Very funny (http://cbiftrumpwins.com/#intro) :)
Huh. It almost sounds like they are serious.
Sorry Cape Breton. I have already started saving up for my home in Trois-Rivières. And judging from that map earlier I will not have to save up for long!
Quote from: viper37 on February 18, 2016, 12:52:19 PM
Very funny (http://cbiftrumpwins.com/#intro) :)
What it doesn't point out is that Americans can't simply move to Canada - there's a whole immigration process to go through.
And it doesn't mention that the reason Cape Breton needs people is because everyone keeps leaving because there's no work.
Hey I know that Island! That is where Louisbourg was correct? An important place to set up shop in EU2.
Quote from: Barrister on February 18, 2016, 01:02:30 PM
What it doesn't point out is that Americans can't simply move to Canada - there's a whole immigration process to go through.
And it doesn't mention that the reason Cape Breton needs people is because everyone keeps leaving because there's no work.
I am sure they only want Americans who are independently wealthy.
Quote from: Barrister on February 18, 2016, 01:02:30 PM
Quote from: viper37 on February 18, 2016, 12:52:19 PM
Very funny (http://cbiftrumpwins.com/#intro) :)
What it doesn't point out is that Americans can't simply move to Canada - there's a whole immigration process to go through.
And it doesn't mention that the reason Cape Breton needs people is because everyone keeps leaving because there's no work.
Actually, if you click on the FAQ, it mentions
both (but attempts to put a good spin on them).
Quote
3 - How do I immigrate to Canada?
The process has changed, some people say it is much less complex, get started here:
4 - What jobs are available?
It is true, unemployment is high here, but some areas are growing, and some skilled workers are in demand! Our current jobs listings can be found here and
5 - Tell me more about Cape Breton Island
The fine folks at destination Cape Breton would be happy to answer any questions you have about Cape Breton, find them here
6 - What is the housing situation in Cape Breton?
You'll find it one of the, if not the most affordable in North America! Check the latest listings here
7 - Why are you doing this?
Our population is shrinking. A slow economy, in combination with out-migration has us on an unsustainable path. The truth is we welcome all, no matter the ideology. We have a beautiful island, a friendly people, a rich culture and a bright future. Join us here on Cape Breton Island!
I love how they have a shrinking population and economy and are on the path to disaster...yet their future is bright!
The pictures certainly are gorgeous!
Quote from: Valmy on February 18, 2016, 01:06:51 PM
I love how they have a shrinking population and economy and are on the path to disaster...yet their future is bright!
That's the "spin" part. ;)
The future is bright ... because you will move there!
Heh I wonder if this thing is actually attracting any legitimate interest from actual Americans.
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2016, 01:18:26 PM
Heh I wonder if this thing is actually attracting any legitimate interest from actual Americans.
Americans are constantly threatening to move to Canada when Trump/Bush/Obama/Whomever win the Presidency so best to get your branding out there. 'Murica Island they will someday call it.
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2016, 01:18:26 PM
Heh I wonder if this thing is actually attracting any legitimate interest from actual Americans.
If I was going to move, it would be to somewhere warmer, but other than that if I thought I could get equivalent employment, I would consider moving to Canada.
Although not really because of Trump, of course.
Quote from: Berkut on February 18, 2016, 01:24:45 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2016, 01:18:26 PM
Heh I wonder if this thing is actually attracting any legitimate interest from actual Americans.
If I was going to move, it would be to somewhere warmer, but other than that if I thought I could get equivalent employment, I would consider moving to Canada.
Although not really because of Trump, of course.
The whole employment thing is the root of the problem. ;)
Atlantic Canada is incredibly pretty; its weather not really that bad; its people are polite and friendly ... but there is fuck all to do there. Which is why people move
away, and not
to.
Quote from: Berkut on February 18, 2016, 01:24:45 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2016, 01:18:26 PM
Heh I wonder if this thing is actually attracting any legitimate interest from actual Americans.
If I was going to move, it would be to somewhere warmer, but other than that if I thought I could get equivalent employment, I would consider moving to Canada.
Although not really because of Trump, of course.
Vancouver is warmer than New York. Barely.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 18, 2016, 01:28:55 PM
Vancouver is warmer than New York. Barely.
Vancouver is nice, but everyone has already thought of that, and its real estate market is notoriously insane. Atlantic Canada is a lot more appealing on the real estate front - because hardly anyone there has jobs*, so everything is super duper cheap.
*Slight exaggeration. ;)
I make a six figure income in New York. I suspect if I could make that same income in Cape Breton, I would live like a king!
Vancouver...not so much.
Quote from: Berkut on February 18, 2016, 01:35:31 PM
I make a six figure income in New York. I suspect if I could make that same income in Cape Breton, I would live like a king!
Vancouver...not so much.
I think that's a pretty big *if* there.
Yes, by all accounts the Maritimes are gorgeous. But there might be a reason I've met so many maritimers (and in particular Cape Bretoners) in Alberta who tell me how gorgeous it is...
My Dad and his side of the family come from Cape Breton. It's a pretty special place, awesome to visit, but yeah, because of the economic climate probably not the best to place to live.
Why is the economic climate so bad? What sort of activities do they normally do out there? Fishing?
Fisheries were a major industry that collapsed when it was closed out in 1992. It's come back a bit some but the damage was done. Coal mining was also a big part of Cape Breton's industry anyways but that dried up a long time ago too.
Quote from: Barrister on February 18, 2016, 01:52:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 18, 2016, 01:35:31 PM
I make a six figure income in New York. I suspect if I could make that same income in Cape Breton, I would live like a king!
Vancouver...not so much.
I think that's a pretty big *if* there.
Yes, by all accounts the Maritimes are gorgeous. But there might be a reason I've met so many maritimers (and in particular Cape Bretoners) in Alberta who tell me how gorgeous it is...
The stupid part is that there is literally no reason why I, and in fact many office-type workers, could *not* do our jobs while living in Cape Breton (or wherever). I hardly ever see anyone face to face; all my communications with clients are electronic or via conferencing tech. Actual court or administrative board visits are vanishingly rare (and in my field, happen as often in Ottawa as Toronto, requiring travel anyway).
However, for reasons of prestige, law firms are somehow required to be located in the most expensive possible downtown major-city locations.
This has always struck me as economically dumb. Why not divide the firm up and only have those lawyers who actually need to be close to downtown/the courts there, and put the others elsewhere? Yet the big firms don't do that.
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2016, 02:05:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 18, 2016, 01:52:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 18, 2016, 01:35:31 PM
I make a six figure income in New York. I suspect if I could make that same income in Cape Breton, I would live like a king!
Vancouver...not so much.
I think that's a pretty big *if* there.
Yes, by all accounts the Maritimes are gorgeous. But there might be a reason I've met so many maritimers (and in particular Cape Bretoners) in Alberta who tell me how gorgeous it is...
The stupid part is that there is literally no reason why I, and in fact many office-type workers, could *not* do our jobs while living in Cape Breton (or wherever). I hardly ever see anyone face to face; all my communications with clients are electronic or via conferencing tech. Actual court or administrative board visits are vanishingly rare (and in my field, happen as often in Ottawa as Toronto, requiring travel anyway).
However, for reasons of prestige, law firms are somehow required to be located in the most expensive possible downtown major-city locations.
This has always struck me as economically dumb. Why not divide the firm up and only have those lawyers who actually need to be close to downtown/the courts there, and put the others elsewhere? Yet the big firms don't do that.
I guess talent would need to want to work over there? I mean my industry is often in major cities, even though there is little reason that most research staff need to be. Hell even for those visiting clients, most pharma firms aren't in the cities.
Quote from: Valmy on February 18, 2016, 01:57:05 PM
Why is the economic climate so bad? What sort of activities do they normally do out there? Fishing?
When I was a law student, one of my first actual jobs was as research assistant to a relatively well known law and economics prof. One of the war stories he told me was about the time the provincial government called on him to write a report about what to do with Cape Breton's coal industry. It was heavily subsidized by the government, and economic conditions did not look too good - I think this was in the '80s. He was supposed to find the cheapest way to deal with the industry while preserving Cape Breton jobs and the environment.
Anyway, he did his research, based on economic projections and estimated subsidies, and came back with a proposal: just hand over some large sum of cash (I think it was on the order of half a million dollars on average) to each miner, and close the mines right away; then let the former miners do something else, using all, that money.
The government hated this, because they could not fathom just handing over that kind of money to the miners. So they kept the status quo. They kept the mines open, and kept subsidizing them.
Problem is, in the end they were forced to close them anyway, throwing all of the miners out of work; and by that time, they had in fact paid far more in subsidies than the original proposal would have cost - all to keep the miners working in miserably unsafe and back-breaking conditions for another decade or so (to produce expensively subsidized coal). Also, keeping the mines open led to massive environmental degradation.
Quote from: Valmy on February 18, 2016, 01:03:37 PM
Hey I know that Island! That is where Louisbourg was correct? An important place to set up shop in EU2.
yes :)
it's a nice place to visit, in summer, not too sure about living there though.
Yeah you told me that story before. Regions dependent on Coal mining have had it rough these days. So I guess Cape Breton is the West Virginia of Canada.
Quote from: Valmy on February 18, 2016, 01:06:51 PM
I love how they have a shrinking population and economy and are on the path to disaster...yet their future is bright!
they are taking steps to adress global warming caused by humans ;)
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2016, 02:07:07 PM
I guess talent would need to want to work over there? I mean my industry is often in major cities, even though there is little reason that most research staff need to be. Hell even for those visiting clients, most pharma firms aren't in the cities.
I think the main problem is perceived prestige. Having a downtown address = you are a major player.
Quote from: Barrister on February 18, 2016, 01:52:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 18, 2016, 01:35:31 PM
I make a six figure income in New York. I suspect if I could make that same income in Cape Breton, I would live like a king!
Vancouver...not so much.
I think that's a pretty big *if* there.
Yes, by all accounts the Maritimes are gorgeous. But there might be a reason I've met so many maritimers (and in particular Cape Bretoners) in Alberta who tell me how gorgeous it is...
when people talk about how gorgeous a place is, they usually do not employ this adjective for overcrowded cities. Landscapes totally devoid of people are gorgeous, not Hong-Kong wannabes...
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2016, 02:18:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2016, 02:07:07 PM
I guess talent would need to want to work over there? I mean my industry is often in major cities, even though there is little reason that most research staff need to be. Hell even for those visiting clients, most pharma firms aren't in the cities.
I think the main problem is perceived prestige. Having a downtown address = you are a major player.
Well yes, that's true. Though again, as you've said, that could be solved by having an office but a smaller one and then have other people located elsewhere.
Actually that is how my team in the US works. I think there is one person still based in NYC, everyone else is in NJ, Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina and Georgia and just works at home.
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2016, 02:25:56 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2016, 02:18:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2016, 02:07:07 PM
I guess talent would need to want to work over there? I mean my industry is often in major cities, even though there is little reason that most research staff need to be. Hell even for those visiting clients, most pharma firms aren't in the cities.
I think the main problem is perceived prestige. Having a downtown address = you are a major player.
Well yes, that's true. Though again, as you've said, that could be solved by having an office but a smaller one and then have other people located elsewhere.
Actually that is how my team in the US works. I think there is one person still based in NYC, everyone else is in NJ, Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina and Georgia and just works at home.
I strongly suspect this is the wave of the future, and what is stopping it happening now is pure inertia and conservatism in my profession.
Quote from: viper37 on February 18, 2016, 02:21:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 18, 2016, 01:52:39 PM
Yes, by all accounts the Maritimes are gorgeous. But there might be a reason I've met so many maritimers (and in particular Cape Bretoners) in Alberta who tell me how gorgeous it is...
when people talk about how gorgeous a place is, they usually do not employ this adjective for overcrowded cities. Landscapes totally devoid of people are gorgeous, not Hong-Kong wannabes...
Well, yeah.
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2016, 02:33:20 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2016, 02:25:56 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2016, 02:18:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2016, 02:07:07 PM
I guess talent would need to want to work over there? I mean my industry is often in major cities, even though there is little reason that most research staff need to be. Hell even for those visiting clients, most pharma firms aren't in the cities.
I think the main problem is perceived prestige. Having a downtown address = you are a major player.
Well yes, that's true. Though again, as you've said, that could be solved by having an office but a smaller one and then have other people located elsewhere.
Actually that is how my team in the US works. I think there is one person still based in NYC, everyone else is in NJ, Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina and Georgia and just works at home.
I strongly suspect this is the wave of the future, and what is stopping it happening now is pure inertia and conservatism in my profession.
There would be an interesting back and forth if that were to happen.
As more workers leave the "high prestige" locations due to cost, the cost would come down, making the value proposition for the prestige move in the other direction...
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2016, 02:05:02 PM
This has always struck me as economically dumb. Why not divide the firm up and only have those lawyers who actually need to be close to downtown/the courts there, and put the others elsewhere? Yet the big firms don't do that.
One, they were set up that way before we had technology that would let us have real, practical video conference between an office in Toronto and an office in Vancouver.
Two, that technology is often not available in remote area. I'm 1.5 hours away from Quebec city, and I don't have access to uber top speed for my internet connection, especially the upload speed is drastically limited (12mbps). For regular web surfing and downloading stuff, it's ok. For a lawyer's firm that need to have real time video conferencing, it won't be that practical.
Second, once in a while, you need to step foot in the main office. If you go from Cape Breton to Toronto, your firm will need to pay you to drive to Halifax, plus the air transport. It comes expensive, even if for once in a while.
Third, lots of companies tried to have their employees work at home. Lots. It was thought to be the future, at some point. Recent moves have companies move to bigger offices and have everyone at the same place, even if it's low level jobs like customer support. It seems the costs of setting up everyone in their homes was prohibitive, even in big cities, and I suspect it's the same for smaller offices, you need people to set up the computer infrastructures and companies usually want their own teams to do that.
As someone who spent the last four years working from home, and now working for a bank where there are some people who work from home, some remotely, and most onsite, I see the difference.
If you work from home in a culture where everyone works remotely, it works out just fine. For a given meeting, everyone is remote, and that is fine. For a given set of meetings happening over time, it is just expected that everyone will be connecting remotely, and if by chance a few people are together in a conference room somewhere, no big deal, they are expected to adjust.
But now, working somewhere where it is common for some people to work remotely, and common for most to be in an office...the remote workers are definitely marginalized. When you have 20 people in a conference room, and 6 dialed in remotely, there is no question that the six lack influence. A lot of time that is fine, and if I know I won't really be a major contributor, then I am happy to work from home that day and dial in.
But if it is something important, where I feel I will need to drive the content, or be a major contributor, I am making that 1.5 hour drive because I know I cannot possibly contribute properly without being in the room.
Quote from: viper37 on February 18, 2016, 02:43:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2016, 02:05:02 PM
This has always struck me as economically dumb. Why not divide the firm up and only have those lawyers who actually need to be close to downtown/the courts there, and put the others elsewhere? Yet the big firms don't do that.
One, they were set up that way before we had technology that would let us have real, practical video conference between an office in Toronto and an office in Vancouver.
Two, that technology is often not available in remote area. I'm 1.5 hours away from Quebec city, and I don't have access to uber top speed for my internet connection, especially the upload speed is drastically limited (12mbps). For regular web surfing and downloading stuff, it's ok. For a lawyer's firm that need to have real time video conferencing, it won't be that practical.
Second, once in a while, you need to step foot in the main office. If you go from Cape Breton to Toronto, your firm will need to pay you to drive to Halifax, plus the air transport. It comes expensive, even if for once in a while.
Third, lots of companies tried to have their employees work at home. Lots. It was thought to be the future, at some point. Recent moves have companies move to bigger offices and have everyone at the same place, even if it's low level jobs like customer support. It seems the costs of setting up everyone in their homes was prohibitive, even in big cities, and I suspect it's the same for smaller offices, you need people to set up the computer infrastructures and companies usually want their own teams to do that.
I agree that moving just myself to Cape Breton is probably a step too far right now. ;)
I was thinking more like 'move all of the lawyers & staff who don't actually need regular court access out of downtown Toronto'. Like to somewhere in the burbs where rent is comparatively cheap, or even to a satellite city like Barrie (again, because of cheap rent).
I actually don't like the notion of working at home - for one, I value maintaining a certain separation between home life and work, that technology threatens to erase. Plus, access to support staff.
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2016, 02:51:08 PM
Quote from: viper37 on February 18, 2016, 02:43:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2016, 02:05:02 PM
This has always struck me as economically dumb. Why not divide the firm up and only have those lawyers who actually need to be close to downtown/the courts there, and put the others elsewhere? Yet the big firms don't do that.
One, they were set up that way before we had technology that would let us have real, practical video conference between an office in Toronto and an office in Vancouver.
Two, that technology is often not available in remote area. I'm 1.5 hours away from Quebec city, and I don't have access to uber top speed for my internet connection, especially the upload speed is drastically limited (12mbps). For regular web surfing and downloading stuff, it's ok. For a lawyer's firm that need to have real time video conferencing, it won't be that practical.
Second, once in a while, you need to step foot in the main office. If you go from Cape Breton to Toronto, your firm will need to pay you to drive to Halifax, plus the air transport. It comes expensive, even if for once in a while.
Third, lots of companies tried to have their employees work at home. Lots. It was thought to be the future, at some point. Recent moves have companies move to bigger offices and have everyone at the same place, even if it's low level jobs like customer support. It seems the costs of setting up everyone in their homes was prohibitive, even in big cities, and I suspect it's the same for smaller offices, you need people to set up the computer infrastructures and companies usually want their own teams to do that.
I agree that moving just myself to Cape Breton is probably a step too far right now. ;)
I was thinking more like 'move all of the lawyers & staff who don't actually need regular court access out of downtown Toronto'. Like to somewhere in the burbs where rent is comparatively cheap, or even to a satellite city like Barrie (again, because of cheap rent).
I actually don't like the notion of working at home - for one, I value maintaining a certain separation between home life and work, that technology threatens to erase. Plus, access to support staff.
There's a difference between having a satellite office in Barrie and one in Louisbourg.
Quote from: viper37 on February 18, 2016, 03:35:01 PM
There's a difference between having a satellite office in Barrie and one in Louisbourg.
Well, I'd agree. The former is easily possible right now, while the latter may become easily possible in the near future, with improvements in communication tech.
Quote from: Barrister on February 18, 2016, 01:02:30 PMWhat it doesn't point out is that Americans can't simply move to Canada - there's a whole immigration process to go through.
This is why I eye roll so hard at the idiots who say "if you don't like America, just move." Most people don't realize you can't "just move" most places anyone would want to live. If you're in the OECD and you're not part of one of the big "eased immigration/ free immigration" blocs, like the Schengen area or the British Commonwealth it's really just not easy to emigrate there.
If you're an American and want to move to Central America it's somewhat easier, but most Americans aren't gung ho over that prospect.
It is odd to me that a lot of countries will accept unlimited Muslim refugees who have low education, poor jobs kills and who will probably be a drain on society for 2-3 generations if not more but someone with marketable job skills and assets basically cannot immigrate to say, Britain from the United States or vice versa. Although America does have more liberal "non-refugee" immigration than most, maybe any, OECD country, in that there's a big lottery that literally anyone can enter. While some countries have higher immigration rates than the United States, most of these are entirely because of refugees, very few OECDs countries seem to believe in allowing educated middle class immigration. Maybe it's because there's a fear of exposing middle class citizens to competition from abroad in the labor market, I dunno.
Gorgeous natural scenery and being a good place to live are usually mutually exclusive.
Quote from: Tyr on February 18, 2016, 03:45:51 PM
Gorgeous natural scenery and being a good place to live are usually mutually exclusive.
And when they aren't, the people who move there turn them into bad places to live.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 18, 2016, 03:45:29 PM
This is why I eye roll so hard at the idiots who say "if you don't like America, just move." Most people don't realize you can't "just move" most places anyone would want to live. If you're in the OECD and you're not part of one of the big "eased immigration/ free immigration" blocs, like the Schengen area or the British Commonwealth it's really just not easy to emigrate there.
If you're an American and want to move to Central America it's somewhat easier, but most Americans aren't gung ho over that prospect.
It is odd to me that a lot of countries will accept unlimited Muslim refugees who have low education, poor jobs kills and who will probably be a drain on society for 2-3 generations if not more but someone with marketable job skills and assets basically cannot immigrate to say, Britain from the United States or vice versa. Although America does have more liberal "non-refugee" immigration than most, maybe any, OECD country, in that there's a big lottery that literally anyone can enter. While some countries have higher immigration rates than the United States, most of these are entirely because of refugees, very few OECDs countries seem to believe in allowing educated middle class immigration. Maybe it's because there's a fear of exposing middle class citizens to competition from abroad in the labor market, I dunno.
It's based on humanitarianism, not self-interested reasons: countries with a choice typically accept Muslim refugees because enough people are convinced it is the right thing to do, to save them from a terrible fate. So they make an exception to the usual rules.
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2016, 03:54:47 PM
It's based on humanitarianism, not self-interested reasons: countries with a choice typically accept Muslim refugees because enough people are convinced it is the right thing to do, to save them from a terrible fate. So they make an exception to the usual rules.
Damn. Bismark was wrong all along.
Quote from: Valmy on February 18, 2016, 03:57:08 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2016, 03:54:47 PM
It's based on humanitarianism, not self-interested reasons: countries with a choice typically accept Muslim refugees because enough people are convinced it is the right thing to do, to save them from a terrible fate. So they make an exception to the usual rules.
Damn. Bismark was wrong all along.
Clue me in on the reference?
Which is odd to me--because even with influxes of Muslims a lot of Europe is going to suffer debilitating demographic collapse. It just seems odd that you'd not be doing anything proactive about that. Canada like the U.S. is in better shape in that regard, but it's just odd that you wouldn't want educated immigrants with job skills AND refugees. The United States accepts both, albeit it's not as liberal on refugees these days (sometimes we have been--we had a very liberal policy to Vietnamese refugees for a couple decades until that program phased out.)
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2016, 03:58:05 PM
Clue me in on the reference?
That nations have no friends, only interests. Yet here they are not pursuing interests for the purposes of being good friends.
I think the reality is a little different. I think opposition to "normal" immigration is based off of long term nativist beliefs. I think acceptance of refugees comes from the "immediate response to a crisis."
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 18, 2016, 03:58:10 PM
Which is odd to me--because even with influxes of Muslims a lot of Europe is going to suffer debilitating demographic collapse. It just seems odd that you'd not be doing anything proactive about that. Canada like the U.S. is in better shape in that regard, but it's just odd that you wouldn't want educated immigrants with job skills AND refugees. The United States accepts both, albeit it's not as liberal on refugees these days (sometimes we have been--we had a very liberal policy to Vietnamese refugees for a couple decades until that program phased out.)
Part of that was that the "Boat People" were seen as more likely to be pro-US, while there is a lot of fear that Muslims immigrant will prove not to be - this fear is a lot weaker in Canada (hence a lot more liberal Canadian policy).
But yeah, I agree that it is strange that western countries are not more pro-immigration from other western nations.
Quote from: Valmy on February 18, 2016, 03:58:55 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2016, 03:58:05 PM
Clue me in on the reference?
That nations have no friends, only interests. Yet here they are not pursuing interests for the purposes of being good friends.
I think if it was purely up to the statesmen, the nations would not accept humanitarian refugees. However, in democracies, the statesmen must respond to what is popular, and at least be *seen* as acting in a moral manner if the electorate demands it (our shiny new Liberal Canadian government is very big on this, and it has paid off for them. ;) ).
Though historically speaking, accepting refugees has usually turned out pretty well for those western nations who have done so, in the long run, however horrified local nativists have been. If modern Europe and its Muslims turns out to be an exception, it will be interesting to analyze just why this should be so.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 18, 2016, 03:58:10 PM
Which is odd to me--because even with influxes of Muslims a lot of Europe is going to suffer debilitating demographic collapse. It just seems odd that you'd not be doing anything proactive about that. Canada like the U.S. is in better shape in that regard, but it's just odd that you wouldn't want educated immigrants with job skills AND refugees. The United States accepts both, albeit it's not as liberal on refugees these days (sometimes we have been--we had a very liberal policy to Vietnamese refugees for a couple decades until that program phased out.)
Umm, I don't know about the US, but we have a point-based system that strongly favours immigrants with skills and education (plus who can speak english or french)...
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2016, 04:09:11 PM
I think if it was purely up to the statesmen, the nations would not accept humanitarian refugees. However, in democracies, the statesmen must respond to what is popular, and at least be *seen* as acting in a moral manner if the electorate demands it (our shiny new Liberal Canadian government is very big on this, and it has paid off for them. ;) ).
Though historically speaking, accepting refugees has usually turned out pretty well for those western nations who have done so, in the long run, however horrified local nativists have been. If modern Europe and its Muslims turns out to be an exception, it will be interesting to analyze just why this should be so.
If you let them in but don't accept them you get the worst of both worlds. IMO this has been a problem in Western Europe for decades.
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2016, 04:09:11 PM
I think if it was purely up to the statesmen, the nations would not accept humanitarian refugees. However, in democracies, the statesmen must respond to what is popular, and at least be *seen* as acting in a moral manner if the electorate demands it (our shiny new Liberal Canadian government is very big on this, and it has paid off for them. ;) ).
Well the recent Canadian election and its use of dead kids on beaches is not typical is it? I mean I have certainly not seen that dynamic decide a US election.
QuoteThough historically speaking, accepting refugees has usually turned out pretty well for those western nations who have done so, in the long run, however horrified local nativists have been. If modern Europe and its Muslims turns out to be an exception, it will be interesting to analyze just why this should be so.
Well how long have Western Nations been opening their doors to non-western refugees? Hardly a sample large enough that one can just declare 'how could this ever go wrong ever?' I think it is a new enough phenomenon for different possibilities to be a concern, particularly in ethnic-based nations.
Quote from: Maximus on February 18, 2016, 04:13:43 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2016, 04:09:11 PM
I think if it was purely up to the statesmen, the nations would not accept humanitarian refugees. However, in democracies, the statesmen must respond to what is popular, and at least be *seen* as acting in a moral manner if the electorate demands it (our shiny new Liberal Canadian government is very big on this, and it has paid off for them. ;) ).
Though historically speaking, accepting refugees has usually turned out pretty well for those western nations who have done so, in the long run, however horrified local nativists have been. If modern Europe and its Muslims turns out to be an exception, it will be interesting to analyze just why this should be so.
If you let them in but don't accept them you get the worst of both worlds. IMO this has been a problem in Western Europe for decades.
This is my impression as well.
Quote from: Barrister on February 18, 2016, 04:12:41 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 18, 2016, 03:58:10 PM
Which is odd to me--because even with influxes of Muslims a lot of Europe is going to suffer debilitating demographic collapse. It just seems odd that you'd not be doing anything proactive about that. Canada like the U.S. is in better shape in that regard, but it's just odd that you wouldn't want educated immigrants with job skills AND refugees. The United States accepts both, albeit it's not as liberal on refugees these days (sometimes we have been--we had a very liberal policy to Vietnamese refugees for a couple decades until that program phased out.)
Umm, I don't know about the US, but we have a point-based system that strongly favours immigrants with skills and education (plus who can speak english or french)...
I thought that it required you to have employment lined up and that the employer documented no Canadian suitable for the position could be found?
Quote from: Valmy on February 18, 2016, 04:15:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2016, 04:09:11 PM
I think if it was purely up to the statesmen, the nations would not accept humanitarian refugees. However, in democracies, the statesmen must respond to what is popular, and at least be *seen* as acting in a moral manner if the electorate demands it (our shiny new Liberal Canadian government is very big on this, and it has paid off for them. ;) ).
Well the recent Canadian election and its use of dead kids on beaches is not typical is it? I mean I have certainly not seen that dynamic decide a US election.
I think a lot of people drew the wrong lessons from that incident. While the NDP and Liberals rushed to top each other on doing more to help migrants, the Conservative poll numbers actually went up at that time.
Canada isn't all that different from anywhere else.
FWIW, Cape Breton itself is not actually behind the website.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/cape-breton-trump-219442
Quote from: Barrister on February 18, 2016, 04:39:33 PM
FWIW, Cape Breton itself is not actually behind the website.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/cape-breton-trump-219442
Heh, interesting: it's not official, but the officials are all for it.
Quote"Where he lives is a beautiful place and he gave some great imagery and great content," the official said, adding that the person in question had "done a fine job as positioning Cape Breton island as a place people will want to visit and live."
Hey maybe if Trump wins we can all apply for refugee status.
Quote from: Berkut on February 18, 2016, 01:24:45 PM
If I was going to move, it would be to somewhere warmer
Belize. They speak English, and AFAIK they have no extradition treaty with the US.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 18, 2016, 04:18:41 PM
I thought that it required you to have employment lined up and that the employer documented no Canadian suitable for the position could be found?
That's a little different. That's for the Temporary Foreign Worker program which was hobbled by the Conservative government just a couple years ago severely damaging hospitality and other service industry type jobs that rely on foreign workers like fast food, etc.
Those temporary foreign workers may or may not be seeking to become Canadians.
I have heard Costa Rica is a good place live and that the US $ goes a long way there.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 18, 2016, 04:18:41 PM
I thought that it required you to have employment lined up and that the employer documented no Canadian suitable for the position could be found?
That's one method, but not the only one. There are a handful of different streams for immigration, but many of them depend on whether your field - a profession or skilled trade - is classified as being in short supply. If it is, you can qualify if you have Canadian work experience already (i.e. you've been in Canada on a work visa), and I believe that's independent of your specific job status (but if you're unemployed for long, you have to leave so it may amount to the same thing). If you're coming as a skilled tradesperson, you need a job offer, but as a professional you need documented work experience and credentials (and sufficient funds). There is also a separate pathway for various caregivers.
Those are just the Federal immigration pools, the Provinces each have their own pool and set of rules - in Ontario, for example, you may be eligible if you're graduating from a Masters or Ph.D program from a public university in that province.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 18, 2016, 04:18:41 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 18, 2016, 04:12:41 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 18, 2016, 03:58:10 PM
Which is odd to me--because even with influxes of Muslims a lot of Europe is going to suffer debilitating demographic collapse. It just seems odd that you'd not be doing anything proactive about that. Canada like the U.S. is in better shape in that regard, but it's just odd that you wouldn't want educated immigrants with job skills AND refugees. The United States accepts both, albeit it's not as liberal on refugees these days (sometimes we have been--we had a very liberal policy to Vietnamese refugees for a couple decades until that program phased out.)
Umm, I don't know about the US, but we have a point-based system that strongly favours immigrants with skills and education (plus who can speak english or french)...
I thought that it required you to have employment lined up and that the employer documented no Canadian suitable for the position could be found?
Obviously my experience is outdated, but I am sure there are tons of ways to get Canadian citizenship. The biggest category is actually family reunion. If you know have a relative there, it is a lot easier. Back then there was an investment category, like if you promise to invest $x million to open a business and employ y number of Canadian workers, you can get citizenship after 4 years. So I know tons of people opened a Chinese restaurant for that purpose. They all invariably closed after 4 years. They lost tons of money but that's ok, because that's actually the price of purchasing citizenship. I have been told that they no longer allow this but I am not sure. My family didn't open a restaurant, we didn't know anybody there and none of us had job skills. I think my father got in simply based on the size of his bank account. There was a point system, like age, English skills, French skills, etc. I was a teenager at that time and scored points for my family based on my age alone :yeah:
Quote from: lustindarkness on February 18, 2016, 05:28:30 PM
I have heard Costa Rica is a good place live and that the US $ goes a long way there.
It's okay if you don't mind rubbing shoulders with the mobsters on the run.
It used to be more crowded, but then the Nazi war criminals all pretty much died off.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 18, 2016, 01:28:55 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 18, 2016, 01:24:45 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2016, 01:18:26 PM
Heh I wonder if this thing is actually attracting any legitimate interest from actual Americans.
If I was going to move, it would be to somewhere warmer, but other than that if I thought I could get equivalent employment, I would consider moving to Canada.
Although not really because of Trump, of course.
Vancouver is warmer than New York. Barely.
I assume that is just a troll
Quote from: Monoriu on February 18, 2016, 08:00:27 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 18, 2016, 04:18:41 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 18, 2016, 04:12:41 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 18, 2016, 03:58:10 PM
Which is odd to me--because even with influxes of Muslims a lot of Europe is going to suffer debilitating demographic collapse. It just seems odd that you'd not be doing anything proactive about that. Canada like the U.S. is in better shape in that regard, but it's just odd that you wouldn't want educated immigrants with job skills AND refugees. The United States accepts both, albeit it's not as liberal on refugees these days (sometimes we have been--we had a very liberal policy to Vietnamese refugees for a couple decades until that program phased out.)
Umm, I don't know about the US, but we have a point-based system that strongly favours immigrants with skills and education (plus who can speak english or french)...
The rules were significantly changed recently
I thought that it required you to have employment lined up and that the employer documented no Canadian suitable for the position could be found?
Obviously my experience is outdated, but I am sure there are tons of ways to get Canadian citizenship. The biggest category is actually family reunion. If you know have a relative there, it is a lot easier. Back then there was an investment category, like if you promise to invest $x million to open a business and employ y number of Canadian workers, you can get citizenship after 4 years. So I know tons of people opened a Chinese restaurant for that purpose. They all invariably closed after 4 years. They lost tons of money but that's ok, because that's actually the price of purchasing citizenship. I have been told that they no longer allow this but I am not sure. My family didn't open a restaurant, we didn't know anybody there and none of us had job skills. I think my father got in simply based on the size of his bank account. There was a point system, like age, English skills, French skills, etc. I was a teenager at that time and scored points for my family based on my age alone :yeah:
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 18, 2016, 10:40:46 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 18, 2016, 01:28:55 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 18, 2016, 01:24:45 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2016, 01:18:26 PM
Heh I wonder if this thing is actually attracting any legitimate interest from actual Americans.
If I was going to move, it would be to somewhere warmer, but other than that if I thought I could get equivalent employment, I would consider moving to Canada.
Although not really because of Trump, of course.
Vancouver is warmer than New York. Barely.
I assume that is just a troll
No, I looked at average January temps and y'all were about three degrees warmer.
Why would anyone want to move to Canada, all their good people keep moving to USA?
Quote from: katmai on February 19, 2016, 02:10:51 AM
Why would anyone want to move to Canada, all their good people keep moving to USA?
Like Ted Cruz? :D
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2016, 09:15:00 AM
Quote from: katmai on February 19, 2016, 02:10:51 AM
Why would anyone want to move to Canada, all their good people keep moving to USA?
Like Ted Cruz? :D
The guy is successfully elected as a Senator. He has to possess a superior intellect and other desirable qualities :sleep:
Quote from: lustindarkness on February 18, 2016, 05:28:30 PM
I have heard Costa Rica is a good place live and that the US $ goes a long way there.
Belize and Costa Rica are already full of expats who have run up the costs in all the desirable places from what I've heard.
Quote from: Monoriu on February 19, 2016, 09:25:26 AM
The guy is successfully elected as a Senator. He has to possess a superior intellect and other desirable qualities :sleep:
It's odd that a bureaucrat for an authoritarian regime would have such a naively positive view of elected representatives. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 19, 2016, 09:47:44 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on February 19, 2016, 09:25:26 AM
The guy is successfully elected as a Senator. He has to possess a superior intellect and other desirable qualities :sleep:
It's odd that a bureaucrat for an authoritarian regime would have such a naively positive view of elected representatives. :hmm:
It seems reasonable to assume that voters are smart, reasonable, and rational. It follows that smart people must pick even smarter people as their representatives.
Quote from: Monoriu on February 19, 2016, 10:00:14 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 19, 2016, 09:47:44 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on February 19, 2016, 09:25:26 AM
The guy is successfully elected as a Senator. He has to possess a superior intellect and other desirable qualities :sleep:
It's odd that a bureaucrat for an authoritarian regime would have such a naively positive view of elected representatives. :hmm:
It seems reasonable to assume that voters are smart, reasonable, and rational. It follows that smart people must pick even smarter people as their representatives.
The current Republican race is a real blow to this worldview ... :hmm:
Quote from: Monoriu on February 19, 2016, 10:00:14 AM
It seems reasonable to assume that voters are smart, reasonable, and rational.
If this assumption was true then Democracy would not be the worst system ever invented.
Quote from: Valmy on February 19, 2016, 10:03:31 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on February 19, 2016, 10:00:14 AM
It seems reasonable to assume that voters are smart, reasonable, and rational.
If this assumption was true then Democracy would not the worst system ever invented.
That would probably be American schools.
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2016, 10:01:41 AM
The current Republican race is a real blow to this worldview ... :hmm:
Yeah the whole thing is utterly unbelievable.
Quote from: Monoriu on February 19, 2016, 10:17:10 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2016, 10:01:41 AM
The current Republican race is a real blow to this worldview ... :hmm:
Yeah the whole thing is utterly unbelievable.
Only to people who have not paid any attention to American politics before.
Quote from: The Brain on February 19, 2016, 10:14:55 AM
That would probably be American schools.
I learned the capital of Sweden. :smarty:
Quote from: The Brain on February 19, 2016, 10:14:55 AM
That would probably be American schools.
Hey! We have a highly democratic de-centralized system that is predicated on serving the local communities. So...yeah.
Quote from: Valmy on February 19, 2016, 10:18:38 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on February 19, 2016, 10:17:10 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2016, 10:01:41 AM
The current Republican race is a real blow to this worldview ... :hmm:
Yeah the whole thing is utterly unbelievable.
Only to people who have not paid any attention to American politics before.
I pay attention to US politics. I knew about some of their policy positions. But to actually hear them articulate their views is another matter. I knew some of them are pro-guns, which isn't an entirely unreasonable position. I can imagine situations where there are legitimate reasons why it is necessary for civilians to have guns. The years of reading languish have not however prepared me for bizarre statements like if only the Jews had guns there would be no Holocaust. That is completely outside the realm of rational discussion. Now, lots of people hold odd views, myself included. The truly shocking moment is when I heard that the people who hold these views are front runners in the Republican race... :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on February 19, 2016, 10:18:38 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on February 19, 2016, 10:17:10 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2016, 10:01:41 AM
The current Republican race is a real blow to this worldview ... :hmm:
Yeah the whole thing is utterly unbelievable.
Only to people who have not paid any attention to American politics before.
Monobot is a bit tiresome.
Quote from: Monoriu on February 19, 2016, 10:39:12 AM
The truly shocking moment is when I heard that the people who hold these views are front runners in the Republican race... :hmm:
Both post-Tea Party Republican Primaries have had this dynamic. Romney had to say very extreme and absurd things to win in 2012.
I just checked Ted Cruz's wiki page. He did study at Princeton and Harvard. So at least the superior interlect part is true :sleep:
Quote from: Monoriu on February 19, 2016, 06:40:52 PM
I just checked Ted Cruz's wiki page. He did study at Princeton and Harvard. So at least the superior interlect part is true :sleep:
Either that or superior family contacts.
I'd love to get a job with Parks Canada. Alas, I don't think I could get a preferential citizenship review for that line of work. :(
Quote from: viper37 on February 18, 2016, 12:52:19 PM
Very funny (http://cbiftrumpwins.com/#intro) :)
A communist cesspool that it is only wealthy because of the natural resources available. Like Russia, but in english.
Quote from: Siege on February 20, 2016, 10:21:10 PM
Quote from: viper37 on February 18, 2016, 12:52:19 PM
Very funny (http://cbiftrumpwins.com/#intro) :)
A communist cesspool that it is only wealthy because of the natural resources available. Like Russia, but in english.
Meowtf?
Cape Breton isn't wealthy at all. It has no natural resources left - the fish are fished out, the coal long ago mined out.
He's talking about Canada as a whole I think. It's stupid, I know.
Quote from: Siege on February 20, 2016, 10:21:10 PM
Quote from: viper37 on February 18, 2016, 12:52:19 PM
Very funny (http://cbiftrumpwins.com/#intro) :)
A communist cesspool that it is only wealthy because of the natural resources available. Like Russia, but in english.
WTF? English AND French :angry:
Ok. French is cool too.
The language, not the people.
They are assholes withrawing their support for fellow democracies.
Quote from: Siege on February 23, 2016, 08:56:04 AM
Ok. French is cool too.
The language, not the people.
They are assholes withrawing their support for fellow democracies.
Hey they used to be your best buds. But then their voting demographic shifted a tad.
And now here's a website offering to match Americans with Canadians so they can flee Trump. From their (so far placeholder-only) website:
QuoteMake dating great again.
Maple Match makes it easy for Americans to find the ideal Canadian partner to save them from the unfathomable horror of a Trump presidency.
http://www.maplematch.com/
Quote from: Barrister on February 18, 2016, 01:02:30 PM
Quote from: viper37 on February 18, 2016, 12:52:19 PM
Very funny (http://cbiftrumpwins.com/#intro) :)
What it doesn't point out is that Americans can't simply move to Canada - there's a whole immigration process to go through.
And it doesn't mention that the reason Cape Breton needs people is because everyone keeps leaving because there's no work.
I'll go as an illegal, and surely Canada won't kick out an illegal! And I don't need work - I'll be retired. :)
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2016, 12:07:28 PM
And now here's a website offering to match Americans with Canadians so they can flee Trump. From their (so far placeholder-only) website:
QuoteMake dating great again.
Maple Match makes it easy for Americans to find the ideal Canadian partner to save them from the unfathomable horror of a Trump presidency.
http://www.maplematch.com/
Miley Cyrus is planning to move here if Trump gets elected. I'll register on the site, thanks.
:P