• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Report: Facts About Migrants Don't Always Match What The Headlines Say

Fishbone Jones said:
I'm sure many things remain the same as back when. However, many families have two working parents now, to make ends meet. My parents raised 8 kids in a three bedroom tenement. Dad was a mechanic. Mom stayed home. Times were simpler then. Wages and costs were commensurate. Today wages are higher, but costs are starting to outstrip what people can buy with their money.

People making high wages can afford niceties. Unfortunately, many many people have much less disposable income to play around with.

All to say, I guess, that we can't compare yesteryear to current conditions. What used to be, no longer holds true.

Can people still have 8 kids, properly raise them and maintain a household on today's factory wages, with only one working parent? I suppose, but I can't imagine anyone wanting to lower their living standard in order to do it.

Just my random thoughts.

A guy I met earlier this year has 11 kids and a good job at a pulpmill in Northern BC. He was a very happy guy!
 
Eye In The Sky said:
Unfortunate it didn't come from a credible source. 

Another odd coincidence, this is just before the date the Compact is signed.

The Lancet isn't credible??????

Ahh...I see others have also wondered about that

 
Check this out: https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/increased-push-for-free-movement-between-canada-u-k-australia-new-zealand-1.4209011

I really can't see Australia getting on board with this.
 
PPCLI Guy said:
The Lancet isn't credible??????

Ahh...I see others have also wondered about that
Not that it takes much away from the article (if anything), but one of the key supporting docs used by the authors in the Lancet is from the UN.
https://www.iom.int/wmr/world-migration-report-2018

I'll go back my corner now.
since 3 in 4 of the people categorized as migrants are also characterized as internal migrants- you know, like people who move back and forth from Fort McMurray to the Rock.
 
>I suppose, but I can't imagine anyone wanting to lower their living standard in order to do it.

Bingo.  And you don't even need to extend the thought experiment beyond 1 or 2 kids.  The answer is "won't", not "can't".

 
daftandbarmy said:
A guy I met earlier this year has 11 kids and a good job at a pulpmill in Northern BC. He was a very happy guy!
Of course. There's always exceptions and people that make it work.

Brad Sallows said:
Bingo.  And you don't even need to extend the thought experiment beyond 1 or 2 kids.  The answer is "won't", not "can't".
I always thought giving your kids better than you had was one of the goals of being a parent. 1 or 2 is all some can do without going backward. Maybe I'm old fashioned that way.
 
Cloud Cover said:
since 3 in 4 of the people categorized as migrants are also characterized as internal migrants- you know, like people who move back and forth from Fort McMurray to the Rock.

So that makes almost every one of us on this forum "migrants", which shows you how words and statistics can be used to make anything sound reasonable. Legal immigration selects the best from potential candidates, so they should out preform the local population. That's the goal of an immigration system, to draw the best and keep out dead weight. Nobody seems to have a real issue with legal immigration, people get upset by the way some people get to circumvent the system by just showing up at the border and getting special treatment.

Is there a valid comparison to be drawn between someone moving from rural PEI to Victoria, and someone from rural Syria to Toronto? More topically, is there a comparison between the aspiring actor moving to LA from the mid-west, and a migrant from Columbia?
 
Furniture said:
Is there a valid comparison to be drawn between someone moving from rural PEI to Victoria, and someone from rural Syria to Toronto? More topically, is there a comparison between the aspiring actor moving to LA from the mid-west, and a migrant from Columbia?

Fortunately, due to the cost of living, no one 'in-migrates' from PEI to Victoria :)
 
Exactly.  We have more than 2 because we decided we didn't need all the toys many feel they do need these days.
 
CountDC said:
Exactly.  We have more than 2 because we decided we didn't need all the toys many feel they do need these days.

In my parents' days clothes were passed down from one kid to the next, people and their kids knew how to sew and hem and repair, rooms were shared, mom stayed home, kids occupied themselves, older siblings became care givers, neighbours took kids in for meals, kids got jobs early, improvised, played kick the can and chased each other until it was dark.  No one played organised hockey they just played on the pond with whatever they could find.  No one had a finished basement, they had cellars.  The outdoors was your finished basement.

Now kids need their own bedrooms, x-box, phones, don't work until much later in life, organised sports costs way too much, have special diets etc etc.  Christ I know some kids that each have their own xbox in the same freaking house.

People could make it work but they can't do it while wanting a certain instant gratification and disposable lifestyle.
 
Some big broad brushes painting some broad antique strokes.

There's plenty of kids out there wearing hand me downs, that don't have any electronic gadgets.

Not all parents are financially capable of supporting a tribe.
To try compare things fifty years ago to today is pretty far fetched.

You can pine for those days of yesteryear, moan about spoiled kids,, selfish parents, whatever. They are gone. At least for most. Hungry then tastes the same as hungry now.

People will have as many kids as they want. Responsible people will limit that number to what is good for the family unit, whether one or ten.

It would almost appear to be shaming if you don't spit out kids like rabbits. You push the idea that if someone doesn't have the amount of children you think they should, then they're just shiftless and selfish. Thought China were the one that dictated what gender and how many kids you can have.

Condemn people for not having more kids than they can handle? Wait until you're done walking 10 miles each way to school all uphill both ways in three feet of snow and having to warm your shoeless feet in fresh cowpats.

Of course you won't have problems paying more and more taxes to pay for those third generation, 10 person welfare families. If they all have the ten kids you mandate in three generations you're supporting thousands, but you have the population you wanted.
 
Fishbone Jones said:
Some big broad brushes painting some broad antique strokes.

There's plenty of kids out there wearing hand me downs, that don't have any electronic gadgets.

Not all parents are financially capable of supporting a tribe.
To try compare things fifty years ago to today is pretty far fetched.

You can pine for those days of yesteryear, moan about spoiled kids,, selfish parents, whatever. They are gone. At least for most. Hungry then tastes the same as hungry now.

People will have as many kids as they want. Responsible people will limit that number to what is good for the family unit, whether one or ten.

It would almost appear to be shaming if you don't spit out kids like rabbits. You push the idea that if someone doesn't have the amount of children you think they should, then they're just shiftless and selfish. Thought China were the one that dictated what gender and how many kids you can have.

Condemn people for not having more kids than they can handle? Wait until you're done walking 10 miles each way to school all uphill both ways in three feet of snow and having to warm your shoeless feet in fresh cowpats.

Of course you won't have problems paying more and more taxes to pay for those third generation, 10 person welfare families. If they all have the ten kids you mandate in three generations you're supporting thousands, but you have the population you wanted.

Slow down tex.  That isn't what I was saying at all.  Society has changed.  Yes people can make it work.  I have one kid.  It works for me.  I could have two or three and still maintain a certain lifestyle.  But you have to make some sacrifices.  Some people are still today making those sacrifices.  Things are different.  My family all lived on the same block.  Grandparents uncles etc.  Not anymore.  families barely live in the same area codes anymore.

It was just a comment on today vs yesterday.

::)

 
 
And I'd add some [most] of those 7+ families wouldn't have been that big had the same level of NOT having to have 7+ kids was available then, like it is today.....
 
People definitely would have had fewer children in the paste if they had more reliable methods of birth control.

The point about "can't" vs "won't" (in any context) is that the former mistakenly creates the impression that something is beyond the capacity of a person to address.  I don't expect people to live uncomfortably, but they don't get to pretend that the possible is impossible.
 
Remius said:
In my parents' days clothes were passed down from one kid to the next, people and their kids knew how to sew and hem and repair, rooms were shared, mom stayed home, kids occupied themselves, older siblings became care givers, neighbours took kids in for meals, kids got jobs early, improvised, played kick the can and chased each other until it was dark.  No one played organised hockey they just played on the pond with whatever they could find.  No one had a finished basement, they had cellars.  The outdoors was your finished basement.

Sound like their days and mine were the same ones.  Kick the can was fun.  Most families had cats to try and keep the rats away from the cellars.  Hockey on the pond/lake with a nice fire to warm yourself by. 
 
Brad Sallows said:
People definitely would have had fewer children in the paste if they had more reliable methods of birth control.

The point about "can't" vs "won't" (in any context) is that the former mistakenly creates the impression that something is beyond the capacity of a person to address.  I don't expect people to live uncomfortably, but they don't get to pretend that the possible is impossible.

Agreed.  Don't see anyone dictating what size anyone else should have. We are just pointing out there is a difference between can't and won't.  Give up that third pickup, speed boat, European vacation. etc and you can.  The fact that you won't though is totally up to you.  Saying can't makes it seem like a society issue of under paid over charged vice a life choice made.  My sister and her husband decided not to have any kids, their choice to live the life they wanted but they never said can't.  They made the choice, acknowledge it and lived it. 
 
CountDC said:
Sound like their days and mine were the same ones.  Kick the can was fun.  Most families had cats to try and keep the rats away from the cellars.  Hockey on the pond/lake with a nice fire to warm yourself by.

Ah, isn't nostalgia grand.  Yes, we found our fun where we could and it wasn't reliant on technology.  Though there was no nearby "pond/lake" for hockey, there was always the street (and that unique Canadian official call to suspend play - Car).  I found this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McMmsczJQqI that gives a hint of my childhood.  The picture of the corner (with Pepsi sign), well that was our corner, and the narrator (yes, I knew him, though he was a few years older) would not have been particularly welcome on that side of the road.
 
Back
Top