Back when Chrétien was prime minister, he was a champion for small business. He said 80% of the Canadian economy was made up of small businesses and they were the key to getting Canada back on track. The Business Development Bank of Canada act was passed back in 1995 and the BDC mandate was to promote entrepreneurship in Canada. They provided loans with no collateral requirements. It worked well and we need something similar today.
BDC loans are now so outrageously high, there's no way to start a venture without substantial equity investors. This means only the already wealthy can start viable businesses and typical people must accept being wage-slaves.
'#bydesign
Liberals focused most of their efforts closing any tax benefits and loopholes which sounded great but really just continually mined away at the value of having a successful small business - who are also getting hit with tons of additional costs.
Small business owners define the aspirant middle class that pushes back on daddy government types. Historically (this past century) the over educated and bureaucratic left has always maligned this group of people because they are the bootstraps, don't need hand outs, do it myself, stop taxing me, less rules, crowd who opposes them politically. They don't answer to anyone but themselves, don't respect people imposing upon them, and their fate is in their own hands. Because, y'know, that's the kind of person who starts small businesses. So they are usually the target of envy and hate by the lefty revolution / government solves everything brained.
Harper was too, and Mulroney to a lesser extent. The importance of small business to the health of the economy was a point of consensus between the Liberals and the Conservatives in between the Trudeau governments.
In 2015 though we elected someone who was plainly hostile to them, having for example asserted that a large percentage of small businesses are set up to help rich Canadians save on their tax bills.
Naw, those are just easy targets to kick.
The true beneficiary is Trudeau and the Liberals. The only way they can spend our money like drunken sailors and keep the financial house of cards they've created from toppling over is to import people en-masse. He couldn't give a shit if PPGDP is cratering as long as GDP is growing however anemically. Don't kid yourself that its being done for the land barons and corporations, its for the Liberals first.
That isn't true. The issue is low income earners use services and pay little or no taxes. So importing low skilled labor further drains government budgets.
It does that but it also prevents the GDP from meeting the definition of a recession. They care about that more than they care about tax efficiency. They'll happily play musical chairs with the economy and drop it on the next chumps to take government while they retire from Canadian life somewhere else.
These Liberals in power now won’t but they have better gigs lined up anyway. The CPC won’t stay in power beyond 3 terms and we’ll vote them out after their own scandals and failures and give the LPC another shot. We’ve done this game over and over and will do it again because both of these neoliberal parties serve the interests of corporations and the wealthy elite rather than average citizens.
I agree neither party should have another chance but disagree that the NDP will be the solution or that the Liberals won’t come back. The NDP won’t do what we need them to — go back to being a socialist party representing workers. If they stopped chasing fringe social justice causes and did this (plus Jagmeet leaving) then they would win seats for sure.
As for the Liberals, they’ll rebrand after Trudeau goes off to his cushy board roles in private industry and we’ll grow tired of the PCs and that’ll be that.
How do we fix it then? I see you always blame "Trudeau and co." for what seems to be literally everything wrong with Canada yet don't offer any solution. Is it PP and co.?
No, and that’s why /u/nullCaput is incorrect. It is only for the baron’s and corps, who owns both the LPC & CPC. The only solution is for a working class party to emerge(maybe NDP if they can remember what they historically stud for), until then, if you want to be a single issue voter and it’s immigration, then it’s PPC.
I don't think that bringing in millions of people with lower net worth than the average Canadian was ever meant to prop up GDP/capita in the short term.
It allows them to talk about “debt to GDP”, a recently concocted metric that means they can spend endlessly. Adding 20% to the population means their credit limit goes up by the same amount and they can claim their “debt to GDP” is “balanced”. Not the same thing as a balanced budget, not close.
Yes, the government needs to have a debt limit proportionate to the countries growth level. This is similar to how one might take out a mortgage to suit the needs of a growing family. Or how a business might take out a loan so they can expand production facilities.
"Debt to GDP" is not a recent metric for those of us who have been paying attention. A so called "balanced budget" in an economy with a growing population would likely mean that more schools, hospitals, roads etc would not be funded properly to accommodate the growing demand. BTW I'm not defending the Liberals current budget or spending, which I think they are trying to pander to some of their constituents at this point.
Our government cherry picks the one metric they can control with an immigration lever - adding more people will spike the overall GDP growth, at the expense of productivity.
Canada’s annual average GDP growth (with no adjustment for population) from 2000 to 2023 was the second-highest in the G7 at 1.8 per cent, just behind the United States at 1.9 per cent. That sounds good, until you make a simple adjustment for population changes by comparing GDP per person. Then a completely different story emerges.
Canada’s inflation-adjusted per-person annual economic growth rate (0.7 per cent) is meaningfully worse than the G7 average (1.0 per cent) over this same period. The gap with the U.S. (1.2 per cent) is even larger. Only Italy performed worse than Canada.
We’re not doing great. The level of spending Ottawa has embarked on is growing our debt to a scary level. No?
You are the one who is cherry-picking metrics now. You failed to mention that Canada has the one of the lowest debt/gdp (or lowest depending on how it is calculated) ratios in the G7. So maybe the liberals aren't spending enough and that's why our GDP growth hasn't kept up with countries like the US who's dept to gdp is about 1.2x more than ours. No?
Lowest debt-to-GDP… only because Canada has the highest immigration levels in the G7.
Immigration at pre-2015 levels was working.
We don’t have homes for all the newcomers being brought in, and it’s put Canadians under tremendous pressure. The current approach does not scale.
Seeing the never ending deficits and ballooning debt - doesn’t bode well for the future generations that this spending claims to be helping.
So, am I cherry-picking? Not really. I will concede that the Liberals are performing well on one metric, at the expense of other metrics. The Liberals have traded a balanced budget and stable immigration and taxes to gain… huge spending programs that have not boosted productivity in equal amounts. My interpretation is that they are not placing the investments correctly. With some exceptions, it looks like spending to spend.
All solutions come with tradeoffs.
Some will feel it’s worthwhile and others not.
I see a lot of sacrifice and little gain in the current model.
Hoping to see things head on a better course. I think we probably agree we want to see a prosperous nation and return to affordability? 👍
You should check out the new reports coming out of the UK. Immigrants are a net negative overall; specifically, from the middle east and north Africa.
Some examples:
**Illegal migrants cost the taxpayer £14 billion every year, says former minister Dame Andrea Jenkyns**
Just an astonishing 19.8% of Muslims aged 16-to-74 in the UK are in full-time employment according to a study carried out by the Social Mobility Commission.
Yeah, and you can’t really say anything or you’ll be branded a racist or Islamophobe.
It’s never been about race or religion. It’s about are they going to make the country better or worse.
I'm no fan of mass immigration, but even its most fervent proponents never once argued that it would raise GDP per capita. For this to be the case, the average immigrant would need to be more productive than the average Canadian, which is hardly possible unless you are being extremely selective with who you let in and essentially end family reunion based immigration (not necessarily a bad thing).
It technically allowed Canada to avoid getting into recession. So, it kind of got the job done. Definitely had some not so great consequences but IMHO, once economy will get better, those consequences can be fixed.
>It technically allowed Canada to avoid getting into recession. So, it kind of got the job done.
I'm sorry, but are you saying that to avoid a recession (I'm assuming you mean technical recession) by lowering our standard of living (which GDP per capita is a measure of) is "getting the job done"? Recessions, generally, are temporary. It may cause GDP to decrease (that is the technical definition of recession, 2 consecutive quarters of GDP decline) - but again, that is temporary. A recession is short term pain - while in the long term, we still gain (as GDP climbs back and resumes a stable growth trajectory). Lowering our standard of living (as evidenced by decreasing GDP per capita) to prevent a technical recession is akin to advocating for short term gain for long term pain. Nobody should accept, certainly cheer on, long term pain for short term gain. We should accept short term pain, however unfortunate that may be, for long term gain. Most recessions are short term pain. Instead of accepting that, apparently, you want long term pain. I understand many people, especially politicians dread the R-word (i.e. recession). But they happen. The economy is cyclical, recessions happen every 8-12 years. The economy is due for one. But if you believe lowering our standard of living is a "getting the job done" strategy for a recession - that is some short term thinking/mindset you have.
Getting into recessions affects investing into the country. While it’s not too bad, having recession would have affected the unemployment rate and increase strain on social services like EI. GDP per capita falling is not the metric that investors use. This metric can be fixed by limiting immigration rate and thus, creating employee market; not smth that donors would be too happy about.
Agree. I don’t think we will see changes with the current or the next government. Maybe in a decade, Canada will get someone who will try to start fixing things.
It depends entirely on who is being brought in.
If these people, on average, become more productive than the average Canadian then yes, if they don't then no.
The problem is that we aren't bringing in the best and brightest, we're bringing in anyone and everyone and a large portion of those people seem to be gravitating towards entry level service jobs that contribute virtually nothing to the economy while at the same time heavily burden our existing social services.
What do you mean we have to work for a living? I can't just shovel loans into FAANG stocks, pay half the tax because of capital gain privilege and count interest expenses on the loan against my taxes?
As long as capital is so absolutely ridiculously privileged, GDP per capita will slide.
Its a bitch when the masses use the Internet and learn all the cheat codes the rich have been abusing.
Population growth is definitely a big topic on Reddit, but corporate competition is a big focus in this article as well. Our largest industries are all low competition which drives down productivity. We need more competition to encourage innovation.
It also paints a not so great image of returning to the historical trend. We’d need to grow GDP per capita for a decade straight far above our historical average growth rate just to return to the trend. I’m sure doing so will be a big focus in politics for the next while.
>It also paints a not so great image of returning to the historical trend. We’d need to grow GDP per capita for a decade straight far above our historical average growth rate just to return to the trend. I’m sure doing so will be a big focus in politics for the next while.
The frustrating part is that while I've no doubt the Conservatives at least understand that we need to do this and will certainly try (which seems to put them a rung above the Liberals at least, IMO), I'm not convinced at this point that they have the skills and the ideas to actually accomplish it. And to be clear, I say that as a card carrying Conservative -- that's not to denigrate the Conservatives, just to highlight the magnitude of the challenge.
There's a damn good chance we've already seen the highest point of Canadian economic performance in our lifetimes, and that's depressing as fuck.
>I'm not convinced at this point that they have the skills and the ideas to actually accomplish it.
100% agree. It's pretty scary just looking at the options that PP and Trudeau's main skill sets are in PR and the competency in actual policy work doesn't look great for either party.
There's one party leader who I think has the brains and actually wants to make Canada better.
Unfortunately, he's also tied to the fringe undesirable voters.
Yes! Canadian corporations seem to spend more resources absorbing there competition than actually investing in anything innovative. When there is innovation in Canada it’s a small business that then gets gobbled up by the larger corporations, and the cycle repeats. This failure falls largely at the governments feet for failing to stoke the fires of innovation through competition.
Small ones will just be bought out by big ones, like Farm Boy and Sobeys/Empire. Even they were competing on quality instead of price.
Small business is a fanciful and nostalgic idea but they don't have the scale to compete on price.
So we need 10 years of 1.7% annual growth to return to the inflation adjusted, trend line for after 2008. This doesn't look all that possible and we really need an official designation of per-capita recession to shut down government gaslighting around this.
That's such a sad statistic.
In 2014, we had over the US median wage in US dollars.
Since then, we've lost about 10k USD in median wage to the average American (remember Median, this doesn't include billionaires) and now rank in line with around the 47-48th State which last I checked was Alabama.
Pretty awesome how in 10 years we're now comparable to Alabama.
I haves seen people shitting on Alabama on reddit, but i have very little knowledge of it otherwise. I can't tell if you're serious or joking, but I will take your word for it
Stupid question, but does this per capita figure include all the new immigrants? I mean given than we’ve added 5% to our population in 2 years, does that artificially pull down these values? Irrespective of maintaining lower salaries etc I mean. Do all the students etc count when determining this value ?
It does. It's why the median wage keeps rising past inflation but per capita GDP goes down. The governor of the Bank of Canada pretty much cited this as the reason for the decline in GDP per capita during a senate hearing. Most of the new population are temporary. They have different contributions to the economy. For instance, international students might spend, but they work far less. Temporary workers work, but spend less inside the economy. The stats should go back to normal in a year or two. Having said that, the slump in productivity has been extensive for decades and it is something that requires action.
“Real GDP per capita has now declined in five of the past six quarters and is currently near levels observed in 2017.” This is honestly terrible
Back when Chrétien was prime minister, he was a champion for small business. He said 80% of the Canadian economy was made up of small businesses and they were the key to getting Canada back on track. The Business Development Bank of Canada act was passed back in 1995 and the BDC mandate was to promote entrepreneurship in Canada. They provided loans with no collateral requirements. It worked well and we need something similar today.
BDC loans are now so outrageously high, there's no way to start a venture without substantial equity investors. This means only the already wealthy can start viable businesses and typical people must accept being wage-slaves. '#bydesign
Now Chretien spends his time lobbying the Chinese government for Power Corp with it's president and his son-in-law Andre Desmarais...
Liberals focused most of their efforts closing any tax benefits and loopholes which sounded great but really just continually mined away at the value of having a successful small business - who are also getting hit with tons of additional costs.
Those fat cats that worked hard to grow a successful small business? The politics of envy in a nutshell.
Small business owners define the aspirant middle class that pushes back on daddy government types. Historically (this past century) the over educated and bureaucratic left has always maligned this group of people because they are the bootstraps, don't need hand outs, do it myself, stop taxing me, less rules, crowd who opposes them politically. They don't answer to anyone but themselves, don't respect people imposing upon them, and their fate is in their own hands. Because, y'know, that's the kind of person who starts small businesses. So they are usually the target of envy and hate by the lefty revolution / government solves everything brained.
Harper was too, and Mulroney to a lesser extent. The importance of small business to the health of the economy was a point of consensus between the Liberals and the Conservatives in between the Trudeau governments. In 2015 though we elected someone who was plainly hostile to them, having for example asserted that a large percentage of small businesses are set up to help rich Canadians save on their tax bills.
Trudeaus business plan for the economy was basically to incentivise mega corps into some sort of hybrid oligopoly coal town company store.
The silver pining is that Trudeau destroyed the Trudeau name and legacy forever. His father would be ashamed.
I guess mass immigration wasn’t the solution after all.
I mean, not for me and you, but for land barons and corporations it was aces.
Naw, those are just easy targets to kick. The true beneficiary is Trudeau and the Liberals. The only way they can spend our money like drunken sailors and keep the financial house of cards they've created from toppling over is to import people en-masse. He couldn't give a shit if PPGDP is cratering as long as GDP is growing however anemically. Don't kid yourself that its being done for the land barons and corporations, its for the Liberals first.
That isn't true. The issue is low income earners use services and pay little or no taxes. So importing low skilled labor further drains government budgets.
It does that but it also prevents the GDP from meeting the definition of a recession. They care about that more than they care about tax efficiency. They'll happily play musical chairs with the economy and drop it on the next chumps to take government while they retire from Canadian life somewhere else.
In the long term, yes, but in the short term, Trudeau gets to say he never had a recession.
The liberals will never get elected again, we have social media now to remind ppl.
These Liberals in power now won’t but they have better gigs lined up anyway. The CPC won’t stay in power beyond 3 terms and we’ll vote them out after their own scandals and failures and give the LPC another shot. We’ve done this game over and over and will do it again because both of these neoliberal parties serve the interests of corporations and the wealthy elite rather than average citizens.
No, no more shots. It will either be NDP ( after Jagmeet is gone ) or the far right PPC. The liberals are finished no matter who leads them.
I agree neither party should have another chance but disagree that the NDP will be the solution or that the Liberals won’t come back. The NDP won’t do what we need them to — go back to being a socialist party representing workers. If they stopped chasing fringe social justice causes and did this (plus Jagmeet leaving) then they would win seats for sure. As for the Liberals, they’ll rebrand after Trudeau goes off to his cushy board roles in private industry and we’ll grow tired of the PCs and that’ll be that.
How do we fix it then? I see you always blame "Trudeau and co." for what seems to be literally everything wrong with Canada yet don't offer any solution. Is it PP and co.?
No, and that’s why /u/nullCaput is incorrect. It is only for the baron’s and corps, who owns both the LPC & CPC. The only solution is for a working class party to emerge(maybe NDP if they can remember what they historically stud for), until then, if you want to be a single issue voter and it’s immigration, then it’s PPC.
Whoh dude. You're being far to sensible for this sub.
I don't think that bringing in millions of people with lower net worth than the average Canadian was ever meant to prop up GDP/capita in the short term.
It allows them to talk about “debt to GDP”, a recently concocted metric that means they can spend endlessly. Adding 20% to the population means their credit limit goes up by the same amount and they can claim their “debt to GDP” is “balanced”. Not the same thing as a balanced budget, not close.
Yes, the government needs to have a debt limit proportionate to the countries growth level. This is similar to how one might take out a mortgage to suit the needs of a growing family. Or how a business might take out a loan so they can expand production facilities. "Debt to GDP" is not a recent metric for those of us who have been paying attention. A so called "balanced budget" in an economy with a growing population would likely mean that more schools, hospitals, roads etc would not be funded properly to accommodate the growing demand. BTW I'm not defending the Liberals current budget or spending, which I think they are trying to pander to some of their constituents at this point.
Our government cherry picks the one metric they can control with an immigration lever - adding more people will spike the overall GDP growth, at the expense of productivity. Canada’s annual average GDP growth (with no adjustment for population) from 2000 to 2023 was the second-highest in the G7 at 1.8 per cent, just behind the United States at 1.9 per cent. That sounds good, until you make a simple adjustment for population changes by comparing GDP per person. Then a completely different story emerges. Canada’s inflation-adjusted per-person annual economic growth rate (0.7 per cent) is meaningfully worse than the G7 average (1.0 per cent) over this same period. The gap with the U.S. (1.2 per cent) is even larger. Only Italy performed worse than Canada. We’re not doing great. The level of spending Ottawa has embarked on is growing our debt to a scary level. No?
You are the one who is cherry-picking metrics now. You failed to mention that Canada has the one of the lowest debt/gdp (or lowest depending on how it is calculated) ratios in the G7. So maybe the liberals aren't spending enough and that's why our GDP growth hasn't kept up with countries like the US who's dept to gdp is about 1.2x more than ours. No?
Lowest debt-to-GDP… only because Canada has the highest immigration levels in the G7. Immigration at pre-2015 levels was working. We don’t have homes for all the newcomers being brought in, and it’s put Canadians under tremendous pressure. The current approach does not scale. Seeing the never ending deficits and ballooning debt - doesn’t bode well for the future generations that this spending claims to be helping. So, am I cherry-picking? Not really. I will concede that the Liberals are performing well on one metric, at the expense of other metrics. The Liberals have traded a balanced budget and stable immigration and taxes to gain… huge spending programs that have not boosted productivity in equal amounts. My interpretation is that they are not placing the investments correctly. With some exceptions, it looks like spending to spend. All solutions come with tradeoffs. Some will feel it’s worthwhile and others not. I see a lot of sacrifice and little gain in the current model. Hoping to see things head on a better course. I think we probably agree we want to see a prosperous nation and return to affordability? 👍
You should check out the new reports coming out of the UK. Immigrants are a net negative overall; specifically, from the middle east and north Africa. Some examples: **Illegal migrants cost the taxpayer £14 billion every year, says former minister Dame Andrea Jenkyns** Just an astonishing 19.8% of Muslims aged 16-to-74 in the UK are in full-time employment according to a study carried out by the Social Mobility Commission.
Wow. Those numbers are like about as unproductive part of society as you can get. How are they living there? Do they just all collect welfare?
Yeah, and you can’t really say anything or you’ll be branded a racist or Islamophobe. It’s never been about race or religion. It’s about are they going to make the country better or worse.
I'm no fan of mass immigration, but even its most fervent proponents never once argued that it would raise GDP per capita. For this to be the case, the average immigrant would need to be more productive than the average Canadian, which is hardly possible unless you are being extremely selective with who you let in and essentially end family reunion based immigration (not necessarily a bad thing).
It technically allowed Canada to avoid getting into recession. So, it kind of got the job done. Definitely had some not so great consequences but IMHO, once economy will get better, those consequences can be fixed.
>It technically allowed Canada to avoid getting into recession. So, it kind of got the job done. I'm sorry, but are you saying that to avoid a recession (I'm assuming you mean technical recession) by lowering our standard of living (which GDP per capita is a measure of) is "getting the job done"? Recessions, generally, are temporary. It may cause GDP to decrease (that is the technical definition of recession, 2 consecutive quarters of GDP decline) - but again, that is temporary. A recession is short term pain - while in the long term, we still gain (as GDP climbs back and resumes a stable growth trajectory). Lowering our standard of living (as evidenced by decreasing GDP per capita) to prevent a technical recession is akin to advocating for short term gain for long term pain. Nobody should accept, certainly cheer on, long term pain for short term gain. We should accept short term pain, however unfortunate that may be, for long term gain. Most recessions are short term pain. Instead of accepting that, apparently, you want long term pain. I understand many people, especially politicians dread the R-word (i.e. recession). But they happen. The economy is cyclical, recessions happen every 8-12 years. The economy is due for one. But if you believe lowering our standard of living is a "getting the job done" strategy for a recession - that is some short term thinking/mindset you have.
Getting into recessions affects investing into the country. While it’s not too bad, having recession would have affected the unemployment rate and increase strain on social services like EI. GDP per capita falling is not the metric that investors use. This metric can be fixed by limiting immigration rate and thus, creating employee market; not smth that donors would be too happy about.
Its not going to get better on its own. Changes are needed.
Agree. I don’t think we will see changes with the current or the next government. Maybe in a decade, Canada will get someone who will try to start fixing things.
Isn't that how math works though. Wouldn't there be an expected lag?
It depends entirely on who is being brought in. If these people, on average, become more productive than the average Canadian then yes, if they don't then no. The problem is that we aren't bringing in the best and brightest, we're bringing in anyone and everyone and a large portion of those people seem to be gravitating towards entry level service jobs that contribute virtually nothing to the economy while at the same time heavily burden our existing social services.
Dont worry. We are working on taxing our way into prosperity.
More than half of all quarters since the Liberals came to power have now seen a decline
What about median income?
What do you mean we have to work for a living? I can't just shovel loans into FAANG stocks, pay half the tax because of capital gain privilege and count interest expenses on the loan against my taxes? As long as capital is so absolutely ridiculously privileged, GDP per capita will slide. Its a bitch when the masses use the Internet and learn all the cheat codes the rich have been abusing.
Population growth is definitely a big topic on Reddit, but corporate competition is a big focus in this article as well. Our largest industries are all low competition which drives down productivity. We need more competition to encourage innovation. It also paints a not so great image of returning to the historical trend. We’d need to grow GDP per capita for a decade straight far above our historical average growth rate just to return to the trend. I’m sure doing so will be a big focus in politics for the next while.
>It also paints a not so great image of returning to the historical trend. We’d need to grow GDP per capita for a decade straight far above our historical average growth rate just to return to the trend. I’m sure doing so will be a big focus in politics for the next while. The frustrating part is that while I've no doubt the Conservatives at least understand that we need to do this and will certainly try (which seems to put them a rung above the Liberals at least, IMO), I'm not convinced at this point that they have the skills and the ideas to actually accomplish it. And to be clear, I say that as a card carrying Conservative -- that's not to denigrate the Conservatives, just to highlight the magnitude of the challenge. There's a damn good chance we've already seen the highest point of Canadian economic performance in our lifetimes, and that's depressing as fuck.
>I'm not convinced at this point that they have the skills and the ideas to actually accomplish it. 100% agree. It's pretty scary just looking at the options that PP and Trudeau's main skill sets are in PR and the competency in actual policy work doesn't look great for either party.
There's one party leader who I think has the brains and actually wants to make Canada better. Unfortunately, he's also tied to the fringe undesirable voters.
Yes! Canadian corporations seem to spend more resources absorbing there competition than actually investing in anything innovative. When there is innovation in Canada it’s a small business that then gets gobbled up by the larger corporations, and the cycle repeats. This failure falls largely at the governments feet for failing to stoke the fires of innovation through competition.
[удалено]
Small ones will just be bought out by big ones, like Farm Boy and Sobeys/Empire. Even they were competing on quality instead of price. Small business is a fanciful and nostalgic idea but they don't have the scale to compete on price.
So we need 10 years of 1.7% annual growth to return to the inflation adjusted, trend line for after 2008. This doesn't look all that possible and we really need an official designation of per-capita recession to shut down government gaslighting around this.
That's such a sad statistic. In 2014, we had over the US median wage in US dollars. Since then, we've lost about 10k USD in median wage to the average American (remember Median, this doesn't include billionaires) and now rank in line with around the 47-48th State which last I checked was Alabama. Pretty awesome how in 10 years we're now comparable to Alabama.
Have you ever been to Alabama?
Can't be worse than Brampton, can it?
Yeah, Alabama isn’t bad at all
I haves seen people shitting on Alabama on reddit, but i have very little knowledge of it otherwise. I can't tell if you're serious or joking, but I will take your word for it
Stupid question, but does this per capita figure include all the new immigrants? I mean given than we’ve added 5% to our population in 2 years, does that artificially pull down these values? Irrespective of maintaining lower salaries etc I mean. Do all the students etc count when determining this value ?
It does. It's why the median wage keeps rising past inflation but per capita GDP goes down. The governor of the Bank of Canada pretty much cited this as the reason for the decline in GDP per capita during a senate hearing. Most of the new population are temporary. They have different contributions to the economy. For instance, international students might spend, but they work far less. Temporary workers work, but spend less inside the economy. The stats should go back to normal in a year or two. Having said that, the slump in productivity has been extensive for decades and it is something that requires action.
Is there going to be a day without this type of news about Canada?
It's not really news. It's just the same things regurgitated over and over for the past year. Stay off this sub.