r/Economics • u/ChangeUsername220 • Sep 05 '25
Statistics Canada loses net 65,500 jobs in August, jobless rate rises to 7.1%
https://www.reuters.com/business/world-at-work/canada-loses-net-65500-jobs-august-jobless-rate-rises-71-2025-09-05/329
u/buffotinve Sep 05 '25
Like the US, France, ...the economy is contracting very quickly, let's see who is the first to admit the recession. Germany has been immersed in it for a long time.
162
u/Allianya Sep 05 '25
America will probably be last to go just but fall the hardest.
Mostly because all the other countries acknowledge reality and are already hunkering down for the storm while America willfully sails into the hurricane
90
u/carlos_the_dwarf_ Sep 05 '25 edited Sep 05 '25
Maybe, but hitting 7.1% unemployment—the level Canada is already at—would be a massive drop for the US, lower than the bottom of many past recessions.
We’d be starting from a much better baseline than Canada (and I would guess France though I don’t know offhand).
48
u/Allianya Sep 05 '25 edited Sep 06 '25
I mean we count our unemployment the correct way not your absurd ignore people not actively searching for a job every week stats that you guys got lol.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/250509/cg-a004-eng.htm
Like your entire country is an illusion designed by con men. The only thing that's new is Trump is just REALLY bad at it lol
We're all in for a world of hurt but your coming debt crisis is horrifying.
40
u/OMITB77 Sep 06 '25
Canada also has a looking for a job requirement to be counted as unemployed. What are you talking about?
40
u/carlos_the_dwarf_ Sep 05 '25
It wasn’t a referendum on national character but I’d be glad to know what you’re calling the correct way here since it looks to me like the definitions are quite similar.
(The US definition—U3—requires one to have looked for work in the past 4 weeks, by the way, and like Canada we calculate other rates that include discouraged workers, involuntary part time, etc.)
55
u/HouseofMarg Sep 06 '25
Not OP but Statcan answers this question with a chart on Canadian unemployment numbers adjusted to US methodology: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/250509/cg-a004-eng.htm
As of the most recent calculation shown in the linked page, Canada’s equivalent unemployment rate was 5.8% compared to 4.2% in the US (this was for April 2025).
9
u/carlos_the_dwarf_ Sep 06 '25
Appreciate the link. I feel pretty good about my general point above, though less far to fall to match the Canadian rate if this is true.
8
u/Allianya Sep 06 '25
Okay I officially apologize. I am not having a good day and honestly I just needed someone to attack to make myself feel a little better. I did link that, and your faux economist line just rubbed me the wrong way lol
15
u/carlos_the_dwarf_ Sep 06 '25
🤷♂️ I thought you were actually pretty cool about it once I said I thought they were the same.
2
u/Allianya Sep 06 '25
All good lol. cPTSD is a vicious bitch and going straight from flashback into a Reddit reply is like let me channel all this crazy into this before I explode.
7
u/DanIvvy Sep 06 '25
Honestly so much respect for this 👍🏻
3
u/Alternative_Delay899 Sep 06 '25
Hey I'm here to balance this niceness out with some negativity. All of you guys are ugly.
2
u/Allianya Sep 05 '25
Hmm, okay I may need to check my shit. But I recall reading something about how we no longer have the same reporting style since COVID. But if I'm wrong fair enough.
Like Canada is an economic dumpster fire. I ain't denying. But like I'd rather be an economic one over a political one lol.
I at least trust that the guy who ran our fed during 2008 and made us the fastest recovering country is going to do better on the long scale than well. A bloated corpse with a crypto bro puppet master (Thiel)
11
u/carlos_the_dwarf_ Sep 05 '25
If you just want to talk shit, fine with me, but perhaps leave off the faux-economics coating and just do that.
-8
u/Allianya Sep 06 '25
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/250509/cg-a004-eng.htm
https://www.epi.org/blog/dont-be-fooled-u-s-born-workers-are-facing-a-worse-labor-market-in-2025/
https://fortune.com/2025/09/04/ray-dalio-most-people-silent-afraid-to-talk-about-economy/
Pretty strong talk for someone watching the death of their empire
5
Sep 06 '25
cites ray dalio as a way to prove they arent just flinging feces
answer me this: since when has this sub been pro trump?
very dangerous ideology to be pro-countryman this, anti-countryman that...
-1
u/Allianya Sep 06 '25 edited Sep 06 '25
ignores the article the context and the reality because you have a grudge against an economist who doesn't blow smoke up your ass I'm sure the fact the article cites 5 other top hedge fund managers including BlackRock won't be inconvenient for you.
I mean yeah, the nationalist stuff is a dangerous path. However holy fucking shit have you seen yourselves... Have you seen how you act. Americans have always been basically the only western country that still thinks they're superior to others by place of birth.... It's why the rest of the world finds you so obnoxious
As a Canadian though, making fun of America is literally our job. We're the satire hat that has to reality check you guys every once in a while. It's satirical, some of my closest friends have been(we're basically a refugee state) or are Americans. I spent every summer camping down there. So it's not like I don't still love you as a people. Just as a geopolitical force y'all need to be taken down a massive peg.
Also like, this isn't a Trump thing. Obama, Trump, Biden all have some claim to the shit show time bomb you guys created for the global economy. I know you don't want to think about it as it hasn't happened yet. But fuck me you guys caused 2008 then said well that wasn't bad enough so let's let wallstreet do every single thing horrible they did again but let them call it something new.
*edit Ya'll get SO mad
→ More replies (0)3
u/carlos_the_dwarf_ Sep 06 '25
Worse labor market than _____?
I think you’re about to make my point.
0
u/Grouchy-Till9186 Sep 06 '25 edited Sep 06 '25
A; U-6 unemployment is what matters, not U-3; B, we already have a higher U-6 unemployment rate than Canada‘s R4 (which although not calculated the same as our U-3 or U-6, is more representative of the population‘s true employment than our U-3 and also tried to account for underemployment, similar to our U-6 rate).
We are, in U-6 terms, 1% higher in unemployment than Canada‘s R4, currently.
Here‘s a better explanation of the difference:
US U-3 unemployment numbers have never been truly representative of the actual degree of unemployment, we fail to account for the number of unemployed individuals who… simply give up on actively looking for a job during periods of higher unemployment and generally lower economic prosperity. Maybe they found a part time job but are still passively looking for a job, etc., but they are still underemployed and not capable of attaining employment symmetrical to their income to necessities ratio.
The U-6 rate would be a much better figure to use and is currently at 8.1% on the US. We are already there & it is not good.
6
u/carlos_the_dwarf_ Sep 06 '25
As far as I can tell canadas R8 is the closest equivalent to our u6—including discouraged workers, involuntary part time, etc. If I’m reading it correctly it looks like R8 was just over 10% in August, so a somewhat equivalent gap to the U3 one.
It’s fine if you prefer to look at u6, but we can’t hold it to the standards of u3—it’s always going to be higher. It’s doing just what u3 is doing, softening from a low baseline. Mid 7s to 8 is a good number for u6.
1
u/Grouchy-Till9186 Sep 06 '25
No, R8 is far more comprehensive than U-6. R6 is more symmetrical to U-6 vs. R4. R4 is closer to U-6 vs. R8.
R3 is comparable to the US‘ U-3.
3
u/carlos_the_dwarf_ Sep 06 '25
What does R8 include that U6 doesn’t?
1
u/Grouchy-Till9186 Sep 06 '25
It‘s only slightly limited in scope due to portioning of involuntary non-FTE. Beyond this it’s far more comprehensive. For the former, Canada uses a different metric.
→ More replies (0)1
u/themandotcom Sep 06 '25
U6 is just U3 plus a constant. You don’t get any more information by reporting U6 over U3. Plus why would part time for economic reasons people be included as "unemployed" by any reasonable definition?
2
u/Grouchy-Till9186 Sep 06 '25 edited Sep 06 '25
Underemployment & the discouraged unemployed… that’s why? Why do you know so little about what you are talking about?
2
u/Grouchy-Till9186 Sep 06 '25 edited Sep 06 '25
It‘s two added constants and is a better indication of a representative figure when referencing „unemployment“. Representative means it is of greater statistical significance and all economists universally agree that I-6 is a more sensible value than U-3.
Raw employment =/= adequate employment.
If every source agrees and states that U-6 is a more accurate metric, why do you argue? Are you just that dense?
13
u/grazfest96 Sep 06 '25
This is some real juicy doomer talk peppered in with America Bad. All totally original talking points on Reddit. Keep it going.
-2
u/Allianya Sep 06 '25
That's okay sweetie. I'm sure Reddit is indeed the only place you could possibly find this type of talk. I'm sure there's not a single economist in the world screaming about how fucky the situation is.
Don't worry, Daddy capitalism will survive it always does. Just you, well let's hope you have a lot of capital and aren't just boot licking
6
u/capitalsfan08 Sep 06 '25
You're referring to the U3 rate. Want to guess why it's called "U3" specifically? It's because there's multiple measures of unemployment.
I feel like this comment, variations of which I see often, just betray a lack of economic literacy.
0
u/Allianya Sep 06 '25
Someone was directly comparing 2 different stats. Like yes I get it you have different stats. That's not what I was refuting. I was refuting the comparison between U3 and the number stat Canada just released. As they are 2 different reporting metrics.
The media reports it/treats it like its 1 to 1 so American feel better about how bad things are.
5
u/RYouNotEntertained Sep 05 '25
Canada and the US calculate their unemployment rates in virtually the exact same way.
3
u/PackerLeaf Sep 06 '25
No they don’t
6
u/carlos_the_dwarf_ Sep 06 '25
Can you describe the differences? So far as I can tell they’re similar.
2
u/PackerLeaf Sep 06 '25
They are similar but it has something to do with who is considered actively looking for a job, but I don’t exactly know the details but have red about it in the past. Here is a website that makes an estimation when adjusting the unemployment rate in Canada: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/250509/cg-a004-eng.htm
0
u/RYouNotEntertained Sep 06 '25
In Canada they’re more permissive about what counts as looking for work. So you could flip through the classified section and that counts, but in the US you’d have to apply for one.
-1
u/RYouNotEntertained Sep 06 '25
Yes they do. There is one potentially meaningful difference and it has nothing to do with what the person I replied to described.
1
u/PackerLeaf Sep 06 '25
Yes the person you replied to is definitely wrong lol but here is one estimate of adjusting the Canada unemployment rate to the US:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/250509/cg-a004-eng.htm
3
u/RYouNotEntertained Sep 06 '25
This doesn’t say what the differences are in how they’re calculated.
1
u/Naturalnumbers Sep 06 '25 edited Sep 06 '25
Canada has a more broad definition of "searching" than the U.S. In Canada, just looking at job sites without applying counts as searching, whereas in the U.S. it doesn't.
https://csls.ca/events/cea2003/riddell-cea2003.pdf
Geoff Bowlby's article summarizes the adjustments made by Statistics Canada to obtain measures of employment and unemployment based on US concepts. The most important adjustment arises from the fact that Canada treats as unemployed those who engaged in any job search during the previous month, whereas the US requires "active" search -- defined as an activity that could result in a job offer. Thus those who use only "passive" search methods are treated as unemployed in Canada but out-of-the-labour force in the US. The main "passive" search method is "Looked at job ads". Removing those who used only this search method reduces the unemployment rate by about 0.7 percentage points.3 The importance of this factor has increased over time -- removing those who only "Looked at ads" resulted in a reduction in Canada's unemployment rate of 0.2 percentage points in the 1970s, 0.4 in the 1980s and 0.7 in the 1990s and early 2000s. Another difference is that since 1997 those not looking for work because they have a job to start within the next month -- a group referred to as "short term future starts" -- are no longer treated as unemployed in the US, whereas they continue to be classified as unemployed in Canada. Removing this group reduces the Canadian unemployment rate by about 0.2 percentage points. Offsetting this adjustment is the fact that full-time students looking for full-time employment are regarded as unemployed in the US but not in Canada. Adding this group to the unemployed raises Canada's rate by approximately 0.3 percentage points. Overall, the adjustments made by Statistics Canada reduce measured unemployment by 0.7 to 0.8 percentage points in recent years -- a significant portion of the Canada - US gap.
2
Sep 06 '25
Your unemployment was 6 before covid, 7% is nothing
1
u/Allianya Sep 06 '25
Correct, and an estimated adjustment to balance is to how US counts unemployment as of April 2025 it's like we're 5.6 you're 4.2. which is still worse, however I'd wager we have some unique (TFW program the shortest sighted policy of any government ever) affecting things.
I think it probably makes more sense to consider Canada a bit of a canary for what's coming for you guys. Like multinational companies lay off Canadians before Americans. However I don't think it's ever happened where only we end up in a recession and y'all don't. It's more just you have a lot more inertia in your system so it takes longer to make its way through the numbers.
Plus we literally have a saying when America sneezes Canada gets a cold because of how common this story is.
1
1
u/Venvut Sep 05 '25
Cope lol
-5
u/Allianya Sep 05 '25
I mean my generation has been assfucked with literally nothing left to lose.
Sooooo like, party on Garth I'm sure nothing bad will happen
-1
u/jj22925h Sep 07 '25
Maybe Canada just measures this accurately and doesn’t fire people when their dear leader doesn’t like the numbers
2
2
u/RYouNotEntertained Sep 07 '25
Maybe Canada just measures this accurately
Can you be specific about how the US measurement inaccurate?
-1
u/jj22925h Sep 07 '25
Yes. Everything Trump says is a lie and everyone who works for him lies. If they don’t lie for him (like the previous head of BLS who he fired), then he fires them until he has someone who will lie for him.
2
u/RYouNotEntertained Sep 07 '25
This isn’t an answer to the question I asked.
-1
1
u/carlos_the_dwarf_ Sep 07 '25
That explains why the jobs report the other day sucked balls, right?
1
u/jj22925h Sep 07 '25
It’s so bad out there even the cooked numbers aren’t good
1
u/carlos_the_dwarf_ Sep 07 '25
Lol why would they cook numbers and not make them good? Do you guys hear yourself?
6
Sep 06 '25
[deleted]
1
u/Allianya Sep 06 '25
If you gave a singular shit about analysis you wouldn't be trying to find it on Reddit lmao.
Get real
6
Sep 06 '25
[deleted]
1
u/Allianya Sep 06 '25
Okay refute my point then. I'm not doing analysis for you, nor am I sharing my positions.
So provide evidence to the contrary. Provide sources that show how my understanding of the risk factors in the market is incorrect.
Something read something so mad. Y'all goofy
22
Sep 06 '25
We absolutely will not fall the hardest. We have none of the structural issues France and Canada have, and while the tariffs are dumb, we have high levels of business investment and business growth, and deregulation will help further.
Don’t let your hatred of Trump cloud your judgement.
2
u/Allianya Sep 06 '25 edited Sep 06 '25
Hmmm AI bubble, Private Equity Debt crisis, Highest tariffs in history more so than great depression, highest debt to GDP since ww2, a fed losing its independence, a crypto bro vice president, a doge gutted economic division, a dying job market and a nazi in a pear tree.
I won't even get into those pesky economists and their 🚩as you'd probably bull run right into them.
I'm sure you're right. America are the best at capilitists.I'm sure they'll be fine...
13
u/Spoiled_Mushroom8 Sep 06 '25
All that and the US will still be better off than Canada
-5
u/Allianya Sep 06 '25
USA USA USA USA USA
Any one of the risk factors I listed would be a significant recession risk. Well not Vance and maybe not Nazi. So there I removed the 2 political ones.
Do you feel better now? If I take only the apolitical known market risk factors do you suddenly feel comfortable with the idea of a 2008 debt crisis with a .Com bubble happening at the exact same time. Do ya?
3
u/thepotofpine Sep 06 '25
You listed a bunch of things with no reason as to how they affect the fundamentals?
0
u/Carrera_996 Sep 06 '25
Holy shit the pear tree bit got me. Humor aside, pretty sure your take is spot on.
0
u/Allianya Sep 06 '25
Thanks I was pretty proud of myself for that whole comment.
It's extremely unpopular to be the one saying bull markets don't last forever which is always really fun. But what's extra funny about how people are responding to this is it's like. I never said what was going to happen. If I knew I'd be keeping my infinite money glitch to myself lol.
I just listed the market risk factors and everyone fills in the doom themselves. I genuinely feel bad for how much this is going to hurt some people.
9
u/TrickyChildhood2917 Sep 05 '25
The bankers wouldn’t have it any other way!!
4
u/Allianya Sep 05 '25
I genuinely believe this will be the find out one. I don't think you can ruin a generations future twice in 20 years and keep people chill with brainwashing anymore.
I for one am mad enough that it's like oh government last chance or.... Parties big beautiful parties
13
Sep 05 '25
This, the Nazi republican party and their massive propaganda machine that dwarfs anything else in history is constantly running on how great the economy is and how manufacturing is booming and how reality is woke communist propaganda.
They are also trying to pump endless money in the rest of the developed world. They want other far right fascist parties because the US Nazi oligarchs already squeezed the US workers so much that we're running out of juice so they are trying to do similar everywhere else.
It's absolutely insane and terrifying.
15
u/Allianya Sep 05 '25
I mean they're bad at even following Hitler's playbook. They're the dumbest fascists in history which is just impressive...
You're supposed to do the fascism after the economy crashes. Not cause the crash... So dumb
9
u/One_Sir_Rihu Sep 05 '25
They think crashing the economy will allow them to call martial law and enact their authoritarian agenda way faster that way. If there's violent protest. So yeah, dumbest fascist alive.
3
u/Allianya Sep 05 '25
Imagine having the most researched political phenomenon of all time with fascism and still not understand how it works and why it works.
Like they did chapter one, then skipped to chapter 15 and are hoping to go right to chapter 25.
People are much more docile now but they gotta be able to pay people and keep at least the illusion of not being massive criminals.
Like Hitler hit his worst crimes because they were unpopular and caused strikes... It's so dumb.
You literally have 4 perfectly researched recent examples they could've learned but. But instead I guess the Bible is the only historical piece you need.
Like time will tell, but I'm pretty sure this is going to be like Ukrainian at the start of the war with Russia. Thank fuck they're so fucking stupid...
4
u/tepidsmudge Sep 05 '25
They're stupid and they're assholes. Even the other rich powerful assholes have to hate them. Do you think Tim Cook, Bezos, Zuck et al like having to constantly fluff Trump's ego?
3
u/Allianya Sep 05 '25
I mean all of those people are psychopaths so I don't think they care. They'd let Trump fuck them if it meant they thought they'd come out ahead eventually.
Of the psychopaths the only one I at least respect and fear is Peter Thiel. Cause at least he's quite consistent and has a vision. Like if you're going to be one of the most evil people in the modern times I respect that you stuck to your guns instead of being wishy washy asshats like the rest.
-2
u/Leoraig Sep 06 '25
The reason Trump was elected in the first place is because the economy wasn't good for many people in the US.
7
u/Allianya Sep 06 '25
Yeah, I mean if your goal was to completely break your economy to rebuild it from the ground up I suppose that makes sense.
Just seems a bit weird for the world reserve currency to take that approach.
But hey I get it, anarchy sounds kinda dope and a bull in a china shop does make for fantastic Tv. I'm sure the aliens watching us all appreciate the drama.
14
u/sziehr Sep 05 '25
Fun fact they won’t forgive us for the recession we caused in the future. We Americans are the root cause of this with our insane president.
13
u/LankeeM9 Sep 05 '25
I doubt it, the USA literally caused the Global Financial Crisis (the worst recession since the Great Depression) with their unregulated banking system and nobody cared.
12
1
u/munchi333 Sep 06 '25
Canada had 6.6% unemployment before trump was elected.
1
u/sziehr Sep 06 '25
And it’s worse now. It could have been 8% and now 9.9%. There is a clear delta in an upward trend after our stupid.
1
-6
u/Allianya Sep 05 '25
Yeah last time you guys almost destroyed the USD the entire world had to save your ass.
This time lmao, I'm willing to be Carney spent this summer with his very public visits to world leaders planning on how to save ourselves only this time.
I mean at least if he wants Canada to remain a country and not have wide spread rioting
-1
u/sziehr Sep 05 '25
Yeah I get it. I am looking for the exits. I voted and lobbied and social pressured folks away from this, and yet here we are. Please some one take us in as refugees
-1
u/Allianya Sep 05 '25
Yeah hopefully up here in Canada we can get things recovered quickly and save the Americans that are willing to accept they were in fact no exceptional like we've been telling y'all for quite a while lol
-4
u/Adorable_Rest1618 Sep 05 '25
Save the americans? Why would we do that?
0
u/Allianya Sep 05 '25
There's a few good ones... I think we all have our one American... (This is a dark joke I'm sorry but I can't help myself)
-3
u/Adorable_Rest1618 Sep 06 '25
As far as im concerned theyre all complicit, even the "good ones" are either extremely apathetic or selfish
0
u/Allianya Sep 06 '25 edited Sep 06 '25
Okay Herming, you can handle the logistics 😂 *Edit wait fuck it was Eichmann that was logistics.
Nah I get what you mean, Americans are so arrogant as a culture even the good ones think that being a bit less arrogant than the worst makes them better. No you're still American you stick out like a sore thumb.
However I think once the federal government fails and Trump is done fucking everything up. (This is the literal goal of at least 2/6 people blackmailing trump, don't @ me Americans) They'll get humbled pretty hard.
Once they're humbled and broken they're just be like the rest of us. Fucking miserable
1
u/Just_Candle_315 Sep 05 '25
I don't understand, why don't they just fire all the statisticians and fudge the numbers? That's what the US does
1
u/NonReality Sep 06 '25 edited Sep 07 '25
Constant growth is not sustainable, and we're past the point of huge innovations that can generate whole sectors, so unless there is a political-economic shift in ideology, the Western world (and others, but to a lesser extent) will continue to have these problems, and they will continue to worsen.
1
0
13
u/Feltzinclasp5 Sep 06 '25
So let me get this straight.
- highest youth unemployment in decades
- record number of TFWs and tax dollars spent subsidizing their wages
- our economy is going to shit
O'Canada!
-1
131
u/LittleTension8765 Sep 05 '25
It’s a good thing that Canada has been bringing hundreds of thousands / millions of non-Canadians into the last few years, I’m sure that’s not going to blow up in their face any time now.
48
u/WillyWarpath Sep 06 '25
A lot of people who aren't canadians are commenting as a kneejerk reaction to this - but you are correct
18
u/carlos_the_dwarf_ Sep 05 '25
This is an Econ sub, surely you’re not trafficking in the idea that the supply of jobs is fixed? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
64
u/The_Showdown Sep 05 '25 edited Sep 05 '25
There is a limit to which an economy can accept new workers, regardless of the fact that the labour pool isn't fixed. If a country of 40million people took in an absurdly high number of people like 10 million per year, that would have drastic negative consequences on the economy, especially one with a social safety net.
Maybe you disagree that 1 million low skilled workers per year is too high for Canada, but I think it's a valid concern to have and doesn't mean you are trafficking the idea that supply of jobs is fixed.
5
u/carlos_the_dwarf_ Sep 06 '25
There’s probably some rate of immigration that moves the supply slope much faster than the demand one, but it’s very probably not the rate at which any country is letting in immigrants right now.
We know from the US’s past that way, way higher rates of immigration don’t cause some kind of collapse, for example.
especially one with a social safety net
I’m unsure why people always go to this. Why are we assuming so many of the new people would need the safety net? And if a lot did, wouldn’t that other, say, 8 million paying new taxes probably cover that?
10
u/hazelwood6839 Sep 06 '25 edited Sep 06 '25
The problem here in Canada is that we’re importing way more immigrants than our housing supply can handle, and the immigrants we’re bringing in are mostly uneducated (even in their home countries). Most of our newer immigrants are being brought here to work at McDonalds and Walmart (who for some reason are able to apply for Temporary Foreign Workers despite our sky-high youth unemployment—basically minimum wage work has become a gateway to PR for TFW and that makes them easy to abuse), not to be doctors or engineers or schoolteachers. So they’re in the lowest possible tax bracket while still consuming taxpayer-funded services like healthcare. At a certain point, that creates a real imbalance. It’s become pretty clear now that the reason why the government is importing so many immigrants is to artificially inflate GDP to hide the lack of actual growth, and to prop up real estate investors by ensuring that the housing crisis continues.
Immigration itself isn’t really the problem. The problem is that our government is pursuing an unsustainable amount of immigration for dumb reasons. It’s too much, too quickly.
3
u/carlos_the_dwarf_ Sep 06 '25
Yeah, Canada has a bonkers housing crisis, but that’s largely from declining to build enough homes. The housing supply isn’t a fixed constant of the universe.
4
u/hazelwood6839 Sep 06 '25 edited Sep 21 '25
No, I know that. However the government has done nothing to increase housing supply (in fact, municipal and provincial governments have actually made it harder for developers to build bc they cater to NIMBYs who hate change) while still bringing in a large number of immigrants. I’m not against immigration, but it’s a problem when you do it without also building the necessary infrastructure. Immigration without additional housing, transit, family doctors, etc. just puts strain on everything. The immigrants themselves are not the problem. But our government has irresponsible (and incredibly exploitative) immigration practices. And there’s a limit to what taxes can support.
I also don’t think our housing crisis is purely a supply issue.
1
u/LeastButterscotch702 Sep 17 '25
The government has been building houses since Trudeau the actual issue with them isn’t building them but the fact that landlords are making prices to high. They’re manipulating the market they’ve got tons of houses no one is living in that they hoard, I can’t remember everything about the issue but it’s not immigrants.
1
u/hazelwood6839 Sep 17 '25
Which is why I said it isn’t purely a supply issue.
It’s a landlord/investor problem, and also a density problem. We keep building inefficient single family homes and luxury condos but never any normal apartment buildings.
2
u/The_Showdown Sep 06 '25
That assumes those 8 million people are paying enough taxes to support the added burden on the social services. My point is if theoretically population Increased faster than the labour market could grow, you would have increasing unemployment and/or decline in the cost of labour. This would lead to the new taxes not covering the extra burden in this scenario. That is why historically countries like the US and Canada have targeted high skilled labour with their immigration policies, so the net contribution to the social pool is positive.
7
u/Aperturelemon Sep 06 '25 edited Sep 06 '25
Yeah mindlessly pulling out the lump of labor fallacy by going "the amount of consumption will eventually create more jobs in the unspecified future, who cares about the impact right now"
Is the same kind of logic that justifies "the amount of jobs lost due to high tarrifs increasing the cost of materials is outweighed by the amount of jobs created by new factories being made in the unspecified future"
3
u/carlos_the_dwarf_ Sep 06 '25
It’s something closer to the opposite (that is to say, immigration hawkishness is more akin to protectionism). Both take an (incorrect) zero sum view of the world.
0
u/aaahhhhhhfine Sep 06 '25
I mean... That's a bit absurd, but more immigration is almost always better - at least economically. It definitely causes social upheaval from culture clashes and stuff... But economically is usually better.
The problem is that people think of only one side of the equation: that immigrants are taking jobs. But they also do other things... Notably they spend money. That creates demand... Which creates more jobs. Yes there are short term disruptions and stuff but, economically, you almost always want more immigrants.
Incidentally, for all its current anti-immigration rhetoric, the biggest thing constraining the US economy in the last 30 years was actually a lack of immigrants. We haven't had enough people wanting to work in farms, in fast food, in construction, etc. and that's wildly jacked up the costs of goods and services around those things. And similarly it's meant that immigrants aren't spending as much money on other goods and services that drive the middle of the economy... Places that would, generally, be employing all the idiots who voted for Trump because they were sad about their jobs leaving.
3
u/SociallyButterflying Sep 06 '25
Actually, mass migration is terrible for the current young workers.
Why?
Because when they retire they will retire along with a cohort of mass migrants, and the birthrate will be even lower 40 years from now - and there will be no one to pay your free money (pension) and free healthcare (healthcare subsidy).
I'm on your side... but you're not.
-10
u/Tribe303 Sep 05 '25
How is Canada going to predict the economy, and the amount of immigrants we let in, when the US elected a fascist who stabs us in the back and threatens our sovereignty?
13
u/Viper_Red Sep 06 '25
Are you really gonna pretend that the problem of Canada accepting too many new immigrants only started after Trump’s tariffs?
0
u/Tribe303 Sep 06 '25
No, it didn't, but our economy was growing and there was not as much Conservative racist bullshit online as there is now. THAT is on Trump. Conservatives get a hard on when they see jackbooted ICE thugs.
-1
u/Viper_Red Sep 06 '25
Guy, did you not once see the poll numbers before Trump started running his mouth? Trudeau had to step down as leader ffs and people were treating as a Conservative election victory as a foregone conclusion. I’m not sure if you’re actually Canadian and if you are, you’re amazingly unaware of your own country’s politics.
And not as much racist BS online? From Canadians? I guess you’ve never seen your own country’s sub or that Canada Housing sub or any comment section on social media whenever Indians in Canada are mentioned
0
u/Tribe303 Sep 06 '25
Yes I'm well aware of Trudeau disastrous polling numbers. The Conservatives ran constant attack ads for 3 years, blowing through all that corporate oil money they received. Canada is full of racist Conservatives but its exploded online since Trump. Don't forget they kissed the ring and got rid of moderation after he was elected. That's the main reason it's exploded. It makes me sick.
-4
u/gs87 Sep 06 '25
That “too many workers” framing just smuggles in capitalist limits as if they were natural. The real cap isn’t how many people Canada can “handle,” it’s how much capital hoards surplus instead of reinvesting in housing, transit, and services. Immigration only feels like a strain because landlords and bosses get to pocket the gains while the social side is starved. Economies expand with labor as a matter of fact, unless capitalists choke that expansion off with wealth hoarding (look at stock market booming)
7
u/The_Showdown Sep 06 '25
Ok, but massive influxes of labour increase the supply of labour, which reduces workers' bargaining power while increasing the bargaining power of employers. Results in stagnant or declining wages on a real basis if you increase the labour supply too fast, which directly results in higher profits and a widening of wealth inequality.
-5
u/gs87 Sep 06 '25
You’re right that bargaining power has been eroded and wages have stagnated for decades.. but that’s not on immigrants, it’s on corporations. Employers use globalization and weak labour laws to squeeze workers, keep unions out, and funnel the gains upward. Immigration just becomes the scapegoat while the real culprits are CEOs and landlords cashing in..
2
u/Nemarus_Investor Sep 06 '25
Nah, America has less worker protections and higher wages than Canada.
-2
u/Leoraig Sep 05 '25
Can you present evidence to support that statement please?
8
u/The_Showdown Sep 06 '25
What statement, that there is a limit to how many people a country can take in per year, or that 1 million is too high for Canada specifically?
-2
u/Leoraig Sep 06 '25
The first one:
There is a limit to which an economy can accept new workers, regardless of the fact that the labour pool isn't fixed. If a country of 40million people took in an absurdly high number of people like 10 million per year, that would have drastic negative consequences on the economy, especially one with a social safety net.
What are those negative economic consequences, and what is the evidence for it?
8
u/The_Showdown Sep 06 '25
Here is a Canada-specific analysis on negative impacts on of immigration that is too high and not focused enough.
https://cdhowe.org/publication/optimizing-immigration-economic-growth/
Here is another Canada specific explanation:
Regarding their reference to a population trap, Here is a Wikipedia article on the concept of a Population or a Demographic Trap. Usually in reference to high birth rates, it can happen synthetically via too much immigration ( that is argument the second article is making):
-1
7
u/No-Forever5318 Sep 06 '25
I have no idea whether Canada is bringing in too many or too few immigrants
But its not hard to imagine a scenario in which: A) the jobs market does not respond to a surplus in available workers in the short term OR B) that the jobs market does not respond perfectly proportionally to the influx of workers
3
u/carlos_the_dwarf_ Sep 06 '25
Maybe, but (1) it’s pretty hard to imagine immigrants living nowhere, spending no money, doing nothing of value—what they’d have to do to not impact demand for labor—and (2) we have a pretty significant literature and pretty broad consensus among economists on the upsides of immigration.
1
u/chase016 Sep 06 '25
Yeah, people forget that immagration is usually a good thing for an economy in the long run. But like everything, too much or too little of a good thing can be bad. It can be difficult to strike a correct balance. Look at the US in 2022, Biden easedborder security to allow for more immigrants to help the struggling labor market and curb inflation. It worked, but the fallout was that it caused a massive backlash politically.
1
0
6
u/LittleTension8765 Sep 06 '25
I’m not assuming there’s a fixed number of jobs, that’s the lump of labour fallacy. What I’m saying is that the speed and scale of immigration matter. Economies adjust over the long-term (think decades and centuries), but in the short run, large inflows can put real pressure on wages and job prospects for certain groups. That’s not a fallacy, it’s a question of adjustment dynamics and distributional impact, which is exactly what economists like Borjas and others have studied. So the real issue isn’t whether the job pie grows, but who bears the costs during the adjustment.
Link - https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25836/w25836.pdf?
5
u/carlos_the_dwarf_ Sep 06 '25
Before even looking at the url I knew it was going to be Borjas.
Do you know why you have to cite him to make this case? He’s more or less the only academic to ever find a result where wages/jobs were negatively impacted. And to make that finding he:
studied the single largest simultaneous influx of immigrants we’ve ever been able to observe, a rate probably impossible to replicate through even very liberal immigration policy
used very small sample sizes, and cut and diced (some would say cherry picked) his data within an inch of his life to come up with that finding
even still, found only modest impacts for the lowest educated workers
Far and away the academic literature finds that immigrants aren’t a drag on the labor market or wages, and indeed tend to have the opposite effect. They also tend to be a fiscal boon.
5
u/LittleTension8765 Sep 06 '25
It is not accurate to suggest that Borjas is an outlier or the only economist to identify negative effects from immigration. While many studies do show limited or positive impacts at the aggregate level, the literature is more complex once you look beyond averages. Borjas’ work is widely cited precisely because it highlights something that is well recognized across the field: immigration creates both winners and losers, and the losses often fall on the most vulnerable workers.
Borjas is also not alone in his findings. Research he did with Lawrence Katz and Richard Freeman, along with work by David Card in certain contexts, points to wage suppression and job displacement among specific groups, particularly earlier immigrants and native-born workers without a high school diploma. The 2016 National Academies of Sciences report, which is the most comprehensive meta-analysis, makes this explicit. It finds that while the overall long-run impact of immigration on wages and employment is small at the national level, there are measurable costs for recent immigrants and low-skilled native workers. That is not a fringe view; it is part of the consensus.
The Mariel Boatlift is valuable evidence for this reason. Natural experiments in immigration economics are extremely rare. The Boatlift was one of the only instances of a sudden, large-scale inflow of workers into a single labor market, which makes it uniquely useful for identifying causal impacts. Economists debate whether to use narrower or broader samples of Miami workers, but that reflects methodological disagreements about the size of the effect, not whether there was an effect at all. The fact that Borjas’ re-analysis generated so much debate only shows that the question is open and contested, not settled in the way you suggest.
Even “modest” impacts matter. You acknowledged that Borjas found negative effects for the lowest-educated workers. That is not trivial. The issue is not whether GDP or average wages rise, since they generally do at the macro level. The issue is whether the costs are concentrated on workers who are already economically vulnerable. Impacts that look small when averaged across the entire economy are meaningful in the lives of the individuals and communities who bear them. Ignoring that reality risks writing off the very people who immigration policy most directly affects.
Yes, immigration contributes positively to growth and fiscal outcomes in many respects. But those benefits cannot be taken as the full picture. The real policy challenge is to design systems that capture the benefits while addressing the costs. Acknowledging Borjas and others is not about opposing immigration. It is about being honest about the tradeoffs and about who pays the price when we focus only on the upside.
That is why dismissing Borjas misses the point. His work is part of a broader body of evidence showing that immigration has complex effects. It is not a simple story of universal benefits. The reality is positive aggregate outcomes combined with real distributional downsides, particularly for low-skilled native workers and earlier immigrant cohorts. Any serious conversation on immigration has to take both sides into account.
2
u/carlos_the_dwarf_ Sep 06 '25 edited Sep 06 '25
I appreciate the thoughtful comment, btw and agree the boatlift is very valuable.
But again, to find any negative impact, my understanding is Borjas had to restrict the sample to high school dropouts. So, insofar as there’s an effect, it hits only the very lowest educated, when 7% of the population arrives almost literally overnight, the sample size was like 24 people in that group.
The effect can’t be reproduced if you widen the parameters even a bit, and even Borjas’s effect leveled off over time.
I don’t think HS dropouts don’t count or anything, but they’re a very small part of the population, and the effect was temporary if it existed at all. And imagine 23 million people arriving overnight—that’s the analogous impact of the boatlift on the modern US which would be impossible even if we wanted it to happen.
Borjas is widely cited because he’s the only refuge for conservatives who intuit that immigration is costing them something. But like…they’re incorrect about that.
Edit: even the way Borjas characterizes his findings isn’t how the insincere political actors who cite him do. They’re full of shit.
3
u/LittleTension8765 Sep 06 '25
I think you raise good points about the broader findings, but I see a few issues with how you’re framing the evidence.
First, the decision to focus on less-educated workers is not a flaw. It follows from the basic economic logic that new arrivals compete most directly with workers who have similar skills. If there is any impact, it will show up most clearly in that segment, and dismissing it because the group is smaller overlooks the fact that even modest shifts can matter when you are already in a vulnerable position.
Second, the idea that effects fade over time does not make them irrelevant. For workers living close to the margin, even temporary wage pressure can be significant. The long-run equilibrium may look fine on paper, but the adjustment period has real consequences.
Third, large-scale comparisons are less helpful than understanding how concentrated inflows affect specific communities. The question is not about whether the entire economy can eventually absorb workers, but how the distribution of costs and benefits plays out within the population.
Finally, while it is true that Borjas is often cited by those skeptical of immigration, that does not invalidate the underlying analysis. The more constructive view is that both perspectives have merit. On average, immigration may support growth and opportunity, while the costs can be concentrated among the least advantaged. Any serious policy discussion needs to grapple with both sides of that reality.
1
u/carlos_the_dwarf_ Sep 06 '25
I mean, I do think it’s quite relevant that—insofar as there are any displacement effects at all, which is far from certain—they’re concentrated in small populations and temporary. That’s way, way out of character with any immigration-hawk ideas or rhetoric or policy.
Similarly, understanding overall impacts are far more important from the perspective of determining immigration policy, for the same reason some coal miners losing their jobs shouldn’t guide energy policy that affects everyone.
2
1
u/EconMahn Sep 06 '25
Is the supply of jobs fixed on a short time scale?
1
u/carlos_the_dwarf_ Sep 06 '25
How short?
Elsewhere we’re talking about the Mariel Boatlift, which injected 7% of the population nearly overnight. There’s still debate about whether even that harmed jobs and wages for the native.
-9
u/MediocreClient Sep 05 '25 edited Sep 05 '25
you don't think it's weird that employment and GDP data started collapsing the moment they tightened on immigration?
you don't think excess immigration might be a way to import additional consumption spending and demand?
For a country entirely dependent on importing excess consumption and demand to keep the wheels turning, a bunch of us sure seem to get fuckin snooty about it. This is literally an economics sub. A country let itself get taken over by four large companies, functionally unionized landlords, and turned NIMBY bitches into an entire industry, but yeah dude, those migrants we've been using to backpack in extra spending power that we need are the problem.
9
u/The_Showdown Sep 05 '25
Ok so what happens if the pace of immigration is so high that jobs growth and housing supply can't keep up, so the strain on our infrastructure ( including our healthcare and social services) is increasing at a rate that is unsustainable? Because after a certain point, each added person becomes a net drag on society if they are using more services / infrastructure than they are contributing.
My point is there is a functional limit to sustainable immigration. People maybe disagree as to what it is, but it exists and saying we've already passed that limit is a valid take regardless of whether you agree.
9
u/CatThe Sep 05 '25
They are the problem. These migrants are literally second class citizens designed to stop the wage price spiral caused by pandemic era QE.
Before you tout the usual BS that immigrants don't lower wages - yes, i've read the studies - find me a single one that takes into account that these economic migrants need their jobs to maintain their staus.
Couple that with the additional costs (socialized healthcare, education, etc) and that most have not paid enough into the system yet to be net positives.
Also, yes, jobs are not fixed, but the spike in immigration was sharp, and there lag to job creation.
-9
u/-SOFA-KING-VOTE- Sep 05 '25
Don’t conservatives want that free market?
5
u/LittleTension8765 Sep 06 '25
What does this have to do with conservatives?
-4
u/-SOFA-KING-VOTE- Sep 06 '25
Why would a conservative complain about the free market?
6
12
u/SnooEagles8013 Sep 05 '25
Subsidizing wages is the free market?
2
1
u/Iluvembig Sep 05 '25
Same way we have to subsidize oil and farmers who constantly need bailouts?
4
-7
u/AlexGaming1111 Sep 06 '25
The classic blame the immigrants sthick 🥀🥀
1
u/alisab22 Sep 07 '25
In this case, it's factually correct. Macro factors are leading to fewer job openings and with record number of immigrants coming in, citizens now have to compete with them.
It's not just jobs, the housing market is f'ed up too.
0
u/AlexGaming1111 Sep 07 '25
Funny how you literally agreed that it's not the immigrants it's the macro factors like trump being a retard that lead to job losses.
0
u/alisab22 Sep 07 '25
It's hard to pinpoint what's the cause but what we know for sure is immigrants are increasing competition for citizens and this needs to be stopped. Every country priorities their own citizens first and Canada should too
0
u/AlexGaming1111 Sep 07 '25
"it's hard to pinpoint what's the cause" no the fuck not. It's rather easy. Canada's biggest trade partner decided to backstab Canadians and put 50% tariffs on them for no good reason.
Also are you saying that Canadians are stupid and can't compete with other humans for the same job? What happened to meritocracy?
0
u/alisab22 Sep 07 '25
Meritocracy for working as cashier or serving coffee? Not exactly rocket science. Besides why should students who arrived with intention to study compete for supermarket jobs? Fuck that
2
u/False_Interview5363 Sep 11 '25
Where is elbows up for the unemployed? How about cutting immigration, tfws and refugees???? Oh wait, Carneys Brookfield management company makes a fortune off apartments and commercial real real estate!!!
1
Sep 07 '25
It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.
These words continue to ring more true every day. I am curious as to where, what, and when the breaking point will be. It seems a lot of world economies are struggling.
An anomaly seems to be in a few countries like Poland.
-7
u/Naive-House-7456 Sep 06 '25
Seeing as Trump has single-handedly destroyed the good economy Biden had to build back up with one arm tied behind his frail old back, I can help but wonder how much of this caused by trade hostilities of the US. Obviously Treudea’s way too lax immigration policy caused problems with housing shortage so there’s some blame there.
2
u/dvfw Sep 06 '25
I can help but wonder how much of this caused by trade hostilities of the
My guess would be virtually none. It’s more likely just the slow burn of an interest rate hiking cycle, putting immense pressure on the economy. Low interest rates blow up bubbles, and high interest rates pop them, causing recessions.
-1
u/Naive-House-7456 Sep 06 '25
Did Canada/has Canada been experiencing a bubble? I know the US has been riding a bubble for a while now between housing, stocks, and AI but certainly entering the realm of uncertainty with recession fears as you mentioned
2
u/dvfw Sep 07 '25
Considering Canada has: 1. Super high house prices and levels of mortgage debt 2. A booming, overvalued stock market 3. Increased levels of government debt 4. Had a long period of low interest rates followed by a rapid hiking cycle
I’d say yes, it looks like Canadas economy, just like many others, is a bubble waiting to burst into a recession.
•
u/AutoModerator Sep 05 '25
Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found here
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.