Money needed to retire - poll

[Hawk4value]

Let me clarify my position. I am pro immigration. My parents were both immigrants. I believe the US has benefited from immigration over the last 100 years. I also believe that immigration policy should be tightly controlled, and firstly and primarily benefit the country and its existing citizens, not the immigrant coming in. We need to make an assessment regarding every immigrant as to whether they will be a net benefit or a burden on society. This process should not be politically correct, but based on facts. And there is certainly nothing wrong with trying to attract and incentivize the most qualified people to immigrate, as opposed to deadbeats.

[Packer16]

I don't think the problem is as much as the immigrants coming in but the lack of incentives in general to remove oneself from the dole.  This equally if not more applicable to existing citizens as it is to the immigrants.  The immigrants are by nature risk takers and self motivated.  Ask yourself who amongst us would move from our family and friends to another country if provided the opportunity?  Most likely not the slackers.  The folks who would move are those who want better for thier families and are motivated to do so.  Once the immigrants are here, we could provide more incentives for work/school versus dole but we can do the same for our own citizens too.  I actually think the requirements to come to the US are to high.  What gives a person the right just becasue he/she is born in the land of the US/Canada additional opportunity and rights?

 

Packer 

 

Packer   

[Alekbaylee]

Lots of luck on moving to Canada.  Instead of accepting immigrants who are well educated, are familiar with the culture, speak perfect English, and have a significant nest-egg of capital, we instead prefer to select refugees and family-class immigrants who often have no education, speak neither English nor French, find the culture alien, have no money and have no prospect of economic success. But, it does make us feel morally superior to select these inferior immigrants...

 

Well, everyone is entitled to his/her own opinions (or prejudices), but the facts are the facts:

In 2006, the proportion of recent immigrants with a university degree was twice as high as among native-born Canadians. Despite this high level of schooling, several indicators reflect difficulties that recent immigrants entering the Canadian labour market encounter. Their employment and unemployment rates and their earnings are, in general, substantially different from those of native-born Canadians

 

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=fr&source=hp&q=immigrants+more+educated+than+natives+in+canada&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

 

As for refugees, they represent a tiny percentage of immigrants (less than 1% of the population, roughly 30 000 are allowed to enter the country each year, mostly selected by the High Commission of Refugee and Immigration Board/United Nations). The rest of the immigrants, roughly 300 000 people/year, are carefully selected by Immigration Canada and/or Quebec on the basis of their education and/or skills, i.e. according to Labour shortage in the country/province.

 

We see what we want to see...

 

 

[StubbleJumper]

Lots of luck on moving to Canada.  Instead of accepting immigrants who are well educated, are familiar with the culture, speak perfect English, and have a significant nest-egg of capital, we instead prefer to select refugees and family-class immigrants who often have no education, speak neither English nor French, find the culture alien, have no money and have no prospect of economic success. But, it does make us feel morally superior to select these inferior immigrants...

 

Well, everyone is entitled to his/her own opinions (or prejudices), but the facts are the facts:

In 2006, the proportion of recent immigrants with a university degree was twice as high as among native-born Canadians. Despite this high level of schooling, several indicators reflect difficulties that recent immigrants entering the Canadian labour market encounter. Their employment and unemployment rates and their earnings are, in general, substantially different from those of native-born Canadians

 

 

 

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=fr&source=hp&q=immigrants+more+educated+than+natives+in+canada&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

 

As for refugees, they represent a tiny percentage of immigrants (less than 1% of the population, roughly 30 000 are allowed to enter the country each year, mostly selected by the High Commission of Immigartion Board/United Nations). The rest, roughly 300 000 people are carefully selected by Immigration Canada and/or Quebec on the basis of their education and/or skills, i.e. according to Labour shortage in the country/province.

 

We see what we want to see...

 

 

We absolutely see what we want to see.  What I see is that about 10% of Canada's immigration takes the form of refugees, and about 25-30% more are "family class" meaning that a cousin, sister or grandpa gets preferential access to the country based on family ties (this is not always a bad thing as there is at least a family support system).  That leaves about 60% of economic immigrants who actually need to show that they will make a contribution (it doesn't mean that the other classes won't make a contribution, but it merely shows that we are not very scrupulous in protecting the economic interests of existing citizens).

 

So, yeah, I see what I want to see.  And what I see is that a well-educated, wealthy, native English speaker who is familiar with the culture by virtue of having lived in the US, and this fellow would need to get in a very long line and show that he deserves to immigrate despite his unambiguous advantages.  On the other hand if he had a sister who lived here.....

 

nep·o·tism   

[nep-uh-tiz-uhm] 

–noun

patronage bestowed or favoritism shown on the basis of family relationship, as in business and politics: She was accused of nepotism when she made her nephew an officer of the firm.

 

And Sanj, that sure ain't egalitarian.

 

SJ

[Alekbaylee]

SJ,

 

Again, the facts : If you are a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada, you can sponsor your spouse, common-law partner, conjugal partner, dependent child (including adopted child) or other eligible relative (such as a parent or grandparent) to become a permanent resident.

 

If you sponsor a relative to come to Canada as a permanent resident, you are responsible for supporting your relative financially when he or she arrives. As a sponsor, you must make sure your spouse or relative does not need to seek financial assistance from the government.

 

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/sponsor/index.asp

 

No nephew/no niece, no brother/sister, no cousin!

 

And the person you sponsor undergo a strict medical exam to be sure he/she will not be a burden to the canadian health system. If they have any chronic medical condition, they will be refused.

 

How is this?

 

 

[StubbleJumper]

SJ,

 

Again, the facts : If you are a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada, you can sponsor your spouse, common-law partner, conjugal partner, dependent child (including adopted child) or other eligible relative (such as a parent or grandparent) to become a permanent resident.

 

If you sponsor a relative to come to Canada as a permanent resident, you are responsible for supporting your relative financially when he or she arrives. As a sponsor, you must make sure your spouse or relative does not need to seek financial assistance from the government.

 

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/sponsor/index.asp

 

No nephew/no niece, no brother/sister, no cousin!

 

And the person you sponsor undergo a strict medical exam to be sure he/she will not be a burden to the canadian health system. If they have any chronic medical condition, they will be refused.

 

How is this?

 

 

 

Your observations are perfectly fine, and fit 100% with mine.

 

A sponsor is required, but a sponsor is not obliged to provide financial support for life.  A medical exam is required to avoid the worst burdens on the medicare system.  However none of this precludes the entrance of unskilled workers into Canada who earn insufficient income to pay adequate income tax to offset the cost of the services that they use.  I would argue that ANY Canadian who earns less than $30k does not pay enough tax to cover the average cost of publicly funded health care.  We are unavoidably stuck with our Canadian born low-income earners who are a burden on the system, but there is a strong argument that we should perhaps not actively import additional low income earners!

 

I would also observe that brothers and sisters and cousins ARE effectively permitted.  The strategy employed by many families to do this is to first bring the grandparents over to Canada, and then you can bring over all the brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces as subsequent family class immigrants.  In these cases the grandparents are almost always a net drain on Canada because they almost never earn enough money during their life here to pay sufficient taxes to offset the services they consume.  The brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces are a mixed bag.  Some are net contributors, and some are net users of publicly funded services.

 

When we allocate 35-40% of our "immigration slots" to refugees and family class immigrants we are making a very clear statement that protecting the economic status of existing citizens is subordinate to some other objective (call it kindness or compassion if you like).  Clearly if we were pursuing only the economic interest of our existing citizens, entry would be driven purely by merit, which might include characteristics that are linked to future economic success such as education, linguistic skills, propensity for cultural adaptation, etc.

 

The implication for somebody from the U.S. is that if his profession does not specifically fall under one of the NAFTA categories, he has to get in line just like everybody else...and that line is composed of 35-40% of people who will be the beneficiaries of favouritism on the basis of their country of origin (for refugees) or their family connections.  If you want to argue that compassion has value, go ahead (and for refugees, I would even likely agree).  But when your immigration criteria are not merit based, you will not be bringing in the very best of the best.

 

 

SJ

[txlaw]

Immigration Policy should not be based on charity, or political correctness.  The existing citizens of a country deserve to have its government properly vet every potential legal immigrant to make sure they will not be a burden on society.

 

That may be your view on immigration, but not every citizen would agree with you.  I rather like the following excerpt from a poem written on the Statute of Liberty in the U.S.:

 

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

 

If the immigrant is not skilled and has no money they will become a financial burden.

 

This is not true.  Plenty of non-skilled, no money immigrants have come to the US and Canada (and other places) and become productive members of society. 

 

For that matter, plenty of non-skilled, no money citizens are or have become productive members of society. 

 

Do you really believe that everyone who is poor and uneducated is destined to become a welfare enrollee?

 

And is someone who makes only $30K really a burden on society just because the average cost of benefits is greater than that amount?  From my perspective, there are plenty of people who make $100K or more who actually provide negative value to society.

 

When we allocate 35-40% of our "immigration slots" to refugees and family class immigrants we are making a very clear statement that protecting the economic status of existing citizens is subordinate to some other objective (call it kindness or compassion if you like).  Clearly if we were pursuing only the economic interest of our existing citizens, entry would be driven purely by merit, which might include characteristics that are linked to future economic success such as education, linguistic skills, propensity for cultural adaptation, etc.

 

With regards to the family allocation, there is a good argument that places like the US and Canada could not cherry pick the "best and brightest" from abroad without allowing them to bring over family members (even the dumb ones).  Think about the Chinese and Indian engineers in Silicon Valley who disproportionately start tech ventures that have kept the US on the forefront of innovation.  Would they agree to come to the country if they were forever cut off from their family members and community that they left behind?

 

Or think about the Mexican immigrants who start value-added small businesses in the US.  Would they really be willing to put down roots and grow their businesses if they could not share their success with their family members, whether dumb or intelligent, lazy or hardworking?

 

My own personal definition of "merit" is more expansive than just considering future earnings potential or economic success.  Character, creativity, determination and other attributes that are hard to measure just by looking at economic success should be included, in my opinion. 

 

We should be willing to take a chance on people who don't look great on paper. 

 

IMO, as ValueCarl would say.

[ERICOPOLY]

One guy I worked with at Microsoft was a refugee from Cambodia as a little boy.  I believe he survived with an uncle but most of the rest of his family was murdered.  We also have a lot of "Lost Boys" of Sudan living in this country.  This is the kind of people I like to see granted immigration.

 

When it comes strictly to people looking for a better opportunity, I prefer another path.  Last year I gave $6,000 to a local charity that buys educations (careers) for the students of Omatepe (the sister island of our community).  Omatepe is an island in Nicaragua.  That $6,000 will fund one young persons' medical education (it costs about $1,000 per year for a medical education in Nicaragua).  My thinking is that the $6,000 will then benefit many more people in Nicaragua who this young doctor goes on to help.   Anyways, my point is that $6,000 won't get them very far here in the US.  If the goal is to help the world, it might be cheaper on a person-by-person basis to help them succeed in their home countries.  This way they also benefit by not having to leave their communities and loved ones.

[bargainman]

Timely article about Canada's immigration policy tightening up:

 

http://www.startribune.com/business/112208859.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUvDEhiaE3miUsZ

 

[StubbleJumper]

Immigration Policy should not be based on charity, or political correctness.  The existing citizens of a country deserve to have its government properly vet every potential legal immigrant to make sure they will not be a burden on society.

 

That may be your view on immigration, but not every citizen would agree with you.  I rather like the following excerpt from a poem written on the Statute of Liberty in the U.S.:

 

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

 

If the immigrant is not skilled and has no money they will become a financial burden.

 

This is not true.  Plenty of non-skilled, no money immigrants have come to the US and Canada (and other places) and become productive members of society. 

 

For that matter, plenty of non-skilled, no money citizens are or have become productive members of society. 

 

Do you really believe that everyone who is poor and uneducated is destined to become a welfare enrollee?

 

And is someone who makes only $30K really a burden on society just because the average cost of benefits is greater than that amount?  From my perspective, there are plenty of people who make $100K or more who actually provide negative value to society.

 

When we allocate 35-40% of our "immigration slots" to refugees and family class immigrants we are making a very clear statement that protecting the economic status of existing citizens is subordinate to some other objective (call it kindness or compassion if you like).  Clearly if we were pursuing only the economic interest of our existing citizens, entry would be driven purely by merit, which might include characteristics that are linked to future economic success such as education, linguistic skills, propensity for cultural adaptation, etc.

 

With regards to the family allocation, there is a good argument that places like the US and Canada could not cherry pick the "best and brightest" from abroad without allowing them to bring over family members (even the dumb ones).  Think about the Chinese and Indian engineers in Silicon Valley who disproportionately start tech ventures that have kept the US on the forefront of innovation.  Would they agree to come to the country if they were forever cut off from their family members and community that they left behind?

 

Or think about the Mexican immigrants who start value-added small businesses in the US.  Would they really be willing to put down roots and grow their businesses if they could not share their success with their family members, whether dumb or intelligent, lazy or hardworking?

 

My own personal definition of "merit" is more expansive than just considering future earnings potential or economic success.  Character, creativity, determination and other attributes that are hard to measure just by looking at economic success should be included, in my opinion. 

 

We should be willing to take a chance on people who don't look great on paper. 

 

IMO, as ValueCarl would say.

 

 

The statue of liberty quote is nice.  However at that epoch, people came to the US and were not supported by the state.  They succeeded or failed by their own efforts.  In Canada, the state expends large sums of money on publicly funded healthcare.  Each new user adds an average of $4-5k annually to the cost of delivering said healthcare (to say nothing of other publicly funded services).  In Canada, when somebody earns less than $30k per year they pay well under $5k in income tax.  After accounting for tax credits, they pay nearly zero sales tax.  A citizen who gets stuck in a go-nowhere job at minimum wage or a shade higher does not pay enough taxes to fund even the health services that the average person uses.  The shortfall must be absorbed by those who have higher earnings.

 

So as a country, should we import people who have limited earning prospects?  If you cannot earn more than $15/hour your neighbours have to pay for your healthcare!  Every person that we add to this country that has limited earning prospects REDUCES our prosperity.  Let us rather make better choices and select people who are likely to be either revenue neutral or who are actually likely to be net contributors.

 

You make a number of good points about success immigration success stories...and I have seen them in person.  My dentist was trained in another country and has done exceedingly well.  Nobody is saying that there should be no immigration, but rather that we should select those who are most likely to succeed (and having no education, no language skills, and no familiarity with the culture are rather large hurdles).

 

The family reunification rules are very loose in Canada.  It's one thing to pursue a highly educated candidate and allow him to bring his spouse and young children here.  It's quite another thing to allow parents and grandparents!  I seriously doubt that eliminating preferential treatment to parents and grandparents would seriously harm our attractiveness to the best and brightest.

 

 

SJ

[turar]

The family reunification rules are very loose in Canada.  It's one thing to pursue a highly educated candidate and allow him to bring his spouse and young children here.  It's quite another thing to allow parents and grandparents!  I seriously doubt that eliminating preferential treatment to parents and grandparents would seriously harm our attractiveness to the best and brightest.

 

It's not all about economic sense. As a recent immigrant to Canada myself, and with household income well above Canadian average, I'd want to bring my parents here at some point of time, if they agree to it. Would it make sense for Canada economically? Probably not. Would I stay in Canada long-term if I couldn't reunite with my parents? Not sure.

 

If you go strictly by what makes economic sense, it's very rational to round up the economically unproductive bottom 1% of population every year, homeless and elderly, strip them of their citizenship, and deport them somewhere far away.

[Alekbaylee]

SJ,

 

Not sure where you take all these numbers...

Even purely economically your reasoning doesn't make sense. If everybody was to make more than $15/hour, you'd be the first complaining about the inflation.

Some new immigrants provide - for a time - some cheap labour that you and me benefit from. I bet you we'd be paying our pizza much much more if there wasn't those immigrants that you talk about.

 

Most of them however work during the day and study at night to get better jobs.

They don't stay stuck with those lower income you mention.

 

Another good chunk of immigrants are highly educated people that get there because of their skills/education. And what makes you think that everyone will want to bring his/her parents or grandparents?

 

And what makes you think their parents/grandparents will abuse the health care system systematically? Generally speaking immigrants use less health care system than the natives because a) they're not used to having one; 2) they have better life habits than the average NA Joe (they cook their own meals, eat a lot more vegetables and fruits, etc.).

 

The truth is Canada's growth is tied to immigration. Canadians don't have enough children. And this is true for all Western countries. So yes, to get our fair share of immigrants, we'll have to accommodate them in some sort of way, but we'll get more than we give.

 

Times are changing. It's not post WWII anymore. People move, from one country to another almost freely and will settle in the one that make them feel at home.

Don't be fooled, immigrants are a highly "competitive commodity". The whole western countries is competing to have the best and it's not going to stop anytime soon...

 

 

 

[Hawk4value]

"...If you go strictly by what makes economic sense, it's very rational to round up the economically unproductive bottom 1% of population every year, homeless and elderly, strip them of their citizenship, and deport them somewhere far away...".  Turar, I think that your statement is very unfair. No one is saying this.

 

The counter-point was was represented very well by Stubble when he said:  "Nobody is saying that there should be no immigration, but rather that we should select those who are most likely to succeed (and having no education, no language skills, and no familiarity with the culture are rather large hurdles)....". Existing citizens deserve a gov't who will make a concerted effort to increase the quality of the population pool and minimize financial liabilities. Lets all remember that the gov't is a fiduciary for its citizens not the immigrants. To gain immigrant status is a Priviledge not a Right.  

 

 

 

 

[twacowfca]

One guy I worked with at Microsoft was a refugee from Cambodia as a little boy.  I believe he survived with an uncle but most of the rest of his family was murdered.  We also have a lot of "Lost Boys" of Sudan living in this country.  This is the kind of people I like to see granted immigration.

 

When it comes strictly to people looking for a better opportunity, I prefer another path.  Last year I gave $6,000 to a local charity that buys educations (careers) for the students of Omatepe (the sister island of our community).  Omatepe is an island in Nicaragua.  That $6,000 will fund one young persons' medical education (it costs about $1,000 per year for a medical education in Nicaragua).  My thinking is that the $6,000 will then benefit many more people in Nicaragua who this young doctor goes on to help.   Anyways, my point is that $6,000 won't get them very far here in the US.  If the goal is to help the world, it might be cheaper on a person-by-person basis to help them succeed in their home countries.  This way they also benefit by not having to leave their communities and loved ones.

 

 

Way to go Eric!  Keep up the good work.  :)

 

Glad to see you put in a plug for the lost boys. We had the opportunity to help scholarship one of them after he made it to the states.  His parents and all the adults and older children in his village and surrounding villages were killed by mauraders.  The group of surviving small children fled the area and merged with other groups, including a few older adolescents who became the leaders.  They learned to stick together and help each other on their trek.  When lions attacked, the older boys got them into a big scrum and threatened the lions with whoops and waving sticks.  This kept the lions at bay.  But, if a little boy became frightened and tried to run away, the lions would pick him off and tear him to shreads.  This happened to his little friend before his eyes.  :'(

 

He graduated from college in the US and went back to the now peaceful southern Sudan to help his people.  :)

[turar]

Turar, I think that your statement is very unfair. No one is saying this.

 

I know no one said it, I was just trying to make a point that not all policy decisions should be guided by economic feasibility alone. I may have pushed it a little trying to make a parallel, but I hope you see my point.

 

The current system is that a sponsor of a relative immigrant has to financially support the sponsored person for 10 years, without government support. Given that it takes up to 5 years or so to complete the process of bringing a family member in, statistically, there are not many years of an elder person's life left for the government to worry about! And that's assuming that older immigrants cannot be productive members of a society well into their old age, which may not be true given the service-oriented, knowledge-based economy we're in.

[StubbleJumper]

The family reunification rules are very loose in Canada.  It's one thing to pursue a highly educated candidate and allow him to bring his spouse and young children here.  It's quite another thing to allow parents and grandparents!  I seriously doubt that eliminating preferential treatment to parents and grandparents would seriously harm our attractiveness to the best and brightest.

 

It's not all about economic sense. As a recent immigrant to Canada myself, and with household income well above Canadian average, I'd want to bring my parents here at some point of time, if they agree to it. Would it make sense for Canada economically? Probably not. Would I stay in Canada long-term if I couldn't reunite with my parents? Not sure.

 

If you go strictly by what makes economic sense, it's very rational to round up the economically unproductive bottom 1% of population every year, homeless and elderly, strip them of their citizenship, and deport them somewhere far away.

 

turar,

 

You need to be very objective about this.  You have spoken about the private benefits of bringing your parents here....you as a private citizen would like this and benefit from it.  How do I and other citizens benefit? We do not!  We should not be expected to bear one iota of the cost of bringing the aging and unskilled to this country.  That includes medical care costs and Old Age Security.  If you get private benefits and there are no tangible public benefits, then you should bear the entire cost privately.  Full stop.

 

Turfing the bottom 1% is a non-starter.  We can't do it, so no point in discussing it.  But that doesn't mean we should import more people to join that bottom 1%!

 

SJ

[StubbleJumper]

SJ,

 

Not sure where you take all these numbers...

Even purely economically your reasoning doesn't make sense. If everybody was to make more than $15/hour, you'd be the first complaining about the inflation.

Some new immigrants provide - for a time - some cheap labour that you and me benefit from. I bet you we'd be paying our pizza much much more if there wasn't those immigrants that you talk about.

 

Most of them however work during the day and study at night to get better jobs.

They don't stay stuck with those lower income you mention.

 

Another good chunk of immigrants are highly educated people that get there because of their skills/education. And what makes you think that everyone will want to bring his/her parents or grandparents?

 

And what makes you think their parents/grandparents will abuse the health care system systematically? Generally speaking immigrants use less health care system than the natives because a) they're not used to having one; 2) they have better life habits than the average NA Joe (they cook their own meals, eat a lot more vegetables and fruits, etc.).

 

The truth is Canada's growth is tied to immigration. Canadians don't have enough children. And this is true for all Western countries. So yes, to get our fair share of immigrants, we'll have to accommodate them in some sort of way, but we'll get more than we give.

 

Times are changing. It's not post WWII anymore. People move, from one country to another almost freely and will settle in the one that make them feel at home.

Don't be fooled, immigrants are a highly "competitive commodity". The whole western countries is competing to have the best and it's not going to stop anytime soon...

 

 

 

 

Where do I get my numbers?  Well, check out CIC's statistics on immigration, and check out PWC's personal taxation documents for the income tax burden at any given level of income.  You'll find that I'm nicely in the right neighbourhood when I quote numbers.

 

We do get benefits from cheap labour without a doubt, and some folks are upwardly mobile.  And some are not.  Some are perpetually in the lower income ranges and will persist there for their life in Canada.  And for good reason.  If you can't speak the language, have limited education, no skills of value in North America, and you don't "get the culture" then it should be no surprise that some people will struggle. 

 

Not everybody will want to bring their aging parents to this country, but plenty do.  The thing is that old people do not have to abuse the health system to be a burden on taxpayers.  They merely have to use it to a greater extent than they contribute.  That's a characteristics of pretty much all old folks, Canadian born or immigrant.  The difference is that the Canadian old folks paid into the system all their life when their health was better while the aging immigrant just shows up on the scene when its time to use the system.  These people make little to no contribution to Canadian society, but they suck up health resources at a significant cost to taxpayers.  You get a private benefit from bringing your aging parents here and everybody else get public costs?  Nice.

 

Canada's growth IS driven by immigrants.  So let's choose the ones that will actually contribute rather than those who will be a burden! 

 

SJ

[turar]

turar,

 

You need to be very objective about this.  You have spoken about the private benefits of bringing your parents here....you as a private citizen would like this and benefit from it.  How do I and other citizens benefit? We do not!  We should not be expected to bear one iota of the cost of bringing the aging and unskilled to this country.  That includes medical care costs and Old Age Security.  If you get private benefits and there are no tangible public benefits, then you should bear the entire cost privately.  Full stop.

 

I think many potential sponsors of immigrant parents, myself included, would agree to do this through buying private health insurance, given reasonable cost. Unfortunately that alternative is not available that I know of.

[ERICOPOLY]

He graduated from college in the US and went back to the now peaceful southern Sudan to help his people.   :)

 

Nice ending.

[txlaw]

In Canada, the state expends large sums of money on publicly funded healthcare.  Each new user adds an average of $4-5k annually to the cost of delivering said healthcare (to say nothing of other publicly funded services).  In Canada, when somebody earns less than $30k per year they pay well under $5k in income tax.  After accounting for tax credits, they pay nearly zero sales tax.  A citizen who gets stuck in a go-nowhere job at minimum wage or a shade higher does not pay enough taxes to fund even the health services that the average person uses.  The shortfall must be absorbed by those who have higher earnings.

 

Yes, but what I'm arguing is that the value that a person adds to a society/country is not necessarily reflected in their annual income or in the amount of tax they pay into the system. 

 

So even though from the numbers it appears that a class of low income workers are adding less value to society than what they are getting in return from society (from the government), that is not necessarily the case.  The labor market is simply not reflecting the value they add to society in a way that comports with reality. 

 

The argument extends not just to low wage immigrants but to all low wage workers.

 

You make a number of good points about success immigration success stories...and I have seen them in person.  My dentist was trained in another country and has done exceedingly well.  Nobody is saying that there should be no immigration, but rather that we should select those who are most likely to succeed (and having no education, no language skills, and no familiarity with the culture are rather large hurdles).

 

I never thought that you were arguing against immigration.  It's pretty clear that you want to cherry pick immigrants that have education, language skills, etc. 

 

But my argument again is that an individual that does not have money or an education or even language skills will not necessarily be a drain on society if they are let into the host country.  Indeed, there is no way to tell for sure that such an individual or their progeny will not be superstars in terms of adding value. 

 

Still, your point about likelihood of success is well taken, and I don't disagree with setting an immigration policy that lets in a disproportionate amount of people who have backgrounds conducive to success. 

 

But let's not forget that the ovarian lottery metaphor extends to everyone in the world and that some people simply need a good environment to thrive.

 

The family reunification rules are very loose in Canada.  It's one thing to pursue a highly educated candidate and allow him to bring his spouse and young children here.  It's quite another thing to allow parents and grandparents!  I seriously doubt that eliminating preferential treatment to parents and grandparents would seriously harm our attractiveness to the best and brightest.

 

You'd be surprised, especially with cultures that place a great emphasis on extended family.  I am Desi (of Indian descent), and I know plenty of people who absolutely add value society but would not have come to the US if the possibility of bringing parents/grandparents over was completely foreclosed to them.

 

As emerging markets like India and China develop further, getting bright people from those countries to come over to the US and Canada for good will be a much harder sell.  Why leave your country and your culture if you have just as much opportunity at home as abroad?  Might as well come to the US or Canada, get your undergraduate or graduate degree, and then go back home to use those skills you have acquired to add value to the home countries. 

 

Allowing those folks to bring their entire families in may be one way to sweeten the deal in a way that lures them over here (North America) for good.

 

 

[valuecfa]

I love hearing those $5M and $10M numbers. lol 

 

I was a financial advisor for almost 15 years.  I never had any clients with over $2M. Over 100 were retired and managing just fine.  Yes, many had other sources of income, which many of us won't have in the future but most were earning $2-5k/mo in pension/retirement income.  Not a ton of money.  Many of my friends have $5M-10M and they are retired.  Many are older than me.  Most are in their 50's and some in their 60's.  Everyone that I know of who retires with $5M or so, retire and then die with $5M or more.   Those with $10M and retire, die with >$10M.  One friend retired with about $5M and will die with >$15M.  They are all over 55.

 

I look back at the financial industry and they convince everyone using charts and inflation and stuff like 2-4% rates of return that everyone needs millions and millions of dollars to retire.  Bull&*it!!  They just want you to pour more money into your investments, which isn't a bad thing because it forces you to live on less and accumulate more.  People will live on what they have.

 

Why doesn't anyone ask an 80 year old who has been retired for 20 years what their personal experience has been?  Good luck finding one who's net worth has fallen in retirement.  Nobody I know of, who was moderately well off when they retired had their net worth decline during retirement.  I can not think of one, especially one that retired with more than $1M.  I have had family members live on less than $1,500/mo in retirement and managed just fine and were happy.  They had hundreds of thousands in investments but they didn't want to spend it.  Saved for 40 years and never spent $1. of their savings in retirement.  Good luck telling people over 60 to spend their savings.

 

Personally, at 37 years of age I retired with $1M-2M, a nice house, no debt, young kids and wife who works p/t.  While she is bitter that I am retired, she slugs out her 15-20 hours/week :-)   We are managing just fine.  Net Worth is increasing, not decreasing.  Lifestyle is maybe $100k/yr (spouse is $30k/yr, I am maybe $70k or whatever I need). Because I retired so young, there is certainly a much greater chance that if my investments turn sour than I will have to find some earned income but only as a supplement to my investment income.  Even if I have to work 20 hrs/week or 4-6 months/yr, it still beats the real world.  I have always said, that it is much better to retire from 40-60 and then work from 60-80.  Why wreck your best years working?  Dumb if you have other options.   

 

Before people chime in with $1M, 2M, 5-10M and 2-4% hypothetical returns, 3% inflation, charts, graphs, etc.  Do your homework and go out and ask some questions to the people you know who are 70-80 years old and ask them what their personal experience has been in retirement.  Don't rely on the financial industry to do your work for you.  Their interests aren't necessarily aligned with yours, unless you are an advisor :-) 

 

Good post. I've been thinking more and more about my own retirement recently (though i am in my 30s), and would be perfectly happy living a modest life free of work. I thought i would share my family's experience to show the money one might need to retire comfortably (which of course is relative).

 

My father (who passed away about 12 years ago) retired at 39. He was an mechanical engineer (and a stockbroker in his younger years). He passed away at 72 years of age. So he lived nearly half his life in retirement and traveled religiously for vacations during retirement to remote cheap locations like Central America for many months at a time. (Great memories). My mother has never worked since she married my father many years ago.

 

--With the background out of the way... I manage her retirement money for her now and she is now 63 and perfectly healthy. She has raised 4 kids and put them all through college and graduate/law school (not leaving any of us with any student debt upon graduating), in what i would consider a very comfortable upbringing. She has a net worth of approximately $1.4 million now in investments (currently about 50% in mostly dividend paying equities and the rest in fixed income & cash) and a home worth about $300,000 which is a great modern 4 bedroom home (in the South that amount can buy a great home).  So her net worth is $1.7 million including residence. She has no mortgage, and no debt. She takes about 4 vacations per year usually lasting about a week (or three) each time, and lives an extremely comfortable life without any need to worry about having enough money. Soon she'll be receiving social security that would add about $20,000/year to her annual income, which she really doesn't need, because that 1.4 million is more than enough to live her comfortable life in retirement, doing all the things she wants to do.

[ERICOPOLY]

I love hearing those $5M and $10M numbers. lol 

 

I was a financial advisor for almost 15 years.  I never had any clients with over $2M. Over 100 were retired and managing just fine.  Yes, many had other sources of income, which many of us won't have in the future but most were earning $2-5k/mo in pension/retirement income.  Not a ton of money.  Many of my friends have $5M-10M and they are retired.  Many are older than me.  Most are in their 50's and some in their 60's.  Everyone that I know of who retires with $5M or so, retire and then die with $5M or more.   Those with $10M and retire, die with >$10M.  One friend retired with about $5M and will die with >$15M.  They are all over 55.

 

I look back at the financial industry and they convince everyone using charts and inflation and stuff like 2-4% rates of return that everyone needs millions and millions of dollars to retire.  Bull&*it!!  They just want you to pour more money into your investments, which isn't a bad thing because it forces you to live on less and accumulate more.  People will live on what they have.

 

Why doesn't anyone ask an 80 year old who has been retired for 20 years what their personal experience has been?  Good luck finding one who's net worth has fallen in retirement.  Nobody I know of, who was moderately well off when they retired had their net worth decline during retirement.  I can not think of one, especially one that retired with more than $1M.  I have had family members live on less than $1,500/mo in retirement and managed just fine and were happy.  They had hundreds of thousands in investments but they didn't want to spend it.  Saved for 40 years and never spent $1. of their savings in retirement.  Good luck telling people over 60 to spend their savings.

 

Personally, at 37 years of age I retired with $1M-2M, a nice house, no debt, young kids and wife who works p/t.  While she is bitter that I am retired, she slugs out her 15-20 hours/week :-)   We are managing just fine.  Net Worth is increasing, not decreasing.  Lifestyle is maybe $100k/yr (spouse is $30k/yr, I am maybe $70k or whatever I need). Because I retired so young, there is certainly a much greater chance that if my investments turn sour than I will have to find some earned income but only as a supplement to my investment income.  Even if I have to work 20 hrs/week or 4-6 months/yr, it still beats the real world.  I have always said, that it is much better to retire from 40-60 and then work from 60-80.  Why wreck your best years working?  Dumb if you have other options.   

 

Before people chime in with $1M, 2M, 5-10M and 2-4% hypothetical returns, 3% inflation, charts, graphs, etc.  Do your homework and go out and ask some questions to the people you know who are 70-80 years old and ask them what their personal experience has been in retirement.  Don't rely on the financial industry to do your work for you.  Their interests aren't necessarily aligned with yours, unless you are an advisor :-) 

 

Good post. I've been thinking more and more about my own retirement recently (though i am in my 30s), and would be perfectly happy living a modest life free of work. I thought i would share my family's experience to show the money one might need to retire comfortably (which of course is relative).

 

My father (who passed away about 12 years ago) retired at 39. He was an mechanical engineer (and a stockbroker in his younger years). He passed away at 72 years of age. So he lived nearly half his life in retirement and traveled religiously for vacations during retirement to remote cheap locations like Central America for many months at a time. (Great memories). My mother has never worked since she married my father many years ago.

 

--With the background out of the way... I manage her retirement money for her now and she is now 63 and perfectly healthy. She has raised 4 kids and put them all through college and graduate/law school (not leaving any of us with any student debt upon graduating), in what i would consider a very comfortable upbringing. She has a net worth of approximately $1.4 million now in investments (currently about 50% in mostly dividend paying equities and the rest in fixed income & cash) and a home worth about $300,000 which is a great modern 4 bedroom home (in the South that amount can buy a great home).  So her net worth is $1.7 million including residence. She has no mortgage, and no debt. She takes about 4 vacations per year usually lasting about a week (or three) each time, and lives an extremely comfortable life without any need to worry about having enough money. Soon she'll be receiving social security that would add about $20,000/year to her annual income, which she really doesn't need, because that 1.4 million is more than enough to live her comfortable life in retirement, doing all the things she wants to do.

 

How did you view work after a childhood of not witnessing your father going to work?  I only ask that because I left the workforce two months before my son was born and my daughter was two at the time.  They are now nearly 3 and 5.  Some in the family have a theory that somehow they will be damaged by not seeing me routinely "go to work", but as for now I believe they benefit from having two parents with time to spend with them.

 

[valuecfa]

I love hearing those $5M and $10M numbers. lol 

 

I was a financial advisor for almost 15 years.  I never had any clients with over $2M. Over 100 were retired and managing just fine.  Yes, many had other sources of income, which many of us won't have in the future but most were earning $2-5k/mo in pension/retirement income.  Not a ton of money.  Many of my friends have $5M-10M and they are retired.  Many are older than me.  Most are in their 50's and some in their 60's.  Everyone that I know of who retires with $5M or so, retire and then die with $5M or more.   Those with $10M and retire, die with >$10M.  One friend retired with about $5M and will die with >$15M.  They are all over 55.

 

I look back at the financial industry and they convince everyone using charts and inflation and stuff like 2-4% rates of return that everyone needs millions and millions of dollars to retire.  Bull&*it!!  They just want you to pour more money into your investments, which isn't a bad thing because it forces you to live on less and accumulate more.  People will live on what they have.

 

Why doesn't anyone ask an 80 year old who has been retired for 20 years what their personal experience has been?  Good luck finding one who's net worth has fallen in retirement.  Nobody I know of, who was moderately well off when they retired had their net worth decline during retirement.  I can not think of one, especially one that retired with more than $1M.  I have had family members live on less than $1,500/mo in retirement and managed just fine and were happy.  They had hundreds of thousands in investments but they didn't want to spend it.  Saved for 40 years and never spent $1. of their savings in retirement.  Good luck telling people over 60 to spend their savings.

 

Personally, at 37 years of age I retired with $1M-2M, a nice house, no debt, young kids and wife who works p/t.  While she is bitter that I am retired, she slugs out her 15-20 hours/week :-)   We are managing just fine.  Net Worth is increasing, not decreasing.  Lifestyle is maybe $100k/yr (spouse is $30k/yr, I am maybe $70k or whatever I need). Because I retired so young, there is certainly a much greater chance that if my investments turn sour than I will have to find some earned income but only as a supplement to my investment income.  Even if I have to work 20 hrs/week or 4-6 months/yr, it still beats the real world.  I have always said, that it is much better to retire from 40-60 and then work from 60-80.  Why wreck your best years working?  Dumb if you have other options.   

 

Before people chime in with $1M, 2M, 5-10M and 2-4% hypothetical returns, 3% inflation, charts, graphs, etc.  Do your homework and go out and ask some questions to the people you know who are 70-80 years old and ask them what their personal experience has been in retirement.  Don't rely on the financial industry to do your work for you.  Their interests aren't necessarily aligned with yours, unless you are an advisor :-) 

 

Good post. I've been thinking more and more about my own retirement recently (though i am in my 30s), and would be perfectly happy living a modest life free of work. I thought i would share my family's experience to show the money one might need to retire comfortably (which of course is relative).

 

My father (who passed away about 12 years ago) retired at 39. He was an mechanical engineer (and a stockbroker in his younger years). He passed away at 72 years of age. So he lived nearly half his life in retirement and traveled religiously for vacations during retirement to remote cheap locations like Central America for many months at a time. (Great memories). My mother has never worked since she married my father many years ago.

 

--With the background out of the way... I manage her retirement money for her now and she is now 63 and perfectly healthy. She has raised 4 kids and put them all through college and graduate/law school (not leaving any of us with any student debt upon graduating), in what i would consider a very comfortable upbringing. She has a net worth of approximately $1.4 million now in investments (currently about 50% in mostly dividend paying equities and the rest in fixed income & cash) and a home worth about $300,000 which is a great modern 4 bedroom home (in the South that amount can buy a great home).  So her net worth is $1.7 million including residence. She has no mortgage, and no debt. She takes about 4 vacations per year usually lasting about a week (or three) each time, and lives an extremely comfortable life without any need to worry about having enough money. Soon she'll be receiving social security that would add about $20,000/year to her annual income, which she really doesn't need, because that 1.4 million is more than enough to live her comfortable life in retirement, doing all the things she wants to do.

 

How did you view work after a childhood of not witnessing your father going to work?  I only ask that because I left the workforce two months before my son was born and my daughter was two at the time.  They are now nearly 3 and 5.  Some in the family have a theory that somehow they will be damaged by not seeing me routinely "go to work", but as for now I believe they benefit from having two parents with time to spend with them.

 

 

That is a really good question.

 

I think it did have a fairly negative effect on the way i viewed work growing up, not really viewing it as a necessity. Never seeing my parents ever work, and being on vacation several months of every year in a foreign country while growing up seemed normal at the time, and perhaps did instill a lack of work ethic type of mentality, though education and frugality was instilled at an early age and i think that would be an important thing to teach your children. It undoubtedly made my familial relationships much better than is the case with most other families. I think the bond in my family is much stronger than would otherwise be the case, as we are all incredibly close. I think the time you get to spend with your family much more than makes up for the message it might instill in the way your children might view work.

[alwaysinvert]

 

How did you view work after a childhood of not witnessing your father going to work?  I only ask that because I left the workforce two months before my son was born and my daughter was two at the time.  They are now nearly 3 and 5.  Some in the family have a theory that somehow they will be damaged by not seeing me routinely "go to work", but as for now I believe they benefit from having two parents with time to spend with them.

 

Not that I was asked to give my opinion, but this seems like ill-conceived jealousy or intolerance to non-conformity to me. When your kids are old enough to know the difference, I think they will be old enough to know that you are an exception (and that you, most likely put in loads of work earlier to get in this position). Until then, they will benefit from your increased ability to attend to their needs. Provided you are able to hammer in that message, obviously. Which might be easier said than done, for all I know.

 

I don't have kids but I have kind of overlapping experience since I have been making my living in an unconventional way (no, obviously not anything illegal; online-poker, which has been highly lucrative the last few years) for a couple of years and have had to smooth it over quite a bit both for my immediate family and more distant relatives. To the extent that my relatives know the details of what I do, they have been pretty dismissal and/or judgmental. I just don't think you should listen very much to anyone else's judgment in relation to your own life. And, most importantly, beware of feeling guilty/ashamed of the fact that you fail to conform to the norm.

 

Obviously, take the life-advice from a 22-year old for what it is worth :)

[Viking]

Erciopoly, interesting question; a topic I have also thought about. My kids are 10, 8 & 7 and I have not 'worked' for the past 5 years (my wife since our first was born). Fortunately, I was in sales/management for two large multinational companies and my kids know what my last job was and the products I sold (we eat them every day). They also understand my current job is 'managing our investments' which has lead to a number of questions and discussions. My wife and I are both very involved in many not for profit organizations (sport/school) coaching, organizing etc so we are quite busy with the kids.

 

Bottom line, the kids can see our work ethic; we just don't hop in the car each morning. We also likely have more time to talk about 'work stuff' with them than most parents (too busy'stressed out with other things). I guess the key is how much time you are able to spend with your kids and what you are doing with them. I definitely wouldn't change anything about the past 5 years. Let's hope the next 5 are as good! :-)