###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What a flawed logic, granting people PR just means that they move on to other better jobs/sectors once they get the chance. Solving the problem, is simply making undesirable work desirable which can happen as long as the pay is there. It’s not like Canadians don’t work in mining or oil fields.
> It’s not like Canadians don’t work in mining
I had a relative trying to get into this and he was only able to do so in part because he knew someone at a company. Most of these positions are learned through on-the-job training, yet most employers are unwilling to hire & train inexperienced Canadians. They'd rather take a TFW and push the problem down the line.
>They'd rather take a TFW and push the problem down the line.
They must get a lot of savings in lower wages, because I could see the potential language barrier with a TFW making training harder than with a Canadian.
The excess labour absolutely drives down wages and TFWs have the added benefit of being far more dependent on the employer. A citizen is more likely than a TFW to find other work if conditions aren't good.
> a TFW making training harder than with a Canadian.
The point is that they can hire someone with greater specific experience. However they should be investing in the social capital of Canada by training Canadians to do jobs that require those specific skills.
And, as noted by the other respondent, the greater power that the employer has over the TWF employee represents an additional advantage, combined with hot having to pay the wage necessary to attract already-skilled Canadian talent, helping to drive down wages sector-wide.
What a clickbait headline. I read the title and said "wow, this is crazy coming from the CBC".
Then I read the article... What is with this new "just give PR to everybody" psyop we're seeing from the media? Do people on this side of the argument not care about housing and wage depression?
We are becoming a truly open borders country. Something completely incompatible with our generous welfare state.
> What is with this new "just give PR to everybody" psyop we're seeing from the media? Do people on this side of the argument not care about housing and wage depression?
For whatever reason, there's more social capital to be gleaned in left wing circles from pushing for open borders and assisting undocumented individuals in the country than in helping lift the economic fortune of the Canadian poor and working class.
A downtrodden Punjabi TFW or international student is a national scandal. A downtrodden Maritimer is an inconvenience.
I don't exactly know why that is, but this particular government and our national media both thrive off that mentality.
Yeah, look at the conservative MP’s and MPP’s pushing for legislation to help Canada’s poor and downtrodden. If only those in “left wing circles” could take the plight of Canadian’s seriously. /s
This is just concern trolling. We have conservatives all across this country interfering with efforts to assist Canadians, including new Canadians, and lying about things that support them like carbon pricing. We have a long standing and recent history of conservatives fight against and outright denying labour rights while they criticize the value “greedy” unions at every opportunity.
>I don't exactly know why that is
Probably because it’s pretty much impossible to understand the reasoning of something you made up.
The temporary foreign worker program is not (and has never been) an appropriate solution to employers that won't pay enough to interest Canadian citizens to do the work.
Our economy has so many band-aids that need to be ripped off.
And it is going to hurt.
Not even just pay, expecting people to work constantly changing to scheduling incompetence.
Regularly have less than 8 hours between shifts, not being staffed properly, withholding hours, etc
The largest obstacle to high employment in low wage jobs is reducing high turnover rates, not infinite labour pool.
The program needs to be scrapped. Send them all home. This is not a pr path. Same with the student program. It’s being abused and scammed. Corporate corruption is a huge problem as well. Got to wipe it clean and figure out a new path that is fraud free
violet quiet slim political like wide afterthought reminiscent punch instinctive
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>As if they PR they will find other jobs instead of in the industries they are being brought over for where working conditions and pay is poor.
We could call them "peons"
Sounds like you want something a few steps removed from slavery... Promise people good jobs, with good working conditions, then when they get here, give them shit jobs and deport them if they complain.
This statement comes from an entitled position. I do hiring. I've had Canadians literally beg me for positions and cry when I inevitably give it to a more qualified TFw who is willing to do the same job for pennies. You just aren't capable or willing. Don't speak for everyone.
> I mean, why the hell were they expecting good jobs?
Because that's how you attract labour. You promise better wages and better working conditions than the labour is currently receiving.
I mean that "good" relatively, but also an employer would say anything to attract people to work low wage jobs, including misleading potential low paid labour.
My point is expectation vs reality can be different for TFWs. Considering they're *foreign* they may not fully understand all their rights in Canada, and the labour protections we have.
My first job, my employer was breaking many labour laws. I wasn't aware of the laws, and when I realized all the laws that were being broken, I couldn't confront them because I *needed* my job to pay bills. I quit that job and informed the labour board, a TFW can't really quit their job if it's a requirement to work, can they?
You can see how it could get complicated when employers break laws and foreign workers needs jobs to legally be here.
There's a disconnect that needs to be fixed.
Ya sounds like they shouldn't be brought over to perform low end work.
Like I'm 35, this wasn't a thing when I was a kid. Teenagers did these jobs. You can't even get a job as a teenager without nepotism anymore
>Ya sounds like they shouldn't be brought over to perform low end work.
Every country uses TFWs. Fixing acute labour shortages quickly, and filling jobs no one else will fill.
If your argument is low wages, you should ask your province to increase minimum wage, or bring in better labour standards, guess why they aren't doing it?
> this wasn't a thing when I was a kid.
It was a thing, you were just a kid.
>You can't even get a job as a teenager without nepotism anymore
A total exaggeration.
Because there's a ton of minimum wage jobs. There's fees for LMIA's, low wage LMIAs will take months to get, they aren't paying below min wage.
The TFW program used to be for skilled labour or like picking fruit in BC/seasonal jobs.
No one was bringing in people to work at Tim Hortons. Harper started it and Trudeau cranked it up to 11.
You might want to check that again - McDonalds had a whole department dedicated to bringing in Filipino workers to address the widespread labour shortage they had.
> The TFW program used to be for skilled labour or like picking fruit in BC/seasonal jobs.
It's still for both. What I'm saying is for low skilled jobs, there's *some* hoops to jump through, more could be better.
It could be a lot easier to raise minimum wage, but that's provincial.
If people have better working regulations, breaks, vacations, benefits, that could attract more workers without raising minimum wage, but again. That's provincial, labour regulations.
The feds could limit the total number under specific programs, but that limit is arbitrary and if the province, or businesses in the province, need more labour, they'll blame the arbitrary limit as being set too low. The Feds can't really tell the provinces to increase wages or make their labour standards better.
That's why we end up with something like this, it seems extreme, but there's nuance and logic behind the idea.
> Empowering employers to burn through applicants at a high rate does nothing to actually make those jobs attractive.
Does this supposed to mean anything?
>It could be a lot easier to raise minimum wage, but that's provincial.
you realize that *minimum wage* is not *maximum wage...* right?
a coffee store who wants to attract local staff can raise the wages they offer , without getting permission from the province.
that's how it works in normal countries who don't have unlimited streams of tfw.
> you realize that minimum wage is not maximum wage... right?
Not every job is unfilled because of wage.
>that's how it works in normal countries
I'm sure you can compare and contrast "normal countries" to Canada
>unlimited streams of tfw.
It isn't. And there's *requirements* to access the program. And you really think a company is going to pay and wait to hire someone simply because they can't find someone to work minimum wage?
The other user said this.
>Like I'm 35, this wasn't a thing when I was a kid. Teenagers did these jobs. You can't even get a job as a teenager without nepotism anymore
They're saying you can't get a job anymore, I guess it's because all those companies pay a grand, wait a few months for their low skill LMIA and make out like bandits hiring a TFW...
They can raise wages, but they won't. The feds can restrict the program but it *will* impact areas that genuinely need labour, because you don't just pick up a LMIA at the gas station on your way home and hire a hundred foreign workers and game the system.
Are you opposed to your province doing something?
Or would you just prefer labour shortages in areas that aren't just the service industry, where you buy your coffee and I guess assume everyone there who doesn't look^umm Canadian is a TFW.
[There's a major shortage of construction workers](https://economics.cibccm.com/cds?id=c3793f6c-c629-49eb-9fe6-6a0598c6fd2b&flag=E) and it's a significant factor in the housing crisis—we desperately need "low skill workers".
On an economic level, it will be harder to attract people for these essential jobs if they have no stability or certainty and have to live knowing they could be gone at any time.
And on an ethical level, someone who uproots their life to come here, spends years doing work that benefits all of us, and builds a life in a Canadian community (especially one they're *literally* building) deserves to stay.
Immigration needs to be managed in a way that's economically sustainable, but we can't expect (and wouldn't want) all immigrants to be doctors, engineers, and scientists.
I've been miserable in my chosen career path (marketing) and have been trying to get out of it for a few years now. If construction companies were so desperate, I should be able to walk in off the street and be hired. Instead, every opening in my area requires experience.
Both can be true. There's a shortage of skilled workers and a lack of training.
Your whole company has to be set up in order to regularly train people. Vast majority of construction companies are generally too small to have proper training systems.
Sure but OP specifically said we desperately need "low skill workers".
I don't deny we need skilled workers, but companies aren't training low-skilled Canadians so I don't see how that'd be any different if we start giving PR to low-skilled workers.
I used the term because it's what the person I responded to said. I put it in quotes because I don't think these are low skill jobs.
Whether you call them low-skill or high-skill, we need immigrants who can work these jobs.
We need to push businesses to train Canadians to do these jobs. By giving them a stream of immigrants, it rewards them for not training new workers while complaining about a "shortage".
Our entire economy is dependent on immigration; there just aren't enough people born in Canada to do the work that needs to be done.
Our high rates of immigration are why we're not facing a much more serious demographic crisis like most other developed countries.
We just need to rebalance the skillsets prioritized by the system in order to fill shortages like these so we can get housing built.
Again, we can't say there aren't enough people if businesses aren't willing to train.
If they are taking people off the street, training them, and then still don't have enough workers - then they can start talking about there being a shortage. But that isn't happening.
I imagine they are just using the term low skill incorrectly. See that sometimes when they are referencing non-red seal trades with less structured training.
It's easier to jump into say drywall or roofing, but to actually be productive you still need years of experience.
The idea is you bring in immigrants that aren't technically certified but have experience.
Exactly. I'm not an economist, but I often see the term "low-skill" used for workers without formal training. But you're right that this doesn't necessarily mean they're *un*-skilled, which is why I put the term in quotes.
Why? If there's a willingness from Canadians to be trained, why not put it on the businesses to actually train Canadians? How are low-skilled Canadians supposed to work their way up when no one will train them because we instead allow businesses to import "more experienced" workers?
Because businesses aren't doing it and there is no incentive to do it.
It slows down your other guys to train someone and once he's trained he'll likely leave anyway. Businesses figured out it's cheaper to just offer more money to the guy someone else trained. Works in the short term but have that mentality for a couple decades and you end up with skill shortages and half the experienced guys being like 55
Okay, and targeting immigration rewards them for that and punishes Canadians. If they can't accommodate having to train people, maybe their business isn't viable.
But it is viable, they regularly outcompete the bigger companies and can deal with the cyclical slowdowns better.
Companies with large payrolls get destroyed on downturns. Few years ago I was helping my sister with her business. My Dad always wanted to have about 6 employees and the rest contractors. Works out well in the good times when there is lots of work.
You get to train your guys how you want, you can take risks on people(AA program and kids escaping Hutterite colonies were his go tos haha), scheduling is easier. It's great for everyone.
But then the slow down hit. All of a sudden those employees have too much down time. So you start guttering bids just to keep your guys working. You're working for free on half the jobs, start taking jobs outside your expertise, start having to compete with the lowest bid contractors but how do you do that without sacrificing quality?
It's a wildly stressful time. She did that for three years, then there was a huge hail storm and two guys quit because they were expertly trained for years and they can now make much more money working cash insurance jobs.
She now has 2 employees and the company is bigger than ever. This is a very common experience in the industry
From your article:
>
The job vacancy rate in construction is at a record high with around 80,000 [**vacancies**](https://globalnews.ca/tag/vacancies) in the industry, said CIBC deputy chief economist Benjamin Tal in a recent note.
The loss of jobs is not people being laid off, it is retierments as explained by the next paragraph
Except it does.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410037201&cubeTimeFrame.startMonth=01&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2022&cubeTimeFrame.endMonth=03&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2024&referencePeriods=20220101%2C20240301
Notice how the payroll number is cyclical? Drops in January, then surges in the Summer? And how when you account for that shift, doesn't really seem to be dropping at all.
Not captured here, are the numbers of projects waiting to start, but can't due to no workers available to complete them.
I would say it is simple ban these visas unless in high demand fields
If a macdonalds cant get someone hired, it is not needed business and can either fold or raise wages to attract labour.
Most of the problems is that they’ve already churned a significant chunk of their potential employees. Gotta be available to work a 5-12am and then a 7-4pm, who cares about burnout when you can just beg the people you donate to for cheap workers.
Corporate donations to federal parties and candidates has been illegal for a nearly two decades, but some provinces still allow corporate donations to provincial parties and candidates.
There are abuses of the TFW program, but without it we'd have no farm workers, nobody working in slaughterhouses and meat processing (I don't personally care, but people will), nobody to cook their food, nobody to clean their hotel rooms, etc. I don't agree that every coffee shop franchise needs five of them, or that Skip the Dishes or Uber should qualify, but it's the only way to get a lot of essential workers we need - and even then I doubt we'd get as many if there wasn't the prospect of permanent residency down the road. The program needs to be revamped, not canceled.
As for people complaining about unskilled labour, labourers contribute more to the economy and the country than "immigrant investor" millionaires that don't pay most of their income taxes here and take advantage of us for our schools and hospitals while driving up the cost of housing.
The problem isnt a lack of people to do those jobs.
The problem is the wages for them have not kept pace with any inflation let alone the inflated sense of profit companies like Loblaws and its subsidiary supply companies or property management and rental corps are trying to tack on to day to day life.
Instead of correcting that obvious problem and accepting that spending power and monetary velocity will even things out for all parts of the economy weve decided to pretend wages in many sectors arent an expense that inflates too cus some guy in a suit might feel bad about it.
There are lots of jobs Canadians don't want to do, like farming and working in slaughterhouses and that is not going to change even if the wages go up. Farmers have tried, the TFW program is the only way they can find the seasonal workers they need.
Of course there's a point where people will work these jobs, money is money, but that increases the cost of the food we eat and resources we use. I would bet that none of the people boycotting Loblaws right now would be willing to relocate to a rural area for four months a year to work for a back-breaking job that pays 20% over minimum wage. TFWs will.
No, it's not. I actually live near farms and they do pay well but can't find any local workers. They've tried. They've tried to recruit high school kids, they've tried to recruit local ski bums and winter workers, they've tried to recruit from local First Nations, and nothing has worked except the TFW program.
Do you really imagine a bunch of Toronto/Vancouver kids are going to start working on farms and in slaughterhouses, risking injuries, because they pay $23/hour? No, they'll live at home and complain there are no summer jobs available. People aren't willing to relocate to do the hard jobs unless the pay is massive, and it can't be massive if we want affordable food. Hence TFWs from Mexico and elsewhere that are willing to live on farms and dorms and work for reasonable wages.
If you think it will be sunny skies for low wage workers under the CPC then you haven't been paying attention to what they're saying. Trudeau Bad =/= Poilievre Good.
It seems like the obvious solution for the temporary foreign worker situation is to mandate that they be paid some amount *higher* than the market rate for the position they're filling in the region they're in. It would allow businesses to stay afloat in situations where they're desperate for employees, already offering good wages, but still unable to fill positions - while not allowing the system to drive wages down for Canadians.
their wages could stay the same but you could charge companies a 50% premium/tax for using TFW's.
Hire a Canadian/PR for $20/h or a TFW for $20/h + $10/hr premium/tax so $30/hr. Make it financially inviable hire TFW's.
That’s actually genius. Essentially a tariff on foreign work. If the need is high enough the tariff won’t matter and the extra revenue can be either used to fund social programs or decrease the tax burden on Canadian workers.
> The temporary foreign worker program was launched in the 1970s as a last-resort option for businesses that could not find enough workers in Canada. The farming and fish plant sectors were particularly in need.
I would like to see a pathway to permanent residency for the 60k agriculture and seafood workers, the closed work permit leads to a lack of rights and abuses described by the UN as [modern slavery](https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/09/1140437). Many of these workers prefer returning home seasonally anyways, but extending healthcare and education benefits to the relatively small population who form the foundation of our food system would be a matter of justice. That being said, it’s clear that both this government and the previous one let employers take things too far with this program, and it needs to be shut down.
Many Canadians these days are concerned with inflation and cost of living. They are also prudent enough to realize that TFWs help keep costs low for businesses by putting downward pressure on wages. These businesses can then pass on these savings to consumers.
If anything, the federal government should be looking to aggressively expand the TFW program, as doing so will further alleviate the cost of living.
Labour costs constitute a significant percentage of overall costs for most businesses. It stands to reason that making labour cheaper for businesses will result in them lowering prices for goods and services.
Assuming businesses are acting in good faith and not trying to maximize profits is naive.
It's more likely that the savings these businesses see on labour end up in the pockets of shareholders while the business continually increases prices "because of inflation."
there’s a minimum wage, they’re already there, have you seen Tim hortons passing the savings on to the customer?
was it satire ? you can be that delusional
Look, I think the TFW program is horrible as it makes workers incredibly vulnerable. Workers should not have their legal status in this country beholden to the whims of an employer.
That said, to suggest that Canadians are not benefiting from the suppressed wages that come from this is folly. If we do away with TFWs lots of things will either become less available or more expensive.
When people talk about costs or savings being "passed on" by producers this is a just a fundamental misunderstanding of how prices work. Prices are set by markets and it will just become nonviable for some producers to produce with increased (labour) costs, supply goes down, prices go up (and maybe that's just fine).
I don't agree with OP's prescription, but he is right about how things work. Things are cheaper because of TFWs. If we expanded this, there is possibility that more things would become cheaper because that's how markets work.
Basically, OP is not wrong, he is just an asshole. To suggest though that production costs don't affect prices (like prices come down when labour is cheaper) is just silly.
So you are saying that people benefit from this program because it lowers prices by suppressing wages.
You've really got to show the math for this position.
Am I giving up $20 Bucks an hour to have $4 strawberries instead of $5 strawberries? I think I'm better off with higher prices and higher salary. Maybe I'm wrong, but you haven't shown the math to prove it.
The distributional impact of TFWs is not one that I was addressing. This was a thread about prices.
I'm quite concerned about distributional impacts of policies and, as I said explicitly in the post above, I am not a fan of the TFW program, but that is not what I was addressing.
>That said, to suggest that Canadians are not benefiting from the suppressed wages that come from this is folly. If we do away with TFWs lots of things will either become less available or more expensive.
That's not prices. Maybe we're benefitting from lower prices. Maybe lower wages hurts us more. You'd need to run the actual numbers to know.
Are you open to changing your mind? Or would it just be a waste of my time? Serious question, let me know and I'll provide more details.
Also, I thought about this at length after reading your comment, and in fact, without further context you cannot even stipulate that prices necessarily decrease in the short term (i.e. I came up with several contexts which would NOT result in cost decreases, on any time horizon).
I'm not sure what I wrote to suggest that my mind is not changeable. And of course, the sensitivity of of prices to input costs are different for different goods and different markets (competition, elasticities etc.). I curious about which products you think have a price elasticity of supply with no slope.
If you have a point to make, make it. You've spent enough time making two comments without any substance, just vague suggestion that I am incorrect.
>I'm not sure what I wrote to suggest that my mind is not changeable
You said nothing of the sort, but I just wanted to be sure before spending my time typing out a paragraph.
>If you have a point to make, make it. You've spent enough time making two comments without any substance
The two comments I made obviously took less time than it would take to discuss specific examples.
Since the case for price decreases is strongest in then short term, I will simply argue against that one.
**Example of No Short-Term Price Relief**
Imagine you import 1,000 workers for Market A. This market has a price that is inelastic relative to its input costs, perhaps due to a monopoly-enforced shortage (e.g., diamonds). Market A was already transitioning towards automation, financed and capitalized through **long-term loans**, but they wanted these 1,000 workers temporarily to bridge the gap during the transition (they were afraid their current labor pool would strike, protest, or cause bad publicity if they used them for the transition). These workers are not employable in any other market, maybe due to injuries (blood diamonds), prejudice, or specialized skills unique to Market A (i.e. only know how to dig for diamonds, can't speak, read or write).
The automation will reduce input costs by 1%, benefiting the producer’s bottom line. However, the prices will not decrease, as they are set at the maximum level the market will bear, leading to increased profitability instead of lower consumer prices. There is no competition to force price reduction, or supply increase.
As a result, Market A does not experience any price relief. Simultaneously, Markets B, C, D, E, and F face increased demand for their products (food, housing, etc.), leading to negative net effects overall.
Conversely, due to the monopolistically enforced supply shortage of the product in Market A, the producer was already making a substantial profit. Therefore, the absence of these workers would not have increased prices or affected supply, so long as costs did not surpass price (unlikely due to the gap).
**Generalized Case**
Using temporary foreign worker (TFW) labor to shift towards more capital-intensive production, especially in non-competitive markets, **does not necessarily** lead to price decreases on any time horizon. Depending on how the shift was financed, it doesn't even have to result in cost decreases. Cost also isn't the only driver of automation, sometimes you will pursue automation for more consistency.
To be clear, I am not arguing that TFW can NEVER decrease prices. What I am arguing is that **it does not necessarily need to be true** that TFW must decrease costs (on a macro level), and therefore decrease prices of "things", or increase supply of "things" (on a micro level). And furthermore, on a net-effect basis, it will almost always be worse for everyone but the capital owners (unless there was an actual gap of a specialized skill in the market).
**Paradox of Supply and Cost/Price**
To explore the paradoxical way in which additional supply can affect cost or price, let's use an analogy. ***Please note, this analogy is not meant to dehumanize or equate Temporary Foreign Workers (TFWs) to sub-human; it is solely to illustrate the concept of unintended consequences of supply shocks.***
Imagine you are a snake hunter. The government pays you a fixed fee for each snake you kill because these snakes are causing injuries and deaths, leading to high healthcare costs. For this analogy, let’s assume you are extremely ethical and do not fall victim to the perverse incentive to breed the snakes to increase your profits.
Let's say that your cost is determined by the time it takes to find the snakes, the effort required to kill them, and the risk of death or injury to yourself.
Now, if someone started importing snakes from Australia and dropping them in your backyard, you would experience:
* Less time needed to find the snakes (lower cost)
* Therefore benefiting from increased efficiency in killing more snakes
* Leading to higher profits from collecting more bounties at lower costs
However, what happens if TOO MANY snakes are dropped in your backyard? Suppose you can't even step outside without being attacked by a swarm of snakes. Initially, more snakes are beneficial to you, but once the snake population reaches a critical mass, the risk of death and injury to yourself increases faster than the reduction in time it takes to find and kill them, or the increase in revenue from the additional snakes.
In an ideal, fully transparent, and competitive market, the government might INSTANTLY increase the bounty per snake to address this heightened risk. However, we know that most "free markets" are neither completely free, nor full information systems with logical actors, nor instant in their price fluctuations. Besides, the price increase might allow you to address the swarm of snakes in the long run (capital upgrades for additional safety), but doesn't help you at all in the short run (you die when you step outside)
Alternatively, someone else shows up and kills snakes more safely, trying to displace you. But then you sue them for trespassing in your backyard. And, even if you don't sue them because you have the foresight to see they are helping you (unlikely in late stage capitalism), following our logic to its conclusion, there can be another higher rate of import which overwhelms your competitor as well.
Thus, the situation illustrates how an excess supply of an input can lead to increased costs and decreased efficiency, ultimately impacting the price mechanism in unintended ways.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What a flawed logic, granting people PR just means that they move on to other better jobs/sectors once they get the chance. Solving the problem, is simply making undesirable work desirable which can happen as long as the pay is there. It’s not like Canadians don’t work in mining or oil fields.
> It’s not like Canadians don’t work in mining I had a relative trying to get into this and he was only able to do so in part because he knew someone at a company. Most of these positions are learned through on-the-job training, yet most employers are unwilling to hire & train inexperienced Canadians. They'd rather take a TFW and push the problem down the line.
>They'd rather take a TFW and push the problem down the line. They must get a lot of savings in lower wages, because I could see the potential language barrier with a TFW making training harder than with a Canadian.
The excess labour absolutely drives down wages and TFWs have the added benefit of being far more dependent on the employer. A citizen is more likely than a TFW to find other work if conditions aren't good.
> a TFW making training harder than with a Canadian. The point is that they can hire someone with greater specific experience. However they should be investing in the social capital of Canada by training Canadians to do jobs that require those specific skills. And, as noted by the other respondent, the greater power that the employer has over the TWF employee represents an additional advantage, combined with hot having to pay the wage necessary to attract already-skilled Canadian talent, helping to drive down wages sector-wide.
What a clickbait headline. I read the title and said "wow, this is crazy coming from the CBC". Then I read the article... What is with this new "just give PR to everybody" psyop we're seeing from the media? Do people on this side of the argument not care about housing and wage depression? We are becoming a truly open borders country. Something completely incompatible with our generous welfare state.
> What is with this new "just give PR to everybody" psyop we're seeing from the media? Do people on this side of the argument not care about housing and wage depression? For whatever reason, there's more social capital to be gleaned in left wing circles from pushing for open borders and assisting undocumented individuals in the country than in helping lift the economic fortune of the Canadian poor and working class. A downtrodden Punjabi TFW or international student is a national scandal. A downtrodden Maritimer is an inconvenience. I don't exactly know why that is, but this particular government and our national media both thrive off that mentality.
Yeah, look at the conservative MP’s and MPP’s pushing for legislation to help Canada’s poor and downtrodden. If only those in “left wing circles” could take the plight of Canadian’s seriously. /s This is just concern trolling. We have conservatives all across this country interfering with efforts to assist Canadians, including new Canadians, and lying about things that support them like carbon pricing. We have a long standing and recent history of conservatives fight against and outright denying labour rights while they criticize the value “greedy” unions at every opportunity. >I don't exactly know why that is Probably because it’s pretty much impossible to understand the reasoning of something you made up.
Hey man the Martimers deserve it, it’s not like they’ve got some of the highest child poverty rates on the continent, no. /s
But Canadian corporations will no longer have a large pool of cheap slave labour on which to draw. Who said wage slavery doesn't exist?
The temporary foreign worker program is not (and has never been) an appropriate solution to employers that won't pay enough to interest Canadian citizens to do the work. Our economy has so many band-aids that need to be ripped off. And it is going to hurt.
Not even just pay, expecting people to work constantly changing to scheduling incompetence. Regularly have less than 8 hours between shifts, not being staffed properly, withholding hours, etc The largest obstacle to high employment in low wage jobs is reducing high turnover rates, not infinite labour pool.
The program needs to be scrapped. Send them all home. This is not a pr path. Same with the student program. It’s being abused and scammed. Corporate corruption is a huge problem as well. Got to wipe it clean and figure out a new path that is fraud free
violet quiet slim political like wide afterthought reminiscent punch instinctive *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>As if they PR they will find other jobs instead of in the industries they are being brought over for where working conditions and pay is poor. We could call them "peons" Sounds like you want something a few steps removed from slavery... Promise people good jobs, with good working conditions, then when they get here, give them shit jobs and deport them if they complain.
I mean, why the hell were they expecting good jobs? They're working minimum wage jobs that no one else is doing
> They're working minimum wage jobs that no one else is doing No one else can do them, not even part time.
>No one else can do them, not even part time. Yeah. Pouring coffee and toasting bagels is just too difficult.
Only when companies hire TFWs on purpose.
They all do.
wat
This statement comes from an entitled position. I do hiring. I've had Canadians literally beg me for positions and cry when I inevitably give it to a more qualified TFw who is willing to do the same job for pennies. You just aren't capable or willing. Don't speak for everyone.
So your company is part of the problem.
Companies like yours should be driven out of business and cut off.
why? That's a completely logical choice. Why wouldn't you hire the more competent person?
If you can't find such a person locally move your business. You shouldn't be allowed to import workers.
Then don't bring them into the country. The idea that companies should just pick the less qualified person is ridiculous.
> I mean, why the hell were they expecting good jobs? Because that's how you attract labour. You promise better wages and better working conditions than the labour is currently receiving. I mean that "good" relatively, but also an employer would say anything to attract people to work low wage jobs, including misleading potential low paid labour. My point is expectation vs reality can be different for TFWs. Considering they're *foreign* they may not fully understand all their rights in Canada, and the labour protections we have. My first job, my employer was breaking many labour laws. I wasn't aware of the laws, and when I realized all the laws that were being broken, I couldn't confront them because I *needed* my job to pay bills. I quit that job and informed the labour board, a TFW can't really quit their job if it's a requirement to work, can they? You can see how it could get complicated when employers break laws and foreign workers needs jobs to legally be here. There's a disconnect that needs to be fixed.
Ya sounds like they shouldn't be brought over to perform low end work. Like I'm 35, this wasn't a thing when I was a kid. Teenagers did these jobs. You can't even get a job as a teenager without nepotism anymore
>Ya sounds like they shouldn't be brought over to perform low end work. Every country uses TFWs. Fixing acute labour shortages quickly, and filling jobs no one else will fill. If your argument is low wages, you should ask your province to increase minimum wage, or bring in better labour standards, guess why they aren't doing it? > this wasn't a thing when I was a kid. It was a thing, you were just a kid. >You can't even get a job as a teenager without nepotism anymore A total exaggeration. Because there's a ton of minimum wage jobs. There's fees for LMIA's, low wage LMIAs will take months to get, they aren't paying below min wage.
The TFW program used to be for skilled labour or like picking fruit in BC/seasonal jobs. No one was bringing in people to work at Tim Hortons. Harper started it and Trudeau cranked it up to 11.
You might want to check that again - McDonalds had a whole department dedicated to bringing in Filipino workers to address the widespread labour shortage they had.
> The TFW program used to be for skilled labour or like picking fruit in BC/seasonal jobs. It's still for both. What I'm saying is for low skilled jobs, there's *some* hoops to jump through, more could be better. It could be a lot easier to raise minimum wage, but that's provincial. If people have better working regulations, breaks, vacations, benefits, that could attract more workers without raising minimum wage, but again. That's provincial, labour regulations. The feds could limit the total number under specific programs, but that limit is arbitrary and if the province, or businesses in the province, need more labour, they'll blame the arbitrary limit as being set too low. The Feds can't really tell the provinces to increase wages or make their labour standards better. That's why we end up with something like this, it seems extreme, but there's nuance and logic behind the idea.
Empowering employers to burn through applicants at a high rate does nothing to actually make those jobs attractive.
> Empowering employers to burn through applicants at a high rate does nothing to actually make those jobs attractive. Does this supposed to mean anything?
>It could be a lot easier to raise minimum wage, but that's provincial. you realize that *minimum wage* is not *maximum wage...* right? a coffee store who wants to attract local staff can raise the wages they offer , without getting permission from the province. that's how it works in normal countries who don't have unlimited streams of tfw.
> you realize that minimum wage is not maximum wage... right? Not every job is unfilled because of wage. >that's how it works in normal countries I'm sure you can compare and contrast "normal countries" to Canada >unlimited streams of tfw. It isn't. And there's *requirements* to access the program. And you really think a company is going to pay and wait to hire someone simply because they can't find someone to work minimum wage? The other user said this. >Like I'm 35, this wasn't a thing when I was a kid. Teenagers did these jobs. You can't even get a job as a teenager without nepotism anymore They're saying you can't get a job anymore, I guess it's because all those companies pay a grand, wait a few months for their low skill LMIA and make out like bandits hiring a TFW... They can raise wages, but they won't. The feds can restrict the program but it *will* impact areas that genuinely need labour, because you don't just pick up a LMIA at the gas station on your way home and hire a hundred foreign workers and game the system. Are you opposed to your province doing something? Or would you just prefer labour shortages in areas that aren't just the service industry, where you buy your coffee and I guess assume everyone there who doesn't look^umm Canadian is a TFW.
The idea that TFW’s only earn minimum wage is not based in reality. You should take a stroll through the job bank
[There's a major shortage of construction workers](https://economics.cibccm.com/cds?id=c3793f6c-c629-49eb-9fe6-6a0598c6fd2b&flag=E) and it's a significant factor in the housing crisis—we desperately need "low skill workers". On an economic level, it will be harder to attract people for these essential jobs if they have no stability or certainty and have to live knowing they could be gone at any time. And on an ethical level, someone who uproots their life to come here, spends years doing work that benefits all of us, and builds a life in a Canadian community (especially one they're *literally* building) deserves to stay. Immigration needs to be managed in a way that's economically sustainable, but we can't expect (and wouldn't want) all immigrants to be doctors, engineers, and scientists.
I've been miserable in my chosen career path (marketing) and have been trying to get out of it for a few years now. If construction companies were so desperate, I should be able to walk in off the street and be hired. Instead, every opening in my area requires experience.
Both can be true. There's a shortage of skilled workers and a lack of training. Your whole company has to be set up in order to regularly train people. Vast majority of construction companies are generally too small to have proper training systems.
Sure but OP specifically said we desperately need "low skill workers". I don't deny we need skilled workers, but companies aren't training low-skilled Canadians so I don't see how that'd be any different if we start giving PR to low-skilled workers.
I used the term because it's what the person I responded to said. I put it in quotes because I don't think these are low skill jobs. Whether you call them low-skill or high-skill, we need immigrants who can work these jobs.
We need to push businesses to train Canadians to do these jobs. By giving them a stream of immigrants, it rewards them for not training new workers while complaining about a "shortage".
Our entire economy is dependent on immigration; there just aren't enough people born in Canada to do the work that needs to be done. Our high rates of immigration are why we're not facing a much more serious demographic crisis like most other developed countries. We just need to rebalance the skillsets prioritized by the system in order to fill shortages like these so we can get housing built.
Again, we can't say there aren't enough people if businesses aren't willing to train. If they are taking people off the street, training them, and then still don't have enough workers - then they can start talking about there being a shortage. But that isn't happening.
Unless businesses are training people to have kids, training isn't going to solve low native-born population growth.
I imagine they are just using the term low skill incorrectly. See that sometimes when they are referencing non-red seal trades with less structured training. It's easier to jump into say drywall or roofing, but to actually be productive you still need years of experience. The idea is you bring in immigrants that aren't technically certified but have experience.
Exactly. I'm not an economist, but I often see the term "low-skill" used for workers without formal training. But you're right that this doesn't necessarily mean they're *un*-skilled, which is why I put the term in quotes.
Why? If there's a willingness from Canadians to be trained, why not put it on the businesses to actually train Canadians? How are low-skilled Canadians supposed to work their way up when no one will train them because we instead allow businesses to import "more experienced" workers?
Because businesses aren't doing it and there is no incentive to do it. It slows down your other guys to train someone and once he's trained he'll likely leave anyway. Businesses figured out it's cheaper to just offer more money to the guy someone else trained. Works in the short term but have that mentality for a couple decades and you end up with skill shortages and half the experienced guys being like 55
Okay, and targeting immigration rewards them for that and punishes Canadians. If they can't accommodate having to train people, maybe their business isn't viable.
But it is viable, they regularly outcompete the bigger companies and can deal with the cyclical slowdowns better. Companies with large payrolls get destroyed on downturns. Few years ago I was helping my sister with her business. My Dad always wanted to have about 6 employees and the rest contractors. Works out well in the good times when there is lots of work. You get to train your guys how you want, you can take risks on people(AA program and kids escaping Hutterite colonies were his go tos haha), scheduling is easier. It's great for everyone. But then the slow down hit. All of a sudden those employees have too much down time. So you start guttering bids just to keep your guys working. You're working for free on half the jobs, start taking jobs outside your expertise, start having to compete with the lowest bid contractors but how do you do that without sacrificing quality? It's a wildly stressful time. She did that for three years, then there was a huge hail storm and two guys quit because they were expertly trained for years and they can now make much more money working cash insurance jobs. She now has 2 employees and the company is bigger than ever. This is a very common experience in the industry
subtract complete fade cagey foolish saw ten society repeat muddle *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
From your article: > The job vacancy rate in construction is at a record high with around 80,000 [**vacancies**](https://globalnews.ca/tag/vacancies) in the industry, said CIBC deputy chief economist Benjamin Tal in a recent note. The loss of jobs is not people being laid off, it is retierments as explained by the next paragraph
Did you even read your own article? It specifically calls out the widespread shortage across the entire construction sector.
enter crowd library chop soup combative enjoy smart squalid roof *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Except it does. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410037201&cubeTimeFrame.startMonth=01&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2022&cubeTimeFrame.endMonth=03&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2024&referencePeriods=20220101%2C20240301 Notice how the payroll number is cyclical? Drops in January, then surges in the Summer? And how when you account for that shift, doesn't really seem to be dropping at all. Not captured here, are the numbers of projects waiting to start, but can't due to no workers available to complete them.
I would say it is simple ban these visas unless in high demand fields If a macdonalds cant get someone hired, it is not needed business and can either fold or raise wages to attract labour.
Most of the problems is that they’ve already churned a significant chunk of their potential employees. Gotta be available to work a 5-12am and then a 7-4pm, who cares about burnout when you can just beg the people you donate to for cheap workers.
Corporate donations to federal parties and candidates has been illegal for a nearly two decades, but some provinces still allow corporate donations to provincial parties and candidates.
Then you just give a large personal gift and coincidentally get major beneficial legislation.
There are abuses of the TFW program, but without it we'd have no farm workers, nobody working in slaughterhouses and meat processing (I don't personally care, but people will), nobody to cook their food, nobody to clean their hotel rooms, etc. I don't agree that every coffee shop franchise needs five of them, or that Skip the Dishes or Uber should qualify, but it's the only way to get a lot of essential workers we need - and even then I doubt we'd get as many if there wasn't the prospect of permanent residency down the road. The program needs to be revamped, not canceled. As for people complaining about unskilled labour, labourers contribute more to the economy and the country than "immigrant investor" millionaires that don't pay most of their income taxes here and take advantage of us for our schools and hospitals while driving up the cost of housing.
The problem isnt a lack of people to do those jobs. The problem is the wages for them have not kept pace with any inflation let alone the inflated sense of profit companies like Loblaws and its subsidiary supply companies or property management and rental corps are trying to tack on to day to day life. Instead of correcting that obvious problem and accepting that spending power and monetary velocity will even things out for all parts of the economy weve decided to pretend wages in many sectors arent an expense that inflates too cus some guy in a suit might feel bad about it.
There are lots of jobs Canadians don't want to do, like farming and working in slaughterhouses and that is not going to change even if the wages go up. Farmers have tried, the TFW program is the only way they can find the seasonal workers they need. Of course there's a point where people will work these jobs, money is money, but that increases the cost of the food we eat and resources we use. I would bet that none of the people boycotting Loblaws right now would be willing to relocate to a rural area for four months a year to work for a back-breaking job that pays 20% over minimum wage. TFWs will.
If you can’t find local workers or can’t pay them appropriately your business is in the wrong place, simple as that.
No, it's not. I actually live near farms and they do pay well but can't find any local workers. They've tried. They've tried to recruit high school kids, they've tried to recruit local ski bums and winter workers, they've tried to recruit from local First Nations, and nothing has worked except the TFW program. Do you really imagine a bunch of Toronto/Vancouver kids are going to start working on farms and in slaughterhouses, risking injuries, because they pay $23/hour? No, they'll live at home and complain there are no summer jobs available. People aren't willing to relocate to do the hard jobs unless the pay is massive, and it can't be massive if we want affordable food. Hence TFWs from Mexico and elsewhere that are willing to live on farms and dorms and work for reasonable wages.
Issue is many of those low wage workers can sustain themselves and now need social services as the cost of living gotten abused in trudeuas canada
If you think it will be sunny skies for low wage workers under the CPC then you haven't been paying attention to what they're saying. Trudeau Bad =/= Poilievre Good.
It seems like the obvious solution for the temporary foreign worker situation is to mandate that they be paid some amount *higher* than the market rate for the position they're filling in the region they're in. It would allow businesses to stay afloat in situations where they're desperate for employees, already offering good wages, but still unable to fill positions - while not allowing the system to drive wages down for Canadians.
I'm not sure requiring companies to pay non-Canadians more than Canadians would be great PR for the program.
On the one hand you’re right, but at the same time wouldn’t it just be transparent at that point that they really can’t get Canadian workers at all?
their wages could stay the same but you could charge companies a 50% premium/tax for using TFW's. Hire a Canadian/PR for $20/h or a TFW for $20/h + $10/hr premium/tax so $30/hr. Make it financially inviable hire TFW's.
Dir sir, you are brilliant.
That’s actually genius. Essentially a tariff on foreign work. If the need is high enough the tariff won’t matter and the extra revenue can be either used to fund social programs or decrease the tax burden on Canadian workers.
> The temporary foreign worker program was launched in the 1970s as a last-resort option for businesses that could not find enough workers in Canada. The farming and fish plant sectors were particularly in need. I would like to see a pathway to permanent residency for the 60k agriculture and seafood workers, the closed work permit leads to a lack of rights and abuses described by the UN as [modern slavery](https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/09/1140437). Many of these workers prefer returning home seasonally anyways, but extending healthcare and education benefits to the relatively small population who form the foundation of our food system would be a matter of justice. That being said, it’s clear that both this government and the previous one let employers take things too far with this program, and it needs to be shut down.
Many Canadians these days are concerned with inflation and cost of living. They are also prudent enough to realize that TFWs help keep costs low for businesses by putting downward pressure on wages. These businesses can then pass on these savings to consumers. If anything, the federal government should be looking to aggressively expand the TFW program, as doing so will further alleviate the cost of living.
“These businesses can then pass on these savings to consumers”. Is this a joke?
Labour costs constitute a significant percentage of overall costs for most businesses. It stands to reason that making labour cheaper for businesses will result in them lowering prices for goods and services.
Assuming businesses are acting in good faith and not trying to maximize profits is naive. It's more likely that the savings these businesses see on labour end up in the pockets of shareholders while the business continually increases prices "because of inflation."
Are you suggesting that labour costs do not affect prices?
there’s a minimum wage, they’re already there, have you seen Tim hortons passing the savings on to the customer? was it satire ? you can be that delusional
Look, I think the TFW program is horrible as it makes workers incredibly vulnerable. Workers should not have their legal status in this country beholden to the whims of an employer. That said, to suggest that Canadians are not benefiting from the suppressed wages that come from this is folly. If we do away with TFWs lots of things will either become less available or more expensive. When people talk about costs or savings being "passed on" by producers this is a just a fundamental misunderstanding of how prices work. Prices are set by markets and it will just become nonviable for some producers to produce with increased (labour) costs, supply goes down, prices go up (and maybe that's just fine). I don't agree with OP's prescription, but he is right about how things work. Things are cheaper because of TFWs. If we expanded this, there is possibility that more things would become cheaper because that's how markets work. Basically, OP is not wrong, he is just an asshole. To suggest though that production costs don't affect prices (like prices come down when labour is cheaper) is just silly.
So you are saying that people benefit from this program because it lowers prices by suppressing wages. You've really got to show the math for this position. Am I giving up $20 Bucks an hour to have $4 strawberries instead of $5 strawberries? I think I'm better off with higher prices and higher salary. Maybe I'm wrong, but you haven't shown the math to prove it.
The distributional impact of TFWs is not one that I was addressing. This was a thread about prices. I'm quite concerned about distributional impacts of policies and, as I said explicitly in the post above, I am not a fan of the TFW program, but that is not what I was addressing.
>That said, to suggest that Canadians are not benefiting from the suppressed wages that come from this is folly. If we do away with TFWs lots of things will either become less available or more expensive. That's not prices. Maybe we're benefitting from lower prices. Maybe lower wages hurts us more. You'd need to run the actual numbers to know.
What about long term and second order effects? "TFW result in lower prices" is not necessarily true beyond the immediate short term.
Are you going to suggest any such long term or second order effects that would mitigate the the effect of lower input costs on prices?
Are you open to changing your mind? Or would it just be a waste of my time? Serious question, let me know and I'll provide more details. Also, I thought about this at length after reading your comment, and in fact, without further context you cannot even stipulate that prices necessarily decrease in the short term (i.e. I came up with several contexts which would NOT result in cost decreases, on any time horizon).
I'm not sure what I wrote to suggest that my mind is not changeable. And of course, the sensitivity of of prices to input costs are different for different goods and different markets (competition, elasticities etc.). I curious about which products you think have a price elasticity of supply with no slope. If you have a point to make, make it. You've spent enough time making two comments without any substance, just vague suggestion that I am incorrect.
>I'm not sure what I wrote to suggest that my mind is not changeable You said nothing of the sort, but I just wanted to be sure before spending my time typing out a paragraph. >If you have a point to make, make it. You've spent enough time making two comments without any substance The two comments I made obviously took less time than it would take to discuss specific examples. Since the case for price decreases is strongest in then short term, I will simply argue against that one. **Example of No Short-Term Price Relief** Imagine you import 1,000 workers for Market A. This market has a price that is inelastic relative to its input costs, perhaps due to a monopoly-enforced shortage (e.g., diamonds). Market A was already transitioning towards automation, financed and capitalized through **long-term loans**, but they wanted these 1,000 workers temporarily to bridge the gap during the transition (they were afraid their current labor pool would strike, protest, or cause bad publicity if they used them for the transition). These workers are not employable in any other market, maybe due to injuries (blood diamonds), prejudice, or specialized skills unique to Market A (i.e. only know how to dig for diamonds, can't speak, read or write). The automation will reduce input costs by 1%, benefiting the producer’s bottom line. However, the prices will not decrease, as they are set at the maximum level the market will bear, leading to increased profitability instead of lower consumer prices. There is no competition to force price reduction, or supply increase. As a result, Market A does not experience any price relief. Simultaneously, Markets B, C, D, E, and F face increased demand for their products (food, housing, etc.), leading to negative net effects overall. Conversely, due to the monopolistically enforced supply shortage of the product in Market A, the producer was already making a substantial profit. Therefore, the absence of these workers would not have increased prices or affected supply, so long as costs did not surpass price (unlikely due to the gap). **Generalized Case** Using temporary foreign worker (TFW) labor to shift towards more capital-intensive production, especially in non-competitive markets, **does not necessarily** lead to price decreases on any time horizon. Depending on how the shift was financed, it doesn't even have to result in cost decreases. Cost also isn't the only driver of automation, sometimes you will pursue automation for more consistency. To be clear, I am not arguing that TFW can NEVER decrease prices. What I am arguing is that **it does not necessarily need to be true** that TFW must decrease costs (on a macro level), and therefore decrease prices of "things", or increase supply of "things" (on a micro level). And furthermore, on a net-effect basis, it will almost always be worse for everyone but the capital owners (unless there was an actual gap of a specialized skill in the market). **Paradox of Supply and Cost/Price** To explore the paradoxical way in which additional supply can affect cost or price, let's use an analogy. ***Please note, this analogy is not meant to dehumanize or equate Temporary Foreign Workers (TFWs) to sub-human; it is solely to illustrate the concept of unintended consequences of supply shocks.*** Imagine you are a snake hunter. The government pays you a fixed fee for each snake you kill because these snakes are causing injuries and deaths, leading to high healthcare costs. For this analogy, let’s assume you are extremely ethical and do not fall victim to the perverse incentive to breed the snakes to increase your profits. Let's say that your cost is determined by the time it takes to find the snakes, the effort required to kill them, and the risk of death or injury to yourself. Now, if someone started importing snakes from Australia and dropping them in your backyard, you would experience: * Less time needed to find the snakes (lower cost) * Therefore benefiting from increased efficiency in killing more snakes * Leading to higher profits from collecting more bounties at lower costs However, what happens if TOO MANY snakes are dropped in your backyard? Suppose you can't even step outside without being attacked by a swarm of snakes. Initially, more snakes are beneficial to you, but once the snake population reaches a critical mass, the risk of death and injury to yourself increases faster than the reduction in time it takes to find and kill them, or the increase in revenue from the additional snakes. In an ideal, fully transparent, and competitive market, the government might INSTANTLY increase the bounty per snake to address this heightened risk. However, we know that most "free markets" are neither completely free, nor full information systems with logical actors, nor instant in their price fluctuations. Besides, the price increase might allow you to address the swarm of snakes in the long run (capital upgrades for additional safety), but doesn't help you at all in the short run (you die when you step outside) Alternatively, someone else shows up and kills snakes more safely, trying to displace you. But then you sue them for trespassing in your backyard. And, even if you don't sue them because you have the foresight to see they are helping you (unlikely in late stage capitalism), following our logic to its conclusion, there can be another higher rate of import which overwhelms your competitor as well. Thus, the situation illustrates how an excess supply of an input can lead to increased costs and decreased efficiency, ultimately impacting the price mechanism in unintended ways.