I'm not sure why you're looking at Canada in isolation when the tariffs introduced by Trump have been the biggest shock to the Canadian economy in the past year. It seems that you really want to attrubute this to immigration / inviting temporary foreign workers (beyond Canada's capacity) and, while that is a factor, I think Canada having its bestie (who gobbled up 70% of its exports) stab it in the back is a more logical explanation as to why unemployment has rise recently.

Immigration is going to be crucial to Canada's growth story especially based on current local population trends. Canadian universities like UofT, McGill, UBC have already signed agreements in countries like India to create centers of excellence/innovation campuses in emerging markets with more favorable demographic skews (ie. more young participants in the workforce vs retirees) and it would be ill thought out of Canada to not offer those that attend these transnational education institutions preferable conditions to immigrate to Canada.

[–] maplesaga@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Per capita GDP has been falling for a decade. We had the second to last per capita GDP in the 38 countries of the OECD the last decade. Its been a problem long before tariffs.

Mass immigration into a housing shortage benefits who? Definitely not renters or non-asset holders, so what kind of regressive policy is it?

I'd be fine with it if we built the housing and infrastructure first, and there was a real labor shortage caused by more than just inflation.

[–] liuther9@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

100% of your problems could have been solved if we had max cap networth and 100% taxes above that cap.

[–] maplesaga@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Ya maybe, if you could stop investment from fleeing Canada; only because it would drastically raise inflation and interest rates, which would make mortgages far more expensive. Of course anyone with a large mortgage would be made poorer.

[–] liuther9@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah you are right, forgot about price ceiling part. Gov should be regulating lots of things compared to the situation now. Though infinite wealth cap is the main solution. It is like joining an online game 1 lvl where many players are 1000000+ lvl. The system itself is unfair and we need 100 lvl max

[–] maplesaga@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Well I'd just ask does the aggregation of nominal wealth affect you in any way. If Bill Gates has 800b dollars does that hurt you, is that money being taken from somebody else, even when the money supply grows at 8% because Bill Gates and other rich people dont spend any of it so inflation doesnt rise?

[–] liuther9@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes? Redistribution, creating more jobs, social programs, positive effect on mental health. Inflation on what? Lets say meat becomes super expensive. Shop wont be able to extract all this wealth if progressive taxes eats it up then again distribute that and create med facilities, spend that on rnd, education. List goes on.

[–] maplesaga@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

How do you think that would effect the economy. Assuming you liquidated Elon Musks Tesla stock it clearly will devalue Tesla stock as more stocks are sold off to fund consumption, which will deflate risky growth stocks far faster than consumer staple. Why would anyone then invest in AI, or Tesla, or anything risky that generates additional profit?

[–] liuther9@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Maybe that wouldve prevented ai job disruption, ai bubble, building useless data centers that skyrocket climate change and at the end hiring drivers from philippines and call that AI self drive taxi

[–] maplesaga@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

Well it just would be done elsewhere I think, and you'd be stuck doing low skilled labor as a society.