Slashdot Mirror

Populations in most developed countries are still growing, they just experience slower growth than underdeveloped countries.

But the rate of growth has been declining for many years, and much of today's growth is due to immigration. Canada's population growth rate is currently 1.2%. Two thirds of that is from immigration. So our local growth is 0.4% and falling. If current trends continue we will have negative local growth in a few decades. Immigration will keep us steady only as long as undeveloped countries stay undeveloped. :)
http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

I know it sounds loopy but I think he has a fair point

People's wants are infinite but people also want free time to enjoy themsevles. People are only willing to work so hard for their wants.

If you look at how far things have some in the last 500 years, the amount of stuff provided by the government even in capitalist countries is incredible. Basic literacy was once limited to the elites, disease was rampant. Yet today here in Canada, 1/3 of the population will get a high school diploma, 1/3 a college diploma, and 1/3 a university degree or higher. Healthcare is provided by the government. So what happens when the GDP per Capita continues to grow? In real terms it was $30k in 1994 and stands at $40k in 2011, what will it be like in 2100? What does a country with a $100k GDP per Capita look like?

I don't think that it is unreasonable to think that at some point the level of services provided by the government will be high enough that many people will choose not to work. And instead spending their time on other pursuits. The maginal benefit you gain from going from just government services to a full time job just would be enough for some people. Now obviously not everyone will do this, some poeple will always strive for more. But some people will.

Imagine if you had the choice between $60,000 a year from the government, but $100,000 if you got a full time job. In dollar terms the marginal benefit is $40,000. But at $60,000 you already have enough for the comforts you already enjoy like food, clothes, TV, Internet, vacations, etc. Would you really work 40hrs a week for a little more comfort, or would you take all of that extra time you have been afforded and persure your passion, or spend time with your kids?

1. 1. advertise for higher skilled jobs at below local labour rates for a month or two
2. 2. claim an inability to hire in a few months, bring in the temporary foreign workers (TFW)
3. 3. Profit!!

http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/jobs/foreign_workers/higher_skilled/trades/index.shtml

While I think the advice to go into trades is fine (there is likely more demand right now.) what Bloomberg says about no foreign competition is likely b.s. I don't know how long it will take, but there are donut shops and gardening centres here with TFW's. There is no low skill job that is not routinely farmed out already. Trades are not immune either:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/12/07/bc-chinese-miners-new-documents.html

really? I certainly don't work the same then any person in the world did 100 years ago.
I also have more time.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whaples.work.hours.us

http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=19

And here's the transcript of a letter from a priest who cooperated with the Vatican for picking # 1.

Now the funny thing is that it's MANDATORY to report suspected cases of child abuse, and yet the priests who covered it up have never been charged. Covering it up after the fact also makes them accessories after the fact.

Maybe it's time to do like some people in Great Britain are thinking of doing, and have the Pope arrested if he comes visiting.

Any bets that he cancels the September visit?

This argument gets used a lot, especially with regard to the discrepancy between the U.S. and Canada. I'm not saying its wrong, but I've also never seen convincing evidence that its as big an issue as people make it out to be.

The thing is, taken on the whole, Canada certainly does have a staggeringly small population density, but it's not like we're all evenly distributed up here. According to National Geographic, 75% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the U.S. border, and in 2006, 80% of us lived in urban areas.

Having driven across most of Canada, including about as far north as one can drive, I can assure you that the telecom companies out here aren't spending a whole lot of money to provide service to the huge swaths of empty land. Driving from Ontario to Alberta results in nearly two full days without cell phone reception... at least the last time I did that drive (2007).

And believe me, in Canada we would kill for cell phone pricing on par with the U.S. Hell, even just two year contracts would be a treat....

Canada

Here is a Canadian Government white paper on the subject.

Quote from the paper "Companies that promote family-friendly workplaces have an edge when it comes to recruitment and retention of skilled employees."

Not in the least, are you, and what does that have to do with it?

No, you just come across that way.

Show me some numbers.

Okay, you asked for it, here are some links. There are thousands of entries in the databases and journals that are not outdated research. Many of which you can not access directly form the web (subscription required). Here are a few links I glossed over quickly:

• Research
• More research
• More Research
• Oblig wikipedia
• Someone almost any father should know about
• More research

Do you really want me to go on? As I had said before, there is a ton of research that shows this. There are many reasons, poverty being but one. Children of single parent households are at greater risk (risk means chance, as in it might be, but might not be), but not doomed. And, I was not making a comment on yourself (just the language you used and the attitude which you came across with.) I have studied and worked in psychology, sociology and recovery. Have you? If you have, what has caused you to believe that economics are the sole foundation of family's woes. That sounds like a very narrow and personal understanding of the issues at hand. I have seen mental health, drugs, accidents, abuse, life crises, market changes, job shifts, marital issues, and many others things cause the issues you so conveniently blame poverty for. On the flip side, I have seen outstanding leaders, students, writers, managers, researchers, etc come from poverty stricken homes. Our world has a fine history of great individuals growing up in poverty to lead and become icons of success.

Poverty is a societal crime anymore in my opinion, but it is not the cause of all of these issues. Having worked in schools, I can tell you from first hand experience that it is the attitude of the parent(s) that make the crucial difference. And, there is also a great deal of research out there to explain to you as well.

It's a cycle, and the cycle typically begins with (drum roll...) Poverty!. Your making a gross exaggeration here.

And you are making a gross simplification of an enormous problem touching on a multitude of issues from mental health to parent's values. How do you explain so many children of well off parents winding up in poverty, so many children of poverty stricken parents winding up great successes? Poverty has something to do with it, but not as much as things have to do with poverty. One of the reasons I support public education over private is poverty discrimination inherent in private educations. Your language reminds me of the teenagers I deal with. That is another reason I asked if you were bitter about your life. The way we use language and the way we disparage others is a very big clue. The more bitter we are on the inside, the more we lash out on the outside. At others we do not know and even more so at those who are close to us.

Honestly I don't think you read what I said, nor do I think you have any fucking right saying that kids with two parents are better off than kids with one.

I read what you typed. there is but one root factor here dipshit[And you wonder why I asked if you are bitter?!?!?], it's money, poor couples are about 40% more likely to argue and split up, the kids are more likely to wind up being yelled at excessively/getting-the-shit-beaten-out-of. this has nothing to do with two working parents, single parents, mixed homes, etc Uh, yes it does. If you have experience researchin

Regardless of interoperability with Exchange, or ability of application to perform at the same level, Lets put all that aside and consider something...

ANY organization that wishes to do business with the government in the US (Canada as well) needs to provide an environment that plays well on the accessibility front. The tools just aren't there, and again, it is a decidedly un-sexy front for development. Until a robust accessibility program is implemented in Linux/Open Source applications, they cannot be used in business.

Do you really want to be the business being picked by the disabled?

ADA http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm

Canadian Version - http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/asp/gateway.asp?hr=/en/hip/ odi/documents/scottTaskForce/03_chap3.shtml&hs=pyp

Art
AccordSQA ( http://www.accordsqa.com/ )
Testing Automation Tools

Yes, as long as you've been there three months (and a few other exceptions you would expect).

The valid uses for a SSN in Canada: http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/asp/gateway.asp?hr=/en/cs/s in/print_03_06_30.shtml&hs=sxn

Up here in Canada only goverment agencies, employers and banks are allowed to require SIN

Not all government agencies can require it, this page lists authorized uses. Note that banks (even for high-interest savings accounts), credit card issuers, and landlords can't require it - I've always left that field blank on their forms, and they've all provided service without questioning it.

Current turn around time is ~2 1/2 months.....

2 Weeks for HRDC
6 Weeks for CIC
2 Weeks for CPC

M.