to prove that you were not a racist, casteist nutjob in your own country. And realistically, many Indians are going to fail that test.
I was about to respond similarly - original Canadian (children of past immigrants) may need to deal with an influx of immigrants. Immigration has more benefits than downsides especially for aging countries with low birth rates and the ability to pull highly educated immigrants is a net positive for a country and I haven’t got to the cultural benefits that they bring.
They don’t co mingle though. They segregate themselves into “Mexican neighborhoods”, “Indian neighborhoods”, etc. They marry and socialize amongst themselves.
Ignoring the inherent racism in your repeated use of "they", the second generation absolutely joins the "melting pot". Say what you will about Texas, I'm not sure I've ever encountered more mixed race/mixed culture couples than I did during a week spent in Houston. And I've lived in at least four different major US metros in my lifetime.
And what is your contribution to addressing that? It is easy to call entire groups of people "they", but they are people to and maybe the rest of society needs to welcome them with an open heart before they'll integrate.
I think you're overestimating how sensitive immigrants are to this stuff. Comarriage is way more about preserving their family culture than it is about finding someone accepting. Religion and spoken-at-home language will matter.
Sizeable chunks of some immigrant populations simply won't melt, which IMO is fine in a place like Canada or the US. They'll still work with everyone else, and I feel like profession and class are both way bigger dividers than ethnicity anyway. A white SWE probably knows more Indian SWEs than white janitors.
Religion is somewhat a concern, but it's completely dwarfed by issues around the religiosity of non-immigrant populations.
Speaking a different language at home is a really good thing. Kids are going to pick up English through immersion anyway, so they're going to turn out bi/multilingual. That's great.
So, most of my extended family is from the Middle East, mostly Christian with some Muslim in-laws. My understanding is that those immigrant groups are far more religious and traditional than the average non-immigrant (though less than the extreme parts), which of course I'm fine with cause they're my own. But I'm not sure what you're expecting from them.
I'm not expecting anything from them! Just pointing out that the actual problem with religion in, say, the US, is white Christian nationalism, with fundamentalist Islam a distant second.
(By the way, I do think immigrants integrating into society is a moral good! I'm very left-wing and it's one of my most conservative beliefs. But the burden of that should be on the hegemonic/native-born population, not on immigrant communities.)
I can understand this sentiment in many countries, but Canada is in the Americas, where very few families have actually been settled for long. So I don't get it.
- the primarily French and British traders with First Nations?
- the colonizing religiously oriented Europeans that committed genocide (forcibly removing all native children from their homes & putting them in schools where many died of neglect)?
- the over 600 current First Nations governments?
- the refugees Canada took in, from the Underground Railroad to the Kosovo genocide to today?
- post World War II Italians, draft-dodging Americans, a huge Irish influx, and before all of that Chinese immigration (which primarily built the railroads used to this day)?
Btw, what do you consider original Canadian values? Do you mean the Chinese exclusion in BC, which has lasted all the way into 1947? The genocide against First Nations people? The ongoing neglect of missing and murdered First Nations women? The significant Ukrainian population (the largest out of ukraine)? The generous refugee policy? The anti slavery stance which welcomed Underground Railroad refugees? The national railroad (from sea to shining sea) built by primarily Chinese labor?
Well yeah, so what? America already doesn't care a lot which cultures the immigrants are from. They just try to make it work, uphold the Constitution, and don't overly pander to anyone.
> People of often having a cultural, religious and moral background completely different to more-or-less original value Canadians? How will that work?
Most are not interested in western culture, they come here specifically for the salary, while maintaining the culture and social networks from where theyre originally from.
And there are 1.5 billion Indians and 1.5 billion Chinese people.
How that will work is: as they become the dominant culture your country will simply become either China west or India west.
In America they let the population of an entire state every year of immigrants into America.
I’m just saying “an entire states worth of immigrants are let in annually” may actually be not a very large number because some states are sparse. It is impossible to tell if the number reasonable to worry over based on this measurement.
> Most are not interested in western culture, they come here specifically for the salary, while maintaining the culture and social networks from where theyre originally from.
This is sometimes true, but irrelevant, because their children adopt the local culture and are fully integrated. This is anti-immigration red herring.
Right I forgot all people who immigrated from China live in Chinatown. All of them. Millions of immigrants, all living in Chinatown in one part of downtown.
I don't think Canada replacing its native workforce with H1Bs who got purged from jobs in the US will do much, if anything, to change the problems in the US. H1B staff are so entrenched now in companies like Mastercard, Chase, Citi, BofA, etc that they are the ones that do the technical screening and interviews. As long as those companies can easily get fresh approvals for H1bs (and they give lots of money to elected officials to retain that privilege), the only "qualified" people these H1B screeners will pass are other H1bs.
I would never live in the US, but I'm free to be angry at what the last 20 years of provincial and federal governments have done to this country -- especially the under-regulated real estate market which is out of control relative to the rest of the G7 and driven cost of living through the roof.
Not so much for me as I'm mostly mortgage free at this point, but for my kids someday, I despair.
That, and underfunding the health care system and underbuilding infrastructure
It's a corrupt and mediocre country. But it wasn't always like this. And no, I don't blame Trudeau. Both major parties and the entire corporate & political class are implicated.
It's just catching up with other big cities. Owning a house in London/UK, SF/US, SYDNEY/AUS etc. has been out of reach forever. Canada has a lot of challenges, as have other countries.
People in that thread are saying their retirement plan is MAiD (the new Canadian assisted suicide program). People talk about being depressed, sobbing regularly over how unaffordable things have gotten.
There are more posts like this in every major BC city subreddit as well as /r/britishcolumbia and /r/canada
Yeah, I lived in Vancouver until last year too. I'm aware of that kind of post, and many of my friends who recently graduated from uni worry about that too, but it's a stretch to claim they're sobbing and depressed and in tears over it.
Second, nobody is saying their retirement plan is euthanasia other than as a joke, or a dogwhistle.
No, people in software are currently mostly not at that breaking point (though they might get there). Maybe even most fresh graduates in (most) other fields whose optimism hasn't been crushed by the unceasing grind of day-to-day life with no progression.
I assure you a lot of people do break down over how hopeless it feels here. And I don't even think people are joking about MAiD as a retirement plan (and the people relying on MAiD as a retirement plan are also the people who support MAiD)
It's the people in their 30s who have no savings (I'm one of them). People in their 40s who work for <$24/hr and have had to rent at near-market for the majority of their time, for one reason or another. People who have been paycheck to paycheck despite busting their asses every day, and maybe even getting a bachelors degree that did nothing for them (again, I realize CS grads have been relatively unscathed here to date)
Vancouver has gotten much worse even in the last year, in terms of homelessness, mental health issues, rent prices, and overall affordability, so maybe if you moved away > 1 year ago you aren't even aware of how bad it's gotten.
I see where you're coming from and I agree, Vancouver can definitely feel soul crushing if you're not making a lot of money. There's huge problems with the city right now.
But I also think it's important to maintain perspective. Nobody is talking about killing themselves in retirement. This is literally not a thing. Don't pretend it is, it'll only make you depressed and susceptible to conspiracy theorists.
Vancouver sucks, but it's also the most desirable city in Canada. There's a reason real estate is so expensive and keeps going up, it's because people keep moving in.
You can replace Vancouver with any other city and your post would remain the same. Again, go touch grass and plug out of reddit, that shit isn't good for your mental health.
Vancouver is a WONDERFUL city by 99% of the world standard, that's why so many people CHOOSE to live here. Just like Canada is an amazing country.
I've been in Vancouver for 10y now, have lived in many other cities across the first world and wouldn't want to be anywhere else. It has its challenges like any other city
> Vancouver is a WONDERFUL city by 99% of the world standard, that's why so many people CHOOSE to live here. Just like Canada is an amazing country.
Well.. I've been in Vancouver for 10 years now also.
The city has gotten much worse.
I'm relatively privileged in that I'm able to pay bills right now, but many people aren't. I have so many friends working for less than $25/hr who are one renoviction away from homelessness (they can't afford the market rate).
And I have recently-homeless friends who have decided to live in their car rather than compete for rent.
Several friends on PRs have decided to go back to their home countries (India, Australia). Lots of young people who don't have parents to fall back on have left the city. Other friends have retreated to the interior or the island (though the affordability of everywhere in BC is abysmal right now)
I'm not saying there aren't more people coming than going (Canada's aggressive immigration goals have ensured that), just that most people who get here find it's a struggle.
> Again, go touch grass and plug out of reddit, that shit isn't good for your mental health.
I'm basing this on the experience of people I know outside of the internet, but obviously that's not something I can link to in Hacker News.
Most people I know IRL don't consider Vancouver a desirable place to live now. Perhaps more desirable for weather than other Canadian cities, but not on par with the major cities of other first-world countries (again, I have friends from other countries who have said this is why they were going back).
Right, and most that I do know do consider, including people who migrated recently from other cities in the world -- Sydney/AUS, Madrid/Spain, SF/US, Lon/UK. So anecdotes vs anecdotes huh ?
Have you read other reddits ? If you read the Amsterdam one, London, NY, Sydney.. it's all the same. It's a GLOBAL problem.
Life is much less affordable now than it was 10y ago. Nothing unique to Canada.
Go ahead and find me as many doom and gloom posts about the economy in Amsterdam as here... I'll wait. Looking at the Amsterdam sub, it looks like the number of posts from people freaking out about work/homelessness/affordibility has been relatively consistent (and low volume) over the last 10 years. Vancouver on the other hand...
I'm not denying it's a "global problem" in that many cities are affected.
Yes, many other west coast cities are having a tough time (though at least jobs pay more relative to CoL in every other west coast city... even SF).
But cities like Amsterdam aren't, and people struggling in Australia are largely doing so for different reasons (politics / social attitudes rather than economy). The minimum wage there is much closer to a living wage. My friend who prefers Vancouver for nature/vibe is going back to Australia to work so he can save up some money to come back with.
Edit: Interestingly, people in the Amsterdam subreddit seem to think that Amsterdam is overall better/more affordable than Vancouver:
> "As a Vancouverite that left for Amsterdam 11 years ago, moving to Vancouver is a horrible idea"
For the last year, the only time I've seen posts in /r/vancouver (from people who live here) talking about it being a great city, the praise is tempered by caveats about how it's going to be a struggle unless you're wealthy
You're delusional. There are people like your friend in Australia moving to Canada for the same reason.
Amsterdam has a wait list for one year for rental, there's zero availability, rents are through the rough and salary is way lower Vancouver for any tech person, apart from their tax credit in the first 3y you move there the taxes are bigger than here too, ask me how I know ;)
Well.. I brought receipts. Why don't you try doing the same?
I'm not talking about tech specifically, just overall liveability/affordability for the average person trying not to die on the streets.
Is there some reason people in the Amsterdam sub seem pretty content and the people who have lived in both Amsterdam and Vancouver think Vancouver is unaffordable?
Reddit isn’t receipt, in fact is basically the opposite of signal. Go live in Amsterdam and draw your conclusions — I’ve lived around and know:work with people from all over
In fact I would recommend you looking at other reddits that aren’t as bad of an echo chamber of whining — British Columbia , Coquitlam , Surrey , new Westminster
I work for a FAANG company where highly-paid full-time engineers will still complain in a similar fashion (yes even mentioning suicide occasionally). Moral of the story, a small chunk of people will always complain.
I've got nothing against Canada, but I do prefer the US.
How do you think governments fund themselves? Though taxes on consumption and income, as well as other things.
All immigration is GDP positive and incrementally increases tax income. On the other hand they increase the costs of providing services and infrastructure, but that is not connected to immigration per se, but economic and population growth. Unsurprisingly if the government makes money it also incurs expenses.
If you don't like immigration, say so, but don't try to blame them for government finances. Locals having children has the exact same effect, but it's even more expensive for the government. But in wealth countries people aren't having enough children, so immigration policies are used to maintain growth. You could do without them, but your economy would tend to shrink or stagnate along with the level of population over time.
Your logic is that governments depend on funding themselves by recapturing money that they print for circulation? That's adorable. They do recapture money by way of taxes and redistribute it to themselves, but they aren't limited in their self-funding by recaptured domestic currency.
Your immigration GDP logic isn't accurate. Immigration only increases GDP insofar as it increases foreign currency influx to Canada. Does it do this? Sure. But not in the prior implied rate and manner. More people making less domestic money doesn't magically increase GDP.
Blaming my critique of "more domestic labor = more government profit" talking point, typed without a hint of irony, on anything else is lazy. Especially combined with a warning not to critique that point.
As a Canadian farmer I struggle to grow my operation because there are 100s of other farmers lined up in front of me, champing at the bit to do the same, with not enough resources to go around. I could more than double the size of my operation without breaking a sweat. I spend most of my days working in tech because there isn't enough farm work to do. In fact, nearly half of all farmers in Canada have an off-farm job, with 68% of them working full-time off the farm.
Those who have bitten off more than they can chew likely think we need more farmhands, but they could also downsize and let other farmers pick up the slack.
As the environment policies kick in many farmers won't agree so someone has to take over.
Similar to what's happening in cities where companies can't find people as many people left, Toronto, so all your retail is immigrants. If someone grew up here 20 years ago and was making minimum wage they could buy a house, that same job doesn't even pay for a bachelor today, they have no incentive to stay.
Some of the policies that are passing will reduce your profits significantly and someone from another country will be willing to work for less.
What's the difference between a farmer and a farmhand? Like, why do you work in tech instead of being a farm hand on your surplus time? I assume since you are experienced, they'd offer you a good salary? Or is the matter not that they need farmhands, but more that they need cheap labour to exploit?
A farmer owns a farm business. A farmhand works for a farmer.
While it is not completely unheard of for farmers to also be farmhands, there is difficulty in that the farms will generally share the same busy seasons. Meaning that your employer will want you on the job most especially during the times you will want a vacation to work on your own farm.
For me, it is also questionable how much I want to help out the competition. While farmers are generally good spirited and try to work together for a greater good, there is still only so much resources to go around, and I want to see my business thrive. I'd jump in and help in a pinch, but to make it a career...
But it is also true that tech will pay me more than other farmers will. That certainly seals the deal.
That's what I'm getting at a little bit. Everybody wants to be the business owner and then demand that cheap labour should materialize, ready to work for them. Ideally working just during the season when they're needed and then get lost.
They need a constant stream of desperate people to abuse in order for that business model to work out - and I guess that's why farming historically has been the main industry for slavery. Or a family business where the profits of cheap labour one day ends up in the hands of the labourer when he inherits the farm.
> Everybody wants to be the business owner and then demand that cheap labour should materialize, ready to work for them.
I don't know if the labour is cheap, exactly. Tech is kind of an outlier among few other careers in the level of pay. I expect being a farmhand would still be my second best choice in terms of pay opportunity.
Of course, being the owner is more fun. The thrill of the gamble is like no other.
I'm sure that what you typed here is non-sequitur. Taxation is not government profit. If you have the ability to print unlimited IOUs for other people to exchange for goods and services, and you recapture a portion of what you distributed through taxation every time a transaction occurs, did you "profit"? No. You shrunk supply to raise the value of your IOUs. Taxation of domestically derived income is almost entirely a money supply mechanism. The government doesn't need to create more salaries to do this. They could simply encourage higher salaries (like tightening immigration), and if that wasn't enough they could raise taxes. They have other mechanisms of shrinking supply, as well. While tax money is also redistributed back to various government functions, governments commonly print non-tax money to fund their functions.
Labor pool immigration, in the context of an abundant labor pool, is what it has always been: weakening of labor bargaining, undercutting of market salary, and a separate slew of political motivations.
100m by 2050 reads like incoming feudalism. Best of luck with it.
Taxes have to be increased slowly or people complain. So instead of increasing Federal taxes we increase the gas tax so you see it in the cost of your food.
It's not so easy just to raise taxes. Raising salaries doesn't increase output, only gdp.
Taxation was tongue in cheek, but moreso our strategy is tax the blood out of immigrants to keep the country going, as really when you first come here, you don't earn much.
I am in a similar situation in a EU country, where I just live and pay taxes to, my income comes from a company located in another country.
The inefficiencies of the country where I live and the quasi-xenophobic sentiment towards foreigners (mostly Americans foreigners) made me decide to plan to leave.
I agree with your points, and I think that Canada will have to work smartly to retain those people otherwise they’ll end up leaving.
Canada won't do the work needed to retain them. Talking to lots of people it's mostly the combination of unaffordable housing (Canada has a far larger housing crisis than the US does with our two largest metro areas containing 25% of the country's population not having non-condo homes under $1 million) and high tax rates. People have some tolerance for paying tax rates in the 42-44% range plus sales tax plus property tax if their life is overall affordable, but when home prices are staggering high and that life becomes out of reach people move somewhere better. You can't fix housing when you want to import people faster than you can build homes for them (and Canada wants to grow to 100M people over 50 years) and you can't lower taxes when you want to pay for things without crushing debt and Canada seems to want more government programs not less.
The Canadian government still holds crown land that they will give away for free to anyone willing to settle it. That provides an option of last resort. Any location in the country that compels one away from free has got to be worth it. While one may complain, as people love to do, they are still pulling out their purses because they know it is worth every penny.
Should the balance change, people will leave for greener pastures before worrying about rioting. Canada's whole legacy is built on people moving around when certain locations become too expensive. Its ancestral people have done it over, and over, and over again. There is no reason to think this time is different.
It's called homelessness and the american republicans want you to feel like it's because of lax law enforcement instead of, you know, the median salary in my city not being enough to actually live in the city.
You probably haven't even heard about my city, because it has only 60k ish people and still runs into that problem.
"But but but but zoning and developers can't build cheap housing because they aren't allowed to!". Funny, that didn't stop them from building hundreds of units of assisted living facilities right in some of the most expensive land they could find. Maybe it's because, in a capitalistic system, it's more incentivized to build a structure that can charge the state $12k a month per resident that they neglect than one that can charge each resident $2k a month because they actually have to be able to afford it.
Meanwhile grandma doesn't even know where they are.
Canada's population is already 23% immigrant, highest of any G7 country. There may be less of that 'quasi-xenophobic sentiment towards foreigners' than where you are.
> Canada's population is already 23% immigrant, highest of any G7 country. There may be less of that 'quasi-xenophobic sentiment towards foreigners' than where you are.
Australia is even more immigrant than Canada – around 30% overseas born.
But I think part of why Australia (and maybe Canada too) have less of a problem with xenophobia than some countries with less immigrants – greater selectiveness in the immigration intake, and skewing it more towards highly skilled/educated people.
If you take in 100,000 university graduates from China and India, versus 100,000 random refugees and economic migrants from anywhere at all – it is unsurprising the former cause significantly less social problems than the latter, and those social problems tend to fuel xenophobia.
I’ve heard before immigrants take quite negative stances on “illegal”/“undocumented”/“irregular” immigration, saying “I had to jump through all these hoops to come here, I have no sympathy for people who break the rules instead”. Is that xenophobia?
Years ago, I went on a business trip to the US, and while there an Indian-American colleague said some very Islamophobic things to me. I guess he probably brought some of that with him from India, although certainly there would have been things in the US to reinforce it. Also, he was a 9/11 survivor and this was only a few years later, so that was likely a factor too. There is some obvious overlap between Islamophobia and xenophobia - although not all Muslims have an immigrant background (converts), and there are billions of non-Muslim foreigners
Of course. But it might mean that the 77% of the population that is born in Canada is more accustomed/acclimatized to immigrants. They are not a weird/rare thing, and so they are accepted/liked by a bulk of the population.
That is going to be interesting, but not in the positive sense of the world.
A lot of tech workers affected by the rounds of layoffs last year are still struggling to find other jobs, specially the most junior ones. I've been personally trying to help some friends and ex-coworkers and it is brutal out there. Right now there doesn't seem to be a lack of tech workers, at least not in Vancouver.
Canada housing situation is also not that great and with no signs of improving.
At first glance, it looks like those measures will only serve to devalue the tech salaries even more (already at a considerable discount over US ones) and make the housing situation even worse. I don't expect most people using the new visas will want to live in the countryside, specially considering if they come without a job lined up. The majority will likely want to come to Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal.
> At first glance, it looks like those measures will only serve to devalue the tech salaries even more (already at a considerable discount over US ones) and make the housing situation even worse
That's exactly the point, but they call it "addressing a skills shortage" and there is a huge entrenched interest in keeping the property bubble going higher and higher. Mortgage rates should be slaughtering house prices, more scarcity is the only way to keep them high.
> there is a huge entrenched interest in keeping the property bubble going higher and higher.
Just to paint the picture, in Canada:
* Prime Minister Trudeau is a trust fund kind with rental income
* Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Freeland, has four mortgages
* Housing Minister Hussen literally purchased another rental property recently
* 1/3 of all Liberal MPs have rental income in their disclosures
What Trudeau is doing to Canada is what my friends and I call the Slum Lord's Delight scenario:
* Flood the country with people who will need housing, while offering them no warning of just how unaffordable things are.
* Do absolutely nothing to increase housing supply. Add as many new taxes, fees, and regulation as you can to ensure new supply declines.
* Do everything you can to allow younger Canadians and new immigrants to borrow more and pay more for housing. Your solution to affordability is helping them borrow more, not reducing prices.
* If anyone complains about immigration, call them racist.
* If anyone complains about housing, blame the provinces and municipalities (whichever level isn't Liberal).
* If anyone thinks of protesting, go Trucker Protests / Tiananmen Square on them
I would not be surprised if Trudeau achieves a China-esque market before he's eventually removed or self-exiles, meaning a market where people never actually own the land, but rather have long term rentals (under a different name) of the property from a State owned company or monopoly.
You're leaving out the fact that the Conservative party is basically identical in structural composition and interests in keeping the housing market bloated. To the point where Pierre stands up in the HoC and goes after Trudeau for BoC rate increases... because his boomer constituency needs Number Go Up because that's their only retirement option after three decades of joint Liberal-Conservative policy.
It's a pyramid scheme, and actually the Cons were even worse for it when they were in power federally, and a huge problem with Ontario right now is precisely the provincial Cons in Ontario.
Yes, that's true on most issues. Other than Trudeau's particular abhorrent personality, there is no fundamental difference between the liberals and conservatives on any substantive issue. They just have slightly different pork barrel projects and stupid tax credits.
> Canada housing situation is also not that great and with no signs of improving.
Real estate musical chairs is pretty much a central pillar of the Canadian economy. Like 1/5 people live in the GTA, and 1/59 workers in Toronto is a real estate agent. The numbers would be hilarious if they weren't so sad.
As of when I last checked in 2021, Seattle tech salaries are 10-20% higher compared to Vancouver with house prices being like 33% lower. I imagine this situation holds when you compare Toronto to Chicago or Montreal to Boston. Even if the Canadian government makes the bureaucracy simpler/less onerous/less evil as long as those fundamental conditions exist I don't expect to see a mass exodus to Canada.
And if you go farther south, salaries are triple what they are in Vancouver. Or much more, if you're senior or specialized.
A word of advice: if you have employable skills in tech simply avoid Canada; and if you must travel here, then work for Americans. They'll pay you much more than anyone local will even consider.
Not sure about that. You don't get more pay in the bay area, you actually would be paid less because of the taxes. Seattle has faang level offices and their compensation numbers is a bit lower than their counter parts in bay area. But u get lower cost of living and vastly lower taxes so you would even earn more. I have known many ppl moved out of bay area and I think Seattle is one of the top paying locations all things considered
There are other subtle taxation differences that could really matter by jurisdiction as well (ie. low property taxes in much of Canada) and of course low healthcare costs (though this matters less for the highly paid tech worker).
I mean for parents in Canada they could get $10/day daycare in some places as that's ramping up more and more. That could be a dramatic cost savings for a certain person.
It would be interesting to see someone do a real comprehensive look between the countries that touches literally every possible cost. I don't think I've seen that.
With my own back of the envelope math comparisons, the countries did tighten up.
That’s one of my plans in the future if I decide to go back to Canada, work for a us startup or something and get us salary, Canadian salaries are terrible
So I had offers from American-founded companies in both cities and that was the difference I was seeing. Maybe I just suck but the levels.fyi numbers have always been really inflated vs what I (and my circle) have seen.
Vancouver software dev checking-in. I'd say that your assessment is on the optimistic side. Was laid-off 3 months ago, prospects are non-existent, rentals (if they're anything like last time I had to move) are non-existent, and studio condos start at around $500k if they're old. If I'm forced to move when my landlord's mortgage is up for renewal, I have no idea what I'll do.
So ya, seems like a pretty in-coherent policy change. The only way to compete seems to be to just look to other countries.
If you have a surplus of workers and a deficit of housing, it would seem like a chance to re-skill the workforce into construction, wouldn't it? Instead of the blue-collar workers learning to code, maybe the tech workers can learn to weld? Or am I being ridiculous?
That is what happens, at least locally and temporarily.
Some of the people I know that have been laid off mid-2022 and end-2022 and still haven't found another tech job have been driving for Uber, delivering for Doordash, doing cleaning and basic construction jobs to get by.
Those are completely different occupations, though, and appeal to people with probably different personalities.
The Housing problem in Canada is complex and not easy to explain in short sentences, but I can basically assure you that lack of construction workers is not the main reason it exists.
> If you have a surplus of workers and a deficit of housing, it would seem like a chance to re-skill the workforce into construction, wouldn't it? Instead of the blue-collar workers learning to code, maybe the tech workers can learn to weld? Or am I being ridiculous?
I don't think that the lack of construction workers is the main reason for current crazy property prices in the western world.
Reskill workforce into the bank workers ;)
Constructing more means housing prices go down, which would piss off the banking sector and people who has several houses (or even at least one sometimes). It would piss off for sure people who has less than one house (i.e. already existing mortgage contracts).
Canada educates a lot of technical and medical workers into the US every year. There is no "brain-drain" except for the person that posted the article FUD.
Keep in mind:
1. Canada work Visas usually have a 4 month window for you to get a position.
2. The wages are usually much lower than the identical US position (after currency conversion)
3. The incremental income taxes are relatively high
4. After a few months stay, you will be taxed on residency, and not nationality. If you have US citizenship, than you will still have to report in your home state as well (usually it is whichever is greater that is applied).
5. After several months stay, you can apply for a Medical Services Plan. Note, if you develop some issue while awaiting the provincial coverage it is common they will back date coverage. However, it is still highly recommended you keep your private medical/dental insurance during this transitional period.
6.Housing is expensive, and difficult to find these days. It may take some time to find a place if you have a large family.
7. Do a search to learn about TFSA, RRSP, and CPP. It will help you retain your earnings.
8. Due to the recent stressed medical system over several years, it is now rather difficult to find a doctor in some cities. This should be dealt with as soon as possible if you require care, as it currently takes months to find a GP.
Do feel free to ask questions, as the parts of Canada currently not on fire are quite enjoyable. =)
> 2. The wages are usually much lower than the identical US position (after currency conversion)
on the whole I found roughly 40% difference, but usually decent benefits.
strong increases in tax brackets mean it's not really useful to offer you more money, since the gub'mnt will take more of it. meanwhile stock purchase plans or retirement options are generous. not great if you don't plan on staying in Canada long term.
> 3. The incremental income taxes are relatively high
this, like in the US, will depend on state / province; Quebec is the highest, but also offers great bennies, like free or low-cost child care / daycare.
> 4. After a few months stay, you will be taxed on residency, and not nationality. If you have US citizenship, than you will still have to report in your home state as well (usually it is whichever is greater that is applied).
you do not have to have a home state as a US citizen. if you need a home state, look into PO boxes in states without an income tax, like TX, FL, or WA.
> 5. After several months stay, you can apply for a Medical Services Plan. Note, if you develop some issue while awaiting the provincial coverage it is common they will back date coverage. However, it is still highly recommended you keep your private medical/dental insurance during this transitional period.
this is true. usually you have to be in province for 3 months before you can use the provincial healthcare. make sure you have private insurance coverage until then.
> 6.Housing is expensive, and difficult to find these days. It may take some time to find a place if you have a large family.
not true, generally was easy to find. if you live in the GTA or Vancouver you may have to go pretty far out, however. if you're looking for something large, cheap, and close -- you're gonna be holding your breath for a while.
> 7. Do a search to learn about TFSA, RRSP, and CPP. It will help you retain your earnings.
The only real takeaway is that the US IRS hates the TFSA, but RRSP are generally okay. The Canadian government will not be cool with you adding money to US retirement accounts.
Figure out what an FBAR is, and if / when / why you need to file them.
Also look into PFICs and penalties for holding Index funds, ETFs, or holding companies. It's not illegal, just a huge PITA with expensive overhead.
Taxes will usually be a non-issue since you will subtract your Canadian taxes (usually higher) from your US taxes, which will result in little to no taxes; capital gains can get messy though. But you still have to file, and you probably want a cross-border specialist if you're north of 100k USD.
> 8. Due to the recent stressed medical system over several years, it is now rather difficult to find a doctor in some cities. This should be dealt with as soon as possible if you require care, as it currently takes months to find a GP.
Did not ever have any problems in Calgary, Vancouver, or Edmonton; can't speak to the eastern parts of the country. Care will also be different if you're in a big city, 2nd tier city, or small town, and often not in the ways that you think.
> Did not ever have any problems in Calgary, Vancouver, or Edmonton; can't speak to the eastern parts of the country. Care will also be different if you're in a big city, 2nd tier city, or small town, and often not in the ways that you think.
No problems for me either in the prairies or Vancouver. Hell, I was in Vancouver two years and found myself a doctor _twice_ in that time, requiring exactly two phone calls. No idea what everyone was bitching about.
Then I moved to Ontario (not Toronto). Heard the same complaints I’d heard for years and gave them little credence.
Yeah it’s impossible to find a doctor out here. My “family doctor” managing chronic conditions is the telehealth doctor. Even the walk in clinics have all gone patients/appointment only and every one I’ve called has stopped maintaining a waitlist at all because it was uselessly long (tried clinics in the city, in and around our small town over an hour away, and basically everywhere else). Some of the hospitals haven’t been able to keep their ERs open 24 hours. Which is unfortunate because any medical care we need that can’t be handled over a video chat a week from now is basically a visit to the ER at this point.
Then we keep electing the government whose solution is to continue to mismanage the entire system towards privatization and implementing a provincially managed waitlist. I’ve been on it a couple of years now. I’ve talked to other people that have been on it over five years. They send me a letter every six months asking me to let them know if I’ve managed to find a doctor so they can remove me and my daughter from the list.
As a Canadian who moved to the US for tech, I strongly advocate for any young Canadian with capable means who is reading this to leave Canada.
An already broken system is being stacked against you
Housing prices are more expensive in Canada.
Health care systems are crumbling within Canada.
Wages are lower in Canada.
General cost of living is more expensive in Canada
I was frankly shocked after a lifetime of watching CBC just how much my quality of life improved by moving to the USA.
The US is by far the most favourable place to be a highly paid professional but I do worry about whether it is the best place to raise a family.
The level of violence here is just so much higher than other countries. Even living in San Francisco where the murder rate is half that of the US it is still double that of Europe and Canada. There was a gun battle at our local play park a couple of weeks back.
The house price / wage ratio in Canada is shockingly bad though.
> The level of violence here is just so much higher than other countries. Even living in San Francisco where the murder rate is half that of the US it is still double that of Europe and Canada.
The Bay Area is not representative of the rest of the US. Crime is out of control in SF proper and the Bay Area more generally due to reduced enforcement.
The Bay Area is definitely not representative of the US as it is far safer overall. According to CDC Wonder for 2021 deaths from assault per 100k population were:
San Francisco County 4.9
California 6.3
USA 7.8
Santa Clara County is safer at 2.7 though I would really miss living in a walkable neighbourhood.
That’s a bizarre statement. SF has ugly areas but still feels very safe. Would feel much more comfortable being dropped off in the worst places there vs Chicago, St Louis, LA, Miami, New Orleans, Atlanta and a bunch of other places
Downtown San Francisco can be unpleasant but you are more than 10x as likely to be killed in Orleans Parish (51.7 deaths by assault per 100k) than San Francisco County (4.9).
I'm really not trying to cherry pick stats, death by assault / homicide is a pretty good indicator of levels of violent crime. SF-proper (i.e. San Francisco County) has a huge and highly visible homelessness problem and is definitely an outlier on that dimension. But while that is unpleasant it is less worrying than actual violence.
The US limits gun control so even in states like California that try to do something about it there are many more deaths than in countries which actually do something about it.
Couldn't you just move outside of the city where is it significantly more safe? There are plenty of options between living in San Francisco and moving to Europe. I live in Seattle, and while there are _plenty_ of problems, I don't think it would be a bad place to have a family.
At least according to CDC Wonder, King County has about the same rate of death from assault at 4.8/100k vs 4.9/100k for San Francisco County.
Edit to add: It's not just the absolute levels that I worry about but the effect that ever present gun violence has on society with kids being subjected to frightening active shooter drills in schools that just aren't necessary in other developed countries.
I don't know. Obviously school shootings are bad. Bad things will always happen as long as humans exist, and these bad things have some impact on children. We'll always want to reduce the amount of harm our children are exposed to.
But, isn't being a child in the United States significantly better than being a child _anywhere else_ 100 years ago? Even with the psychological harm caused by school shootings, hasn't there been a net improvement? I would much rather be a child worrying about a school shooter (with, in reality, a minuscule chance of it physically effecting me) versus being a child during the great depression, either of the world wars, or the cold war.
It's a very logical argument and coming from someone nowhere close to starting a family though; I am sure that most parents might agree but would continue to want their kids to be safer.
I'm not trying to say that none of this matters... I guess what I'm trying to say is that, those kids ended up alright in far worse circumstances, so kids today will be alright too.
I had the exact opposite experience moving from Canada to San Francisco. While wages are much higher, the cost of living is not even comparable - anecdotally much, much higher in SF than either Toronto or Vancouver (both of which I have lived in). Healthcare has been a horrible experience here too, with Kaiser putting my through endless levels of bureaucracy in an effort to avoid paying for my medication.
But when did you leave Toronto? Because the situation is getting exponentially out of control. The housing market in southern Ontario & lower mainland BC is a pyramid scheme. When my wife & I first bought our house in Toronto in 2005 in a "bad" neighbourhood (Oakwood-Vaughan) it was a bit of a squeeze on our dual tech-worker salary, but we were able to do it. Fast forward almost 20 years, we would not be able to afford what that house goes for unless we financed to like, a 35 year mortgage, and my compensation has gone way up from back then.
Meanwhile COVID f'd up the health care system extremely badly and there's no real commitment from the province to getting the funding situation under control.
No it's not normal, they are talking a bit out of their ass. Based on their dates, I'm significantly younger than them and yet I was able to afford a house in one of the more desirable neighbourhoods with only me being the one working in tech.
I'm not targeting the person you are replying to with any malice, but since almost all of the major financial and business institutions in Canada are headquartered here there is an overabundance of people that would claim they work in "tech" when in reality they are making a respectable but decidedly non-tech salaries at places like TD Bank or Thompson Reuters as examples.
The range of possible salaries for devs in Toronto is quite large.
Also as an additional anecdote, every single one of my classmates who went to the USA and decided they would like to start a family, came back to Canada to start that family.
That is not to say it is all rosy here. There is an overabundance of poor or terrible talent that's been shipped in to cover the exodus of Canadian educated people chasing better salaries in the USA while business leaders and purse string holders are content to celebrate their mediocrity while being confused why productivity is so low.
Wow, you're classy... and yeah, I feel targeted a bit ... hah
Our old house @ Oakwood & Vaughan was bought for $285,000 in 2005. It's likely "worth" north of $1M now, not 20 years later. My senior software engineer salary in that period was between $75 and $100k CAD. Are you saying that a SWE salary in Toronto is over $300k now?
I know it isn't, though there are plenty making more than that Google Canada, that is a huge anomaly from the rest of the market.
The distortion in housing prices and the continued upward growth has a negative effect on the ability of young people to prosper. It might help me retire, sure, but it isn't going to do much good for my kids.
BTW, I worked as a SWE at Google for 10 years. And my wife was at Apple before that. Does that count as "tech?" Just checking.
I work as a software engineer at a company whose only products are software. Are you saying I shouldn't claim to work in tech because I don't make FAANG money?
Similar experience but my reason for staying in the US is purely for the weather and the money. Life in Canada is so much more pleasant than any city I've lived in in the US.
Instead of moving hours away to Toronto or Vancouver (if you don't live there), just move the same distance south and you can find cheaper housing, higher wages, more job opportunity, lower taxes and lower cost of living in general.
I don't know how this does not exacerbate the housing problem in Canada. It's terrible here. I own a rowhouse in a decent neighborhood of a middle-sized city in Canada. Prices have doubled since 2017. People moving to the same unit as mine have Teslas, Mercedes, BMWs. These people are making upwards 200k in combined income. The situation is dire here.
My household income sits comfortably in the top 5% earning bracket and there is no way we can afford a bigger home even with a substantial equity in our current house. We've been looking into places 40, 50 minutes outside of the SUBURB we live (not downtown) and the prices are slightly lower but not enough to justify the move. Tell me how this will happen the situation of Canadian families here?
The strategy of pumping immigrants into the system is not sustainable. At some point, you need to have a sustainable strategy with a TFR > 2.1. We need babies, not immigrants.
Very much agree. I'm a Canadian that moved to the US for better career / pay. Working in finance / VC, I thought I'd be able to buy a house in Ottawa after a few years. Even making upwards of USD $150K + bonus, I can't justify buying a home there to move back. My parents purchased a home in Ottawa for ~$250K around 2011 and their neighbor recently sold their house for $1.2M.
Also, Canadian salaries are, for the most part, garbage compared to the US. My friend is programmer in the US makes almost as much as I do. Meanwhile, his brother is also a programmer for the same company but in the Canadian branch, doing similar work but his salary is closer to CAD $90K.
The whole immigration thing in Canada honestly feels like an attempt at wage supression. The local Walmart in Ottawa is now like 60% Temporary Foreign Workers working the bottom jobs for minimum wage, though I guess their visa is tied to employment so they're willing to accept some abuse.
I wonder what effect this no-job, no-worries visa will have.
Canada never had a housing correction in 2008, despite a similar run up in prices like the US.
If you think the recent US bubble is bad, imagine adding it on top of the 2008 bubble (minus the crash) and you have Canada.
Before the most recent correction in Canada, the average sale price in Canada was double that of the US. Let that sink in. A country with lower wages, higher taxes, no 30 year fixed mortgages had an average sale price of double the US.
its not a bubble if they keep bringing in half a million people per year to keep the pressure on housing and healthcare high. As long as you have desperate people looking for housing there will be pressure to keep the costs up. The government doesn't care because the real estate numbers pump up the GDP numbers as they make life unlivable for middle class and lower, so the numbers look good even if the results are bad.
That type of home appreciation happens in larger US real estate markets as well, assuming you're willing to put a few hundred thousand into renovations. Everything has shot up tremendously post-COVID.
I guess because Canada only has like... 6 large cities? (1 million+ people)[0]
edit: also... not only a matter of size. But a lot of areas in Canada are just way too cold, so ppl just don't want to be there?
I'm in Vancouver, lived in Toronto for a year, but I don't see anywhere else besides Vancouver that I would like as much as here - for the green areas, mountains, ocean, and milder winter and summer. Toronto weather is bad, either too cold, or too hot.
It's not a function of density, there are plenty of incredibly dense cities in Europe and Asia that don't have anything like the price inflation of Canada. Canada has a) not been building nearly enough housing (same story as the US, UK, Australia, NZ, etc) to keep up with demand and b) their version of fannie mae/freddie mac is fully part of the government instead of a private/public thing. In 2008 the Canadian government just allowed people to borrow more to keep home prices intact instead of the US where there was a big drop as the bottom of the market fell out.
And the Canadian government since has continued letting people leverage themselves harder and harder so the market doesn't dip. That is how modest homes are selling for over a million CAD. The US is in the same trajectory but with higher salaries and the dip in 2008 we are just 5-10 years behind Canada on this.
See also the UK now allowing for mortgages to be passed on to the children of the home buyer, so that the term length can exceed a human lifetime, so as to not explode the monthly payment.
> See also the UK now allowing for mortgages to be passed on to the children of the home buyer
Are you sure that's true? I googled it it and it looks like the Johnson Government floated the idea but I can't see anything saying it's now a thing. And we've got two Prime Ministers since then.
Ah sorry, I remembered the news about this plan but the latest is from 2022 so maybe that never got implemented. And ha, I once heard someone refer to 2022 as the year of the three Prime Ministers
I'm not saying that's all the reason. But the thing - and another commenter mentioned - is that you kinda HAVE to live in one of those few cities if you want to work in a top company, or don't hate your live because of the winter.
Whereas in the US you have way more options.
We are building in Canada, but because of local regulations and just the fact that everybody wants to live in those few 3 or 4 major cities, it's way more difficult. Prices in other cities are WAY more reasonable.
Japan has 3x the population of Canada (125 million vs 38 million). The corridor from Toronto to Quebec is about (eyeballing this) 50% of Japan's land area, with the greater metro areas of Vancouver, Winnipeg, and Calgary probably adding up to another 15-25% of Japan's land area. If you had Japanese style land use you could fit 2-3x more people in the existing large metro areas of Canada
> See also the UK now allowing for mortgages to be passed on to the children of the home buyer, so that the term length can exceed a human lifetime, so as to not explode the monthly payment.
This is horrifying that anyone even considered this. That is 100% a straight up return to serfdom. If things get that bad I suggest we take a page out of the French revolutionaries and the IRA on the proper way to respond.
> This is horrifying that anyone even considered this.
The mortgage can be passed on to children, they aren't being forced on them.
My sister got lucky when my dad died that they let her assume the mortgage they took out together on their house. Not having that option would have been difficult for her, because she really wouldn't qualify for one by herself, and the payments on the home were less than it would be to rent something equivalent.
Actually, why not make this an option: children can assume the mortgages of properties they inherit from their parents? Because it isn't automatic right now, even if they are joint on the mortgage already.
>I guess because Canada only has like... 6 large cities? (1 million+ people)
More than that, if you want to get to the top of your industry, all major companies (and their jobs) are based on Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver (plus Edmonton and Calgary for oil/gas). In the US, depending on the industry, it's entirely possible to get to the top of your field while living in (say) Denver, Dallas, Orlando, Charlotte, or Las Vegas.
Natural resource extraction, agriculture, and conservation/forestry aside (because of course those happen outside of the big cities), you have an excellent school in Waterloo for academics at the top of their industry, Ottawa and Victoria (and I'm sure some other cities) for politics, Alberta for a decent film/acting scene, and a few other cities (Gatineau?) for misc government jobs.
I made the same misassumption when I moved back to Ottawa.
Got laid off in 2020 during Corona. Jumped ship from private to government. Went from 185k US to 120K CAD.
Substantial drop in purchasing power and ability to buy a house.
I love my country but it feels like it has become openly hostile to staying in middle class. Scary stuff. I can provide more details if anyone is interested.
I wonder why Canadians always look at housing from the demand perspective. What about supply? Canada is big. Unless everyone is trying to live in Vancouver and Toronto, there is more than enough space to build houses. Do you not have enough construction workers to build houses?
The truth of the matter is they're fighting very hard to not build anything. In Vancouver, they tried to suppress First Nations people's rights to build apartment blocks because they didn't want anyone to build homes. It's the same story as in California, and they have the same explanations: starting with the foreigners and techies, and then going down the list.
People are moving from toronto and vancouver, selling their houses there for a million, and then going to other cities and overpaying for houses there. That brings up the cost across all of canada. On top of the excessive immigration that is putting a huge strain on housing and healthcare. It has provided a massive upwards pressure on housing prices across all of canada.
And no, canada does not have the capacity to build housing at the rate immigration is bringing people in. half a million per year is a small city each year, mostly going to areas where work is available.
Lots of people look from a supply perspective. There's significant and growing political appetite for broad rezones and liberalization of housing rules.
However regardless of near term future policy that would enable more home development, interest rate hikes have soured the lending environment and caused housing development to plunge.
It may well be that we don't have enough construction workers too.
As usual, there are many factors that contribute to the current housing situation. On the supply side, I feel a major issue is lack of qualified workers. And I am not sure immigration can solve this problem easily unless you are prepared to accept lower quality housing. It is not a coincidence that specialized trades like electrician, heavy machine operators, roofers are not immigrants. The standards are higher here. In the developing world, standards are much sloppier. So it isn't simply a "plug-and-play" situation. There are other issues though. I know that input prices have skyrocketed.
To me, the focus on the demand side is becuase it is easier to solve whereas the supply issues are more structural.
Are the standards for electricians, heavy machine operators, roofers somehow higher than software engineering, such that immigrants are more than capable of software engineering but apparently not trades?
There's layers of rot that have created an untenable situation. The past few years Canada has become all about taking shortcuts and juicing numbers as much as possible. Bad decisions and incompetence create a feedback loop where we dig even deeper. If we built more houses, it would devalue the rest of the housing market - just for a start, it would wipe out the retirement plans for millions. It's not going to happen. It's a depressing downwards spiral where there is no easy exit. Not to mention that Canada wouldn't be able to execute that kind of plan because different parts of the government are trying to do different things.
> Unless everyone is trying to live in Vancouver and Toronto
They are, pretty much.
> Do you not have enough construction workers to build houses?
I don't think most people understand what's going on with Canada. Relative to their population size, the number of immigrants they're bringing in is absolutely insane. 500K+ a year with no signs of slowing down. And those people all need housing TODAY. Canada needs to commit to an absolutely massive, never-ending nationwide construction project to keep up with demand.
As someone who recently moved back to Canada I echo this.
This is an existential issue.
I own two houses, both mortgages paid, make 150k as a family and would need to save for decades to put a down payment on a detached home in a far away suburb of Ottawa.
People who didn't own a house a few years ago bought too much house for fear of being priced out of the market and now their mortgages are coming up for renewal...can't pay it so the banks are doing 50-90 year mortgages!!
Canada’s economy runs on unrefined natural resources and housing. Without a domestic manufacturing sector all more consumers can do is keep the housing party going a while, that’s hardly a long term strategy. Might goose the numbers in advance of the next election though.
Yeah biggest misconception about Canada. It may be the second largest country by surface area but an enormous majority of all of that land is unsuitable for housing development due to either 1) literally being unbuildable ie. tundra or sheer mountain or bog 2) enormously more valuable for agriculture (ie. all the prairies).
There's places where sure yes it would be technically possible to build some new town but it's so cold and miserable that no one would want to and there's no local economic reason to put such a town in such a far flung place. Ultimately we probably will though if the population continues to increase at such a pace.
The housing problem needs to be addressed if we have more immigrant or not.
The renting prices doubled in Vancouver, I have no idea how people are living there right now, given the median income
> Well then you know which party to vote for if that's one of the most important issues for you. Or at least, which one not to vote for.
No major party that I know of have a coherent strategy to solve the housing crisis and the TFR issue. None. They all have contradicting ideas embedded in their policies. Usually it is a mix of more incentive to own property (e.g. incentives to first-buyers, incentive to construction companies, etc) while also increasing immigration to record levels, what changes is the flavour of immigrants they prioritize (different sectors of the economy, more refugees, etc).
Sort of, except that the Federal government controls all sorts of things that influence housing development, such as taxation and significantly contributes to infrastructure spending.
When we look at the last time an enormous amount of apartments were being built in this country, through the 60s and early 70s, the Federal government was deeply involved both in directly subsidizing coops and non-profit housing and also through tax expenditure which aided market housing. There were a great deal of federal tax incentives to build market housing, many of which no longer exist.
Basically Chretien got the Feds entirely out of housing during the austerity budgets of 1993, housing construction plunged for decades and decades and now we seem to somehow have an enormous shortage.
The Feds also are in control of Indigenous reserves, so a failure to build housing there is their fault.
It's almost as if making it expensive (development charges) and largely illegal to build housing could result in an increase in prices. But yeah, let's blame the bad immigrants and get rid of them, they're not good immigrants like yourself.
Canada is seeing record emigration of it's own citizens (amongst other reasons, it's less affordable, less opportunity
and lower salaries than the US). Anyone with the option (meaning the top people) will ignore this and stay in the states. This kind of thing works to get people, but not the best or even necessarily "good" people (from a qualification perspective)
Do you have any evidence suggesting record numbers?
Canada's official numbers do show that Q3 2022 was a record high for emigration (16.5k -- Q3 2018 was 15.5k), but other recent quarters (Q4 2022, Q1 2023, etc) are still lower than prior years. And you have a significantly higher population now than back then.[1]
You are only looking at one small part. Total immigration affecting housing & jobs are regular immigrants + temporary foreign workers + students (who often also work and have had most work restrictions removed). Each group also has their own path to citizenship. Our government is unfortunately targeting >500,000 per year even though housing cannot catch up. When people have kids they take almost 20 years to need their own space, direct adult immigration like this takes a housing unit away from an already tight market.
I wonder how remote works factors into this. I know a few Canadians with US jobs that stayed here because the corporate policy now allows them to work remotely.
It's very bad for tech in particular. This is a bit dated, but ~84% of Waterloo grads jump ship to the US (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25911922). Put another way, it's a roll of the dice chance that a graduate stays in Canada.
That linked report says that 84% of Software Engineering Waterloo grads, from the class 2020, intended or desired to move to the US (it's unclear if they actually did -- the poll was completed June 2020).[1]
A very important detail here is that Software Engineering is a specific specialization under the Engineering faculty. This figure does not include Computer Science graduates, for example, as that is a separate and much larger department.
So, this is a poll of 87 students (out of ~107) of a very specific graduating class. To put this in perspective, the Computer Science department at Waterloo is 4,000 undergraduate students.[2]
I'm not refuting that Canadian graduates often look to the US for better employment opportunities (full disclosure: I did that), but I think we owe ourselves to look at this topic objectively.
> Canada is seeing record emigration of it's own citizens (amongst other reasons, it's less affordable, less opportunity and lower salaries than the US).
According to the numbers this is not true. What specific numbers can you show that backs up yoru point?
How substantial? I don't think most people really understand the economics of being Canadian right now compared to the US.
Right off the top you're earning CAD instead of USD, so with the current exchange rate that's a ~25% reduction in purchasing power.
On top of that, it's a smaller country, with fewer large and wealthy industries. Salaries are not only CAD but also the actual dollar numbers tend to be smaller. EG I've seen listings for roles in the States offering 200k USD, but similar roles in Canada offer 120k CAD, which is less than 100k USD. That's a "pretty substantial" pay cut if you want it. It's also not like they make up for lower salaries with other perks like super high vacation time or anything either.
Then you're living in a country where we have some of the most expensive real estate in the world in Toronto and Vancouver, which has effects in other markets as well.
Also everything is just more expensive here, with the exception of Health Care I suppose. Groceries are absurdly expensive right now, but even when they were cheaper they weren't anywhere near as cheap as my friends pay in the US. The cheapest pound of butter you can find is $6.50 CAD right now. Same with Gas for your car, insurance, etc. All of the tech we buy is more expensive too, and not just "cost of exchange rate", it's always just higher.
Don't get me wrong, I am happy here and in a lot of ways I am glad I chose to stay rather than chasing higher salaries in the States. I'm just trying to illustrate that there are definitely struggles here too and it will very likely be a very substantial pay cut to move here and get a job here. More substantial than you probably think.
tl;dr: It's very expensive to live here in a lot of ways, our salaries don't really compete in a numerical way even before factoring in exchange rate.
Counterpoint from an American working at an academic research job in Montreal.
The gross salary is indeed very low compared to US offers--moving to DC would have increased my gross salary by >2.5x.
However, add in various public services. I pay a few hundred dollars a year total for my family's insurance and medical care and there's little danger of this suddenly changing. Childcare is literally 10x cheaper---and that's after very generous parental leave (50+ weeks). Quebec has fairly strong protections for tenants, so the rent is rising but not wildly. The city is very walkable with solid mass transit, so I can walk, bike, or bus to most places, insulating me from gas prices. Once you start trying to 'buy back' a similar quality of life in a big American city, the salary gap is smaller than you'd think.
We're interested in moving back for other reasons (closer to family, more exciting jobs, etc) but the economic case, butter aside, is not wildly compelling at non-SV salaries.
If it works for you, cool. I live in Montreal and I don't see those numbers though.
Healthcare is free but Quebec also has horrible healthcare (they seem ok for pregnancy though). And your employer would cover that in the US anyway.
Rent has historically been reasonable but is quickly getting just as bad as other Canadian cities, and there's no availability.
I think we pay $60 / day for daycare, which gets subsidized down to ~$30 ish. You paid $300 in the US? There is subsidized daycare buy only if you're willing to wait forever.
Parental leave is only pays you 50k a year or so out of your employment insurance.
I agree that driving in Montreal is so horrible that I don't use the car unless I absolutely have to. Some would consider that a positive, I don't.
There are some good sides to Montreal in particular compared to other Canadian cities and US cities, but it's still not the land of milk and honey, and you still sacrifice a lot of money for it.
I waited forever for a family doctor, but all of our other experiences have been decent, especially once you're in the system. "Covered" in the US also rarely means 100% coverage: between copays, deductibles, and just general run-you-around-until-you-give-up nonsense, you usually end up paying something.
Montreal and Quebec generally is the exception to the rule. You can't compare it to Toronto or Vancouver. Quebec has chronically depressed real estate prices, and has for decades. It has gone up some, but nothing like BC lower mainland and southern ON.
There's all sorts of reasons for this. But bad medical services is a big problem in Quebec, along with language politics.
I like many things about Quebec, but I wouldn't relocate there.
An additional subtle one where Canadians are paying less than Americans: In many parts of Canada property taxes are remarkably low when compared to the USA.
Butter prices are not a good representative of Canadian grocery prices. Canada has a really stupid milk quota system making milk, butter & cheese more expensive than elsewhere.
But most other groceries are cheaper in Canada than in the US. For example, the average cost of a loaf of bread in Canada is CAD3.50, in the US it's USD3.50, 33% more expensive.
> But most other groceries are cheaper in Canada than in the US. For example, the average cost of a loaf of bread in Canada is CAD3.50, in the US it's USD3.50, 33% more expensive.
I suspect this does not tell the whole story. Sticker price is one thing but how often does stuff go on on sale, what volume of coupons and other savings are readily available?
Maybe I'm completely off base here, but I've discussed this quite a bit with my friends who live in the states and overall they pay way less than I do for very similar items. And it's not some extreme couponing thing, it's just "these are buy one get one all the time", which is a rare occurrence here.
It's likely that numbeo gets their data from the official inflation basket sources, and those baskets sample transactions to get the prices that people actually pay, rather than sticker prices.
After Federal and Provincial income tax, EI and CPP premiums, your net pay at 100k CAD would be 68k in Qc, 75k in BC, and 74k in ON or AB. In BC and ON, you'd expect to spend 30k on rent; in AB and QC it'll be more like 21k.
So after rent and taxes, BC is 45k, ON is 44k, QC is 47k, and AB is 53k. Roughly.
Now you've got to pay for food, utilities, and so forth. That's probably another 30k. It's easy to spend 2500 CAD/mo on just food, gas, electrical, insurance, utilities and so on. Everything adds up fast.
So really, after all is said and done, you're working full time for 15k to 20k CAD a year; or 11k to 15k USD.
Not unless you're living in luxury towers in rich areas. A 1 bedroom or a studio will rarely go above 2K, even in Vancouver or Toronto.
>2500 on food
If you're cooking, and not being frugal at all, you're spending 500 per month at most.
>gas
Canadian cities are walkable and have public transit, you don't need a car. If you do need a car where you live, then you're likely saving on rent.
>electrical
Electricity is dirt cheap in Canada. Never paid more than 60$ even in winter. Other utilities are similar to the US, that'll add up to 200-300 dollars.
>insurance
Not a thing. Welcome to modern society, baby.
I'm sure you can spend that much money if you want to, but that's a choice to live a certain lifestyle. This lifestyle is not necessary.
My first job in Canada I made 53K, 37K after taxes. I lived a normal life, studio downtown, going on vacations, drinking and eating out, and still managed to save 13000 dollars in a single year. Later I got a raises to 80K, 120K, and eventually 250K, but my (again, definitely not frugal!) lifestyle never cost me more than 25 - 30K per year.
> A 1 bedroom or a studio will rarely go above 2K, even in Vancouver or Toronto.
Average price of an unfurnished 1 bedroom in Vancouver is well over 2k now.[0]
> If you're cooking, and not being frugal at all, you're spending 500 per month at most.
I said food, gas, utilities, electrical, and all the other sundries required of living in Vancouver. And 500 CAD on food was achievable pre-pandemic, but inflation hit grocery bills the hardest.
I paid for renter's insurance, and extended medical while living in Vancouver. It was worth it, because my storage locker was busted into several times by junkies and we had things stolen that we later replaced. And, if you bike you are potentially liable in accidents. Getting insurance if you commute by bicycle is sensible.
> Canadian cities are walkable and have public transit, you don't need a car.
Taking Translink will still run hundreds of dollars a month.[1]
There isn't enough luxury stock across the whole of Metro Vancouver to meaningfully inflate the mean above the median. Looking at New Westminster, the cheapest I see now are all private rooms in someone's suite. Most units are well above 2k.[0]
Utilities includes heat and hot water, electrical, home internet, cellular, gym memberships, and so on. I suppose if you never turn on the heater, don't have home internet, never hit the gym, don't make any calls, don't own a car, and only shit at work then you could save a bundle, here.
Are you actually from Vancouver? Nobody uses that site to look for a place, people use craigslist, and even then there's a bunch of sub 2K places. And heating is electric in 99% of Vancouver homes.
I had almost all those things you mention, internet and cell phone and gym membership, left the heater on 24/7 during winter, did plenty of shitting at home, and still never spent more than $1000 per month.
The only thing I didn't have is a car. A car is literally the worst financial decision you'll ever make. You're free to make it, but you can't come here and complain that cost of living is expensive.
Sucks about the transit tax credit though :/ I used to use that when my commute was by transit
I lived in New Westminster for 20y, and left in 2021.
Free heat and hot water is standard in older buildings with central boilers and radiated heating. Otherwise, you're taking on the utilities payment. If there's a separate service or dedicated service, then there's a bill.
If you don't have a car you're still renting a ride share to go hiking or skiing. Transit isn't taking you to Golden Ears or Cypress.
Most of this is either a very atypical experience or just made up. And obviously is from the perspective of a kid on his own for the first time. Being able to spend most of your money on renting a bachelor apartment and not afford a car doesn't sound too appealing for most adults.
It's literally my own experience, and most of my friends who live by themselves have said similar things.
Most people my age don't want a car, we want to live in the city center. People that live with their parents have a car usually, but that's it. It's not a big deal. I get that it can be hard to understand if you've lived in awful car dependent cities your whole life though.
Ie, Nanaimo was once a small town in central Vancouver island, with low rents and cheap housing. It's now one of the fastest growing cities in Canada[0] and has some of the highest rents and fastest growing rents in BC[1].
Really, here in Canada the situation is changing _fast_. What may have seemed a reasonable market a year ago could have collapsed into unaffordability by now.
Also, as a resident of Nanaimo: be prepared not to have access to Health Care. As a new resident you won't get a family doctor, and the _single_ walk-in clinic stops taking patients early in the morning. The ER is your only option, and often it only has one attending doctor.
This is similar throughout BC outside of Victoria and Metro Vancouver. In no small part because of people like yourself, who are avoiding immigrating to the big cities; but also because of people fleeing the cities.
That's fair, just be aware that it's not just a salary drop, it's likely higher income taxes (depending where you're from) and expenses too. Canada has some of the highest telecom prices in the world for instance.
There's still a lot to like about Canada. I grew up here and didn't leave, so I'm not saying don't come here.
Just making sure you don't get here and are shocked that not only do you make way less, what you do make doesn't buy as much either.
Eh, take it for what it is but when I was in QA, my salary was $52,000 CAD for 9 years of experience. That included doing a lot SDET and customer integration work as well. And that was with a Canadian tech company.
You can probably do better but kind of gives you an idea about how big a US vs Canadian gap can get.
> Right off the top you're earning CAD instead of USD, so with the current exchange rate that's a ~25% reduction in purchasing power.
Uh, those are two different currencies, and Canada generally has a lower cost of living than the US. I don't see why the Canadian dollar being priced weaker than the US dollar would come into this.
Because the laptop/cellphone/tv you buy is priced in USD and then converted to CAD. Take a look at Macbook prices in Canada and weep for us. Canada imports most products, and so we pay a hefty price for weaker currency
If I go compare prices for luxury electronics like game consoles, phones, computer parts, laptops, and literally anything else, the cost of the item is always much more in Canadian stores than American stores, and it's always more than exchange rate would explain.
And that's before taxes.
And American stores will not ship those sorts of items to Canada.
I can't talk directly about the Canadian market, but I can tell you that in the UK, once taxes are accounted for the prices are near-identical, and we don't even have a US free trade agreement.
I'm already in the Express Entry system. My CRS score is much lower than that of a student or someone with work experience in Canada, though, so the odds of me getting a draw are very low.
I'm already aware of the healthcare issues and the housing costs. I have a region picked out that mitigates some of that.
Please say why? I thought about moving to Italy but taking a 40% income loss to taxes seems insane to me. Canada is pretty much the same. I’d rather move to Georgia or Indiana.
On an aggregate level, probably true, but I've run across plenty of highly talented people in smaller markets and at less exciting companies purely because it's where they wanted to be.
I can’t imagine the stress of being H1-B. I know for a fact I just couldn’t handle it, so I admire anyone who is willing and able to take it on to better their life and their family’s. If I weren’t American I wouldn’t have the guts to try.
It’s insane how they are treated; both for their own and for America’s wellbeing.
I benefited from a similar program a year ago, and although I have no regret, I feel that some honesty might help other.
First and foremost, the Canadian tech scene is nothing like the US, Europe, or Asia where I'm coming from. Tech jobs are rare. The flagship tech employer is Shopify and they just recently downsized.
Second, salaries are garbage, especially for migrants. There is a term for this situation called "Canadian Experience": employers claim that because one does not have experience working in Canada, they deserve a crappy salary while they acquire it. This is of course bullshit. It got so bad that it's actually been addressed by the government and made illegal, at least in Ontario[0].
Finally, the cost of life is absurd, with respect to income. In Vancouver or Toronto, rents are completely out of control, and buying is out of the question unless you have some serious funds, especially with the recent hike in mortgage rate. Price of food surged dramatically in the past months as well, and although I have a decent job (in terms of distance from the median salary), I don't go out nearly as much as I would want because it's too damn expensive.
Now, Canada is a great place for normal humans to live in, especially with a family, and again I have no regret. But right now, it's not a good place to make it in tech.
> Second, salaries are garbage, especially for migrants. There is a term for this situation called "Canadian Experience": employers claim that because one does not have experience working in Canada, they deserve a crappy salary while they acquire it. This is of course bullshit.
When issuing visas, the Canadian government uses a point system (age, degree...) that never actually checks for employability.
That's how you get people claiming they were "Senior Engineers" in their home country that can't pass a fizzbuzz test. With a signal to noise ratio this low, a lot of employers simply won't bother unless someone can demonstrate that someone else is willing to employ them at Canadian wages for the position they claim they can perform.
As someone who’s on H1b this whole effort by Canada seems pointless and I don’t understand the rationale behind framing this law.
H1b comes through a lottery. This year less than 10% got through the lottery (mostly because Indian consultancy scams that US govt is trying to crack down on but mostly won’t). Even in good years, a good 50% don’t get through the lottery. If you complete your masters in US, you get 3 shots at the lottery after which you have to leave the country (Called the STEM OPT extension). If you pass through the lottery you are mostly set for life in US. If you’re not from India or China, you just need to find a company to apply for your green card and then get in in 3 yrs (All of big tech will apply for your green card). If you are from India and China you will have a long waiting line, Indians in particular might have a 100 yr waiting line because of the massive amount of recent immigration. Even then your H1b lasts a total of 9 yrs, after which you can apply for green card and then get an EAD while waiting for your green card, which basically ensures you can stay in the country and work as long as your green card is processing. This situation is a bit stressful, because if your green card processing has issues and you get a reject, you have to instantly leave the country on EAD (your life is uprooted) but by this you are either 100% committed to living here or you’re gonna leave (a lot I’d estimate 50% leave back to India)
Which brings me to my puzzlement regarding this law. The main bottleneck is the H1b lottery, I would guess easily a good 30-40% of Indians leave unable to get past the lottery and that number is increasing. Canada is also giving choice to those who went past the lottery. But if I went through the lottery, why would I ever consider going to Canada? No offense, but US salaries are easily double, and even higher the higher you climb, there’s no comparison really. And if Canada is trying to maintain quality of immigrants, the H1b is literally a lottery, a member of Google or an Indian outsourcing sweatshop like TCS have the exact same chance of getting through (and TCS applies way more for H1b) so this isn’t even a great quality filter. By my prediction, this won’t do anything to attract immigrants from US, because those who made it through H1b are not going to leave except to maybe return back to their home country. US is simply too good pay wise, and then on top of that most of the country is very welcoming to immigrants.
> If you pass through the lottery you are mostly set for life in US.
This is wrong. I understand why you say this, given the errors in the next quote.
> Even then your H1b lasts a total of 9 yrs, after which you can apply for green card and then get an EAD while waiting for your green card, which basically ensures you can stay in the country and work as long as your green card is processing.
The H-1B is issued for 3 years. You can renew it twice, after which you need to leave the country. If, within those 6 years, you have a green card application filed and have gone past the initial two stages, you can keep renewing your H-1B. But you will not get an EAD while you wait for the green card backlog to clear. Your stay in the country is not guaranteed while you wait. If you lose your job, you will have to leave the country if you don't find another similar job in a few months.
This EAD allows you to switch employers and even remain unemployed for awhile (though when you GC eventually becomes current, you may get denied if unemployed).
"hmm maybe we should make it easier for enormously highly paid American tech workers to move to Canada."
I like the idea in general, but the specific timing of this, as high interest rates are making house construction slow down and fixing the housing crisis even harder, is going to make a lot of inadequately housed Canadians very annoyed!
Good for housing investors though (sarcasm).
But yea, it is very easy for the government to "improve" economic situation by increasing the house prices.
First of all, we build less = less money spent on the new infrastructure, profit.
And if the prices go up, everyone who has a house gets more wealthy (except they cannot sell that, because they would become homeless).
Also, makes banking very stable, if everyone knows mortgages are "very nice investment".
A cynic might be tempted to believe the purpose of the population is to work in almost but not quite well paid jobs in specific geographic locations where the only option is to rent at hilariously high prices, coincidentally from the law makers, while providing tax revenues to support the actual productive enterprise that is the government. But cynicism gets you nowhere.
I’m honestly surprised it took Canada so long to do this. Always felt like an easy win to pluck some talented developers that are stuck in purgatory waiting for a green card and bring them north.
Would have been invaluable a few years ago, right now the jobs market might not be so supportive of it. But we’ll see.
Canadian cities have become as or more expensive than their US counterparts but have a way worse employment and salary situation. I don't see how this current environment is favorable for immigration. If anything it will make the problem worse. Where is the new housing going to come from? Who is going to create the new jobs? And if you don't have any jobs for skilled immigrants to fill, what exactly are they going to do in your country?
And no, don't start with the usual "they will create a new Silicon Valley!". That's not how it works.
The hardest thing for me to grasp about Canada is the massive amounts of government land, which is forests, which can become lumber AND to build cheap housing. A McMansion for everybody. Aren't many US homes built with Canadian lumber?
1. No there's no room. Many of the existing urban centres are pretty much "built out" and no more McMansions for everyone. Maybe we could build an apartment for everyone, and a townhouse for many. This is the core reason why prices have spiked up so much.
3. People and the courts have come to realize that the "massive amounts of government land" are not actually the government's to give away. In many cases these lands are unceded by indigenous First Nations who are wrestling back control of their title and natural resources. All of this means that future use of the land is more complex than it may seem.
Collect welfare (or is it called "social insurance" north of the border?).
In actuality I expect there to be a rise in "mid-shoring" of technical work to Canada rather than overseas (same time zones, less appearance of selling out since it's sending work to Canada, not a "real" foreign country).
Canada has a ton of structural problems that will prevent this from doing anything most likely, namely housing and wages.
The housing crisis in Canada is extreme and well beyond the very real housing crisis in the US. Previously people focused on Vancouver, which is insane, but now the GTA (Greater Toronto Area) is essentially unaffordable basically everywhere. Possibly the only exception is Quebec. There is no political will to fix this problem because houses have become retirement accounts and anything that reduces home values is political suicide.
The second problem is that Canadian wages are incredibly low, even in tech. In the US at least software engineer compensation largely shields you from the housing and cost of living crisis. That is not the case in Canada.
Canada is very similar to Australia, which also has a housing crisis. Both countries have an economy geared to resource extraction and the respective currencies move with commodity prices.
> One of the benefits of applying for a NAFTA Professional work permit is that applicants are exempt from the Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) requirement. Further, professionals who are destined to work in Quebec are also exempt from the Quebec Acceptance Certificate (CAQ) requirement. NAFTA Professional work permits are only for individuals entering the Canadian labour market temporarily, and their work permits cannot be longer than 3 years in duration.
Immigration visas, however, would be different and go through a different approval process.
> the development of an Innovation Stream under to the International Mobility Program to attract highly talented individuals, options for which include
>
> employer-specific work permits for up to five years for workers destined to work for a company identified by the Government of Canada as contributing to our industrial innovation goals
> open work permits for up to five years for highly skilled workers in select in-demand occupations
and:
> the creation of a STEM-specific draw under category-based selection to issue additional invitations to apply under the Express Entry program
I'm in the Express Entry pool. However, my CRS score is 380. I don't know French, I'm 41, and I have no Canadian work experience. I'm unlikely to get a draw.
It's possible that my odds will improve with the new tech draw, though.
It's always funny to me to see the hypocrisy of HN on immigration policy. Low-income workers to clean our buildings, pick our crops, and receive more in taxes than they pay? Bring 'em in! High-income workers to drive America's tech industry success and pay way more in taxes than they receive? They're taking our jobs!
While I'd argue we need both, the latter is clearly better for the nation, considering our skyrocketing debt.
It’s easier to have sympathy for immigrants who are starving and dying trying to make it here and then demonized and used as a political punching bag if they do make it.
It probably won't work, the problem is a lot deeper than a something a few more talented migrants can fix. A few years ago Alex Danco wrote up what he saw as the issues [1] and it reads pretty much like the list I would have made in the 90s, except for the bit about Montreal.
There were also other issues, like accounting practices, [2] which don't sound like thy have changed much either.
Maybe Canada should consider instead attracting first immigrants skilled in the trades to build more houses and medical doctors to improve health care.
Pretty hard to attract tech talent with salaries that are way lower than American ones when your housing costs are fastly approaching NYC and Bay Area levels. Maybe someone desperate after the layoffs would bite the bait, out of sheer desperation, but this is neither sustainable nor human.
Canada brings in a whole slew of medical professionals. But provincial regulation often does not allow them to practice. Hence the doctor driving a taxi trope. Housing, also being a provincial matter, is another area where the provinces and Canada run disconnected.
For those not from Canada: The Canadian government and provincial governments operate independently, in parallel, taking different areas of concern. They are considered equals, so there is no means for one to supersede the other. While the areas of concern are clearly defined, reality often sees matters cross into both, so you get such strangeness when one hand wants to do one thing and the other hand wants to do something else.
I wonder what is the sentiment of complete abolishment on the Visa regime. Just plain background check for security maybe, and let everyone who wants in. Maybe keep the social programs for the citizens but let whoever wants to work, work. IMHO it's ridiculous to have the bureaucracy as the first step in employment, people shouldn't be asking bureaucrats for permission to work.
Edit: Can you please also write why you don't like the idea? Are you worried about competition? About culture? About something else?
Edit2: Wow, I wasn't aware of how much people love restrictions on working and traveling. Please tell me, I want to know your thinking behind this, maybe you are right about it?
Sovereign countries can set their visa (and citizenship and work eligibility) requirements.
I’m not aware of any that have chosen fully open borders, mostly because that’s not in the interest of the citizens and residents of the country.
Edit in response to P’s edit: if the country I’m in has a good balance of labor, jobs, and related resources, and is therefore a great place to live, what’s the incentive to open our borders to everyone and risk upsetting that balance with no way to turn off the tap?
What I say is, they shouldn't be doing it and any person anywhere in the world should be free to travel, live and work anywhere in the world. I'm curious about your argument against that.
People in literally every nation appear to disagree with your position, at least as expressed in their border policies.
If your position were the majority opinion, some nation somewhere would be trying it.
For me personally, I think that the US would be a substantially less appealing place for those I care about if our population doubled to 700M. With open borders, we couldn’t prevent that.
Do I support more immigration of high-skilled, highly educated people and their families? Absolutely. Do I support open borders? Absolutely not.
They can disagree, about 50 years ago UK was castrating gay people and even castrated Alan Turing and at the same time the black people were very limited on what can and can't do in the USA.
I simply don't see an argument here. Just because that's how it is now, doesn't mean it should continue to be the way it is. It's not even that old of a tradition, Some 100 years ago people were able to move and work wherever they like.
So you support particular kind of people come to your country, do you support deportation of people who are born in your country but don't meet the standards you impose on the immigrants?
I don’t support deporting citizens (and neither does US nor international law).
My support for high-skilled/highly-educated immigrants is based on a nakedly selfish desire to have those immigrants improve the global competitiveness of my country, in order to make it continue to be a great place for my children and grandchildren to live. I assume other countries are making the same selfish calculations, resulting in similar policies.
Feel free to call my policy preferences selfish; I already have and will agree with you.
We can rewrite definitions, don't worry too much about.
I guess your motivation of keeping substandard immigrants out but substandard locals in doesn't come only from your desire to stick to the definitions, am I right? Because if that's your worry, it's very easy to resolve it by changing the definition through a legislative process.
The policies don’t emerge from the definitions, but rather the definitions emerge from the policies.
Changing the definitions and expecting the policies (which are the expressed will of the people in democracies or of the leaders in autocracies) to change is folly.
It’s a policy choice. I believe that people born in a country have a 100% right to live in that country while someone not born there does not have that same right.
We happen to call the former group “citizens” and there are other paths to citizenship in most countries, but that word is merely a shorthand for “a person with a non-revocable right to live in a country”. If you change citizen to mean something else or change non-citizen to mean that, new words will emerge to mean specifically the difference in that right and we’ll switch to using that word.
Separately, the decision of whom to extend the privilege of entry or working to non-citizens is based on whom the population (in democracies) thinks will make the country better. If you’re picking your team to compete on a global stage, why wouldn’t you allow the brightest and most educated to come join your team?
You appear to disagree on my initial premise that people born somewhere have more rights to be there than others who weren’t. I respect your right to hold your opinion. I also reserve my right to hold my opinion.
What about all of the negative effects of masses of people attempting to move somewhere that hasn’t prepared for their arrival? (Energy, sewage, public transport, healthcare, housing, etc). How are these things planned if movement is completely free and fluid?
Why do you assume that people who can build sewage or public transport or houses or provide healthcare wouldn't move to the place where everyone wants to move to?
My answer is that the demand will provide its supply.
I have a proof though, there's this country called The United States of America, where almost everyone is an immigrant and they live in a prosperous country. Immigrants turned into builders, doctors, scientists, engineers, artist and many more!
This isn’t an argument for open borders, just that some level of immigration is beneficial (it is).
Americas brief history of “free immigration” is also littered with atrocities.
I don’t think you can use an immature country (beginnings of USA) and use it as a template for a mature country (current day USA). Doesnt America already struggle with the level of immigration it currently receives, why would fully open borders improve this situation?
Visa and restrictions on freedom of movement are pretty new thing though. I don't think the history can be used as an argument for visa regimes. Visa regimes are also littered with atrocities, have you heard of the immigrant boar that sink last week? I'm not talking about the billionaire submarine.
> restrictions on freedom of movement are pretty new thing though
So is how easy it is for anyone in the world to move to anywhere else in the world within 24 hours. The situations and their outcomes are difficult to compare.
People want restrictions because of a long list of concerns with open borders. This seems to be the prevalent view in every country in the world (are there outliers?).
Do you not see the concerns that people have with open borders as valid?
Restrictions were put in place mostly in the beginning of the century during the WWI. It wasn't "we have trains, let's restrict who can work where" thingy, it was a war thingy.
EU was able to abolish those restrictions to great benefit and is trying to make it check-free through the Schengen agreement. It's Romania and Bulgaria who still need to show passports and this creates great friction at the borders but hopefully, this will be no longer the case by the end of the year.
In the United STATES of America, people are free to work and travel any any state and notice that people don't simply flock to the richest one.
I agree that sudden removal of the borders will create serious issues but this is only because there are borders at first place. The situation will stabilize and you won't see 8B people moving to Canada, 8B people moving to USA, 8B people moving to Germany, 8B people moving to UK.
People with from countries with low standards of living would simply undercut
the market, destroying it for citizens. This already happens to some degree
with the visa, but without it, the entire would would rush to the highest paying country, push wages down until there's a different country paying more, then move there, repeat.
If a country doesn't prioritize the interests of it's citizens, who will?
This sounds awfully lot like artificially creating a shortage and this artificial shortages can seem to benefit those who create it but on the grand scale it is bad for the society as a whole because it simply means a suboptimal market.
At first, I agree that an adjustment period will be needed but this is only because current we have artificial market borders and it will eventually stabilize.
There's nothing wrong with someone else takes someones job by providing greater value, be it by doing it for cheaper or doing it better. In other words, if Albanian window cleaners end up driving the Canadian window cleaners out of business, Canada will end up with better cleaned windows or more money to spend on something else than window cleaning. The Canadian window cleaners will need to adapt but the world will be a better place, except for some of the Canadian window cleaners who used to overcharge thanks to the artificial market forces.
It is bad for society as a whole - it prioritizes the interests of citizens of one country. That's all countries are - groups of people competing against each others. There are winners and losers. I'm fine with this. It allows countries the freedom to run things according to their values and sink or swim accordingly.
Why don't you limit other subgroups for your advantage? Women used to be like that but it's not cool anymore. People from certain race used to be limited for the advantage of another race but it's not the case anymore. Why just don't drop all these shenanigans and adopt a meritocracy? A meritocracy will yield a much better society where you won't need to be from the privileged class to have a good life.
That would go against the majorities preference within my country where everyone is equal under the law. Other groups of people in other places may feel differently in their sovereign nations. There is no global authority here to resolve these kinds of disputes or impose it's will on those nations.
That could be a lot of people. Canada is (I think objectively) a better country to live in that most of our planet (alas). Very many would jump at that offer. Where would they live? There is a housing shortage. Their health care would cost taxpayers a lot (universal healthcare is considered a right and source of pride in Canada).
Basically, it would be too much of an increase, too fast. It needs to be spread over decades.
Maybe house builders and doctors can come too if there's a demand for it? Maybe the new comers can pay for housing and healthcare like everyone else(taxes, insurance etc.)?
In short there could be some problems but at some point it will stabilize and the would will become a meritocratic place.
>Maybe house builders and doctors can come too if there's a demand for it? Maybe the new comers can pay for housing and healthcare like everyone else(taxes, insurance etc.)?
I think you are maybe missing the scale of my point. Canada is a country of 40m people. There are 8000m people on this planet. If we "let everyone who wants in" in, then the country's population could double if just 0.5% of the planet thought Canada was a better place than they are in already. There are easily that many such people.
You think housing stock can be doubled? You think there are jobs for a doubling of population? On what time scale? Like I said already, it needs to be spread over decades.
I think you are overestimating the demand for moving to Canada. I'm sure it's a nice place and works for people who like that climate and culture but I never considered moving there. There are many nice places in this huge world, the fear of having 8B people moving into canada is baseless.
>Maybe house builders and doctors can come too if there's a demand for it?
Having a large pool of house builders isn't going to suddenly solve new home supply problems or make homes affordable. That is a far more complex problem and simply having a readily available skilled labor force will not solve.
I agree we (North Americans) need more, easier, and smoother immigration, but I see no reason we shouldn't limit it to people who will make the lives of our citizens better by being here. "You are what you eat" applies to countries as well.
No doubt it's a difficult problem. Personally I would start with more straightforward measures such as a zero tolerance policy for violent crime. If someone commits a violent crime of any sort in their adopted country before achieving citizenship they should be swiftly and permanently deported.
Why not deport those who are citizens but commit crimes too?
See, the problem with punishment which is different for one group than the other is that you create an artificial subclass. You chose "violent crime", which sounds reasonable but someone can say any crime or even a parking ticket should result in deportation.
So let's consider that the politics in your country have turned very divisive and immigrants are protesting together with the citizens against something - should the immigrants be able to protest? What if the protests are considered illegal? What if the protest are legal but at the heat of it some people throw stones and maybe even injured some law enforcement officers. Is it O.K. to have a slap at the wrist for some of the protestors and life changing deportation to the immigrants?
I don't say it's easy and there are easy answers, it's just that I really don't like the artificial borders and I think it's worth paying the price of a transition period to get a global society where people are not divided like work cattle and are treated as individuals regardless of their nationality.
The citizens own the country and the non-citizens do not. If I burn a car I own in my front yard I'm probably going to get a ticket for improper disposal or some such. If someone else burns my car in my front yard they're going to jail.
There isn't much point in debating border policy with someone who doesn't believe in borders. Believing in the greatest good for the greatest number of people fullstop is a respectable philosophical stance but it isn't one to which I subscribe.
No one owns countries, these are political structures that often come and go but the people stay even when the country is gone. It is OK to restructure those.
Just remember, Canada is geographically situated near the US but their attitudes to innovation, risk taking, rewarding talent, and merit based promotion are not the same. Even if they say that it is - the reality is very different.
What I want to know is which countries allow parents to immigrate with the main applicant. Lots of countries don't allow it for the fear that they have to bear the health care costs; even when the main applicant is willing to give an undertaking to bear the costs. This excludes a section who have parents dependent on them. Singapore is one notable exception I know that grants a long term pass to the parents that folks can renew every 1-3 years, depending on the expiry - the sponsor needs to bear the healthcare costs but at least it provides an option to keep one's parents with them.
Why is Canada rushing all these visa initiatives? They've experiencing sizable issues with fraudulent student visas (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-64988228) which could be resolved with something as simple as having universities submitting paperwork to the immigration agency. Can they really handle reviewing 10,000 more cases on an expedited basis?
Oh those were not universities. Those were what we call in Canada "immigration mills or diploma mills" sun standard educational institution with a very high tuition fees and low bar of entry. It's money for citizenship scheme run by Canada. Cheap below minimum wage workers leading to wage suppression is the result.
It's only laughable. A few years ago I was thinking about migrating to Canada, and now I see houses priced around 1M CAD and salaries that are only 2x the amount I have now.
This is actually a terrible deal in disguise. According to recent reports (which I don't have on hand at the moment), over 70% of immigrants to Canada are under employed or under utilized. While the federal government controls how many immigrants, the provinces control certification and expert recognition. This means that foreign-trained doctors (as an example) can easily get a federal visa to enter the country, but the province will refuse to recognize their medical training, forcing these skilled immigrants to work low-skill jobs instead. It is not rare to find foreign-trained engineers working as taxi-drivers or for PhD-holders to be slinging coffee.
Unfortunately, I don't think programs like these will have any beneficial impact until Canadian society can fix its abysmally low productivity (and productivity growth) as well as the severe under-utilization of skilled immigrant labor. All this will accomplish is exacerbate the housing crisis in metropolitan areas and further expose Canada's extremely poor economic performance - expected to be the absolute lowest in the OECD in upcoming years.
> This means that foreign-trained doctors (as an example) can easily get a federal visa to enter the country, but the province will refuse to recognize their medical training, forcing these skilled immigrants to work low-skill jobs instead. It is not rare to find foreign-trained engineers working as taxi-drivers or for PhD-holders to be slinging coffee.
That's not the whole picture... Friend of mine is a doctor here in the Bay Area, originally trained in Ontario. There are agreements with some countries to transfer licenses (how he was able to practice here in America). Quebec, for instance, has agreements with France and Switzerland. When someone comes in with medical credentials from a jurisdiction where there's no special agreements, they simply have the candidate take the same exams as the medical students (which, should they be as qualified as they claim, shouldn't be hard). He told me the pass rate was abysmal for foreign trained candidates.
Apparently, it's the same for engineers (and is one of the reasons a lot of them end up trying to break into software since it's unregulated).
I don't disagree, but now imagine Quebec having deals with (for example) France and Switzerland and Ontario only having agreements with Italy and Spain (but only for medical licenses), while Alberta may evaluate accreditation on a case-by-case basis. This is somewhat incredible to behold, as if 10 different countries had their own licensing treaties and then we bolted on a federal immigration system on top of that.
Here is what the article is actually about in case you can't decipher it from the title:
Canada has launched a bid to attract techies working in the USA on the notorious H-1B visa, by offering them the chance to move north.
The offer, announced on Wednesday as part of the nation's first ever tech talent strategy, means H-1B visa holders can move to Canada without having a job waiting for them.
FWIW, Canada did something fairly similar with laws / incentives regarding filming whereas California became outright hostile towards the movie industry. That is why so many shows and movies are now filmed (believe it or not) in Canada and not in the US.
Or the Canadian government is wasting a lot of money subsidizing an industry. It's not clear to me which is correct but I know many of our industries are effectively pretend and bought with government money
Hollywood has been spending literally over a billion USD equiv a year in "Hollywood North" aka Canada since around 2006. It creates thousands of local jobs and has a lot of follow on effects.
This was more or less the culmination of super-NIMBY California folks making an entire industry pick up and move due to hostilities.
A large benefit for Canada, yes. It decimated the local industry in or around Los Angeles when I lived there. I was a software engineer and didn’t much care but had several friends who were affected.
The American and European auto, agriculture and aerospace sectors are all so dependent on subsidies that the same could be said for them as well, and yet those industries remain the bedrock of global capitalism.
I think the impact of these things is overstated. Salaries in Canada are pretty low compared to the US and cost of living is pretty similar. When you factor in the climate, it’s hard to see how Canada comes out ahead. I’d think Canada would need a streamlined visa process just to be in the race.
Also from what I’ve seen, people often use Canada as a springboard to get to the US.
I always maintain that most of the time whatever is good for Canada is also good for the US. I have a team in Canada so will be good for hiring.
Canada eating America's lunch is something that I have heard multiple times in past 20 years. There was a time where YC took pitches in Vancouver or something perhaps a decade or so ago. I do not know if they are still continuing this.
At the end of the day, the immigration is only part of it. The economics of being Software developer compared to US or India are not that great (in general). That is where Canada in my humble opinion should focus.
Creating new avenues for immigration is one way to try to plug the housing bubble problem (fresh new capital flowing in). Problem is I don't think it will work, and they'll instead attract even more extra mouths to feed and bring further social problems.
How many tech jobs does Canada have? If everybody who wants to move to (or stay in) the US but can't because of visa issues moves to Canada, are there enough jobs for all of them?
There also aren't enough houses for the people who are already here. Vancouver has a Vacancy rate under 0.9%, and we likely have more homeless people than available rentals.
Depends on if there’s a lot of demand currently not being fulfilled. You’d expect wages to go down if new workers flooded a market already operating in a sense of “equilibrium” for lack of a better word. I don’t know what the case is in Canada though.
> You can expect an influx of companies taking advantage of a base of talent.
We have been promised this time and time again in Canada, but it seemingly never comes to fruition. Call me cynical, but I don't foresee it working out like that.
Maybe, but you can expect a lot of new businesses being opened too. You would never dream of starting your company on a H-1B but with a blanket work permit you absolutely will.
I'm struggling to land any software engineering job for the last 6 months, even though I'm a permanent U.S resident and have 10 YOF and actively applying for jobs every day. I can only imagine how hard it must be now for H1B holders...
For context, what is the "normal" immigration policy for Canada? E.g. if you are a poor person from a random country with no H-1B? How many non-refugee economic migrants normally move to Canada in a year?
Right now is probably the best time to apply. The current government has a policy to maximize immigration, currently at over 400K/year. You do need to apply and meet basic criteria. Essentially be in good health (also all dependents accompanying you), have no substantial criminal history and have a reasonable level of education and have functional English or French. If you have French proficiency then it is substantially easier as you can qualify for special more relaxed immigration programs in Quebec (Quebec has different programs aimed at promoting French speakers). More advanced qualifications do help prioritize your application.
The downside is getting established can be difficult - many immigrants do end up in low paid sales jobs at appliance stores, driving Uber, working in fast food places etc. Living costs are extremely high (rent, food etc.).
Tech jobs tend to pay less than 50% of US equivalents (speaking from experience) though it is possible to work remotely for US companies and get paid substantially better than any Canadian employer would pay. Quite a few Canadians do that, but do have to constantly deal with the problems of cross border payroll as US companies cannot comprehend that Canada is a different tax system and keep screwing things up by filing stuff with the US IRS instead of the Canadian CRA and you then have to sort it out yourself and fill out mountains of paperwork to stop the IRS tax enforcement for taxes that are not due since you don't live in the US. Also speaking from experience.
They did not say if those wonderful visas can be in time converted to permanent residence. Hopefully they would let them apply for permanent residence from inside the country while being on work permit.
H-1B's undercut supply and demand: if a company can't find workers (low supply) and they need them (high demand) then they're supposed to raise wages to compete for them. Artifactually increasing the supply of workers suppresses wages. It's crony capitalism.
Graduates from Canadian universities, who had their tuition subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer, can easily go straight south to the US under TN-1 NAFTA VISA and immediately obtain compensation sometimes 2-3x local rates.
Meanwhile we'll bring in skilled immigrants who couldn't make it in the US immigration system. And drive down the wages even lower. Making it even less likely for local grown talent to stay.
Race to the bottom, and it will do nothing for the quality of work done here.
I have two of these individuals on my team — who had to leave due to the harsh rules around the H-1B visa. During the Trump administration the backlog for processing these was molasses and I picked up two very talented individuals who have since gone on to become very high-functioning team mates.
I suspect that by 2050 a lot of current Canadians will have left for the US, Europe and China, and Canada will be made up mostly of immigrants from a small number of countries and culturally will look very different (though it will still be ruled by the same set of wealthy families that run it now). Sort of a different pathway to building a colony if you think about it.
Not the OP, but I suspect they meant that the immigrants will likely be young, and start families in Canada, adding to the population. Over time, this will likely change the demographics of the country "replacing" the "original" population
Good way, and perhaps one of the only ways, to counter the coming population collapse and intense strain on social welfare and healthcare costs in next ~10 years
It's because the situation outside (in poorer countries) is even shittier, and stocking shelves is not paid enough to be able to live normally (without 6+ people in one bedroom), because cheap foreigners living 6+ in one bedroom do it, instead of the company having to pay local workers high enough wages. Even if foreigners leave, someone new, from an even shittier situation will come and replace them.
If shop owners were forced to pay native canadians the "livable" amount of money, the situation might be different... but I agree, that the housing situation is fucked in most of the developed world and governments actively try to keep it in a fucked state.
The important thing to remember, for immigrants, is the power of unions. If tech workers unionize, the opinions they espouse will be like these from this thread, which I will quote below. Once they unionize they will have power. Once they have power, they will act on what they say they want here. Read the AFL's (largest union in the US) arguments against immigration[0] and you will see many of those below mirrored there. This what software unions will want. This is what they will push for. If you join them and give them power, you will find yourself suddenly on the outside in the cold. There is a thing Americans say which I like: "When someone tells you who they are, listen".
> Given that it is much more expensive to gain skill when you are a native, the government somewhat pulled the rug from underneath the locals who spend a lot of money to go to uni etc and were hoping to have a decent return on their investment in education.
"Getting rid" of you will be considered a good idea
The majority of costs a person will typically have on a country are their initial K-12 education, and their health care costs later in life. Immigrants like these will never cost the government that first major cost.
At the same time, they are far more likely to have higher than median salaries when employed. That means higher taxes paid.
So from a purely economic point of view, an H-1B immigrant is a perfect profit center for government taxes.
Meanwhile a Canadian who gets their K-12 education here, gets a highly government subsidized post-secondary degree, then moves to the USA to work and pay taxes there is a huge loss, economically.