« Monetary Policy for a central bank with no balance sheet | Main | Overselling faded dreams? »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I wish Stat Can produced something like what you have done here. It has taken me almost a decade to understand the differences between most of the common data series they produce.

Mike, I just wish that Stat Can didn't use such a bizarre time frame for the data making comparisons impossible. Here are the different ways the immigrant numbers can be categorized:

Before 1971
1971 to 1980
1981 to 1990
1991 to 2000
2001 to 2011
2001 to 2005
2005 to 2011

Now thinking about it I'm guessing there might be residual disclosure issue if the 2001 to 2010 numbers are reported along with the total numbers because possibly someone could pick out a person who came in May? But it would be nice to have at least some of the big aggregate numbers available on a consistent time frame so that one could track trends over time and not be off by a half year.

I suspect that many of these people are now in the United States.
The practice of immigrating to Canada with the intention of eventually
moving to the US is so widespread that it even has a slang term:
"Touching Base".

For a while there, 85% of "Canadians" coming to work in the US on a TN-1 visa
were actually Chinese or Indian nationals who had "immigrated" to Canada and
then used their "Canadian" identity papers to get a NAFTA visa to move South.
While this particular loophole has been plugged, I do not doubt that the whole
concept of using Canadian "immigration" as a foot in the door for the US
is very much still happening.

Dave makes a good point and it is one that is not just US-specific. The willingness to immigrate for economic or personal reasons probably doesn't attenuate quickly after arriving in Canada, so these folks might be the leading edge of those willing to go on to other countries when options exist. I know that expats were targeted as people might set up a foreign business office when when I worked for a corporation as they were seen as much more likely to agree to go.

Dave and joseph -

There isn't a lot of info on return migration, but this OECD report gives some estimates, though they're fairly dated now: https://www.oecd.org/migration/mig/43999382.pdf. Canada actually does a fairly good job of holding onto its immigrants compared to a lot of other countries:

On Canadians in the US: a lot of the Canadians working in tech in the US (be they first, second, or 10th generation immigrants) are there because of simple economics. Tech salaries are higher in the US (see thishttps://www.investinontario.com/information-technology#IT-Companies-thrive-here). Canada has a number of large and highly respected software engineering and computer science programs. They're producing lots of graduates, and the best and brightest go where the salaries are highest and the opportunities for learning are the greatest, and that's often the US.. The fact that a number of Canada's tech companies are located in cities that fall in into the "nice place to raise a family" category doesn't help with the retention of young talent.

You wanted an integrated North American economy. Then it means that Canada will be in the periphery (boondocks in human english) the way Nova Scotia is a a beautiful place for the 1% to buy a cottage on the sea.
The consequence is you mistakenly believe Canada is a "more equal" society than the US. No: your true 1% percenters are in New York and San Francisco. We're just the loser on the rez.

Jacques Rene -

That's actually something that's really important to bear in mind when comparing Canadian and US income inequality numbers. The US taxes people on the basis of citizenship, so it's not possible to avoid paying US taxes except by giving up US citizenship. Canada taxes people on the basis of residence, creating strong incentives for rich Canadians to take up residence elsewhere. I'm not sure how much of the difference between Cdn and US inequality numbers this accounts for, but it is part of the story.

You're making a slightly different point - that the most talented Cdns go south and earn their fortunes in the US. Not sure how much of the inequality difference that would account for.

The whole point of the National Policy was to create a whole society up north.
Otherwise, Manitoba is North North Dakota with all the prosperity and influence that ensues.
In an integrated North American economy,apart from space stations for the mining and gas-oil extraction, the only locale that is relevant is Montréal as Chicago's northern harbor. The same as New Orleans which Chicago's southern shore. Just colder and less crime. And both french-speaking as my ancestors knew the value of location,location,location.
As for inequality, the Canadian real high earners live in the US,both individually and as members of the biggest businesses. The "Big Five " (that is Anglo) banks divide a market smaller than Texas. And the next two (Nationale and Desjardins) share a market barely the size of Arizona. Would barely count as regional banks in the US (with commensurate compensations...)
Inequality in the North Atlantic is not about ordinary proles (including professors at municipal universities, sorry McGill,I knew McGill, I worked with McGill but you're no Harvard...) earning less but about the real top stealing much more. And the stealing is done mostly in New York and San Francisco. The "CEO" of GM Canada is merely a foreman of the branch office without authority to blow its own nose or a young trainee for the show down south.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this site

  • Google

Blog powered by Typepad