11 ms·

Canadian banks, telecoms, and even retail chains, have been shamelessly replacing Canadian workers with Indians for decades. At this point, a plurality of our

Canadian banks, telecoms, and even retail chains, have been shamelessly replacing Canadian workers with Indians for decades. At this point, a plurality of our new immigrants come from one or two states in India. I would challenge you to go to a coffee shop in any major city and try to find a Canadian worker. Not sure what the future is for a Canadian worker, but it's bleak.

geraldwhen 1y ago
Based on immigration rates and birth rates, Canada will be mostly Indian at some point in the future. The “future Canadian worker” is Indian.
- thoroughburro 1y ago
  The future Canadian worker is a Canadian with Indian ancestry, you no doubt mean.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - netbioserror 1y ago
    You're assuming perfect assimilation happens. Otherwise you simply have a colony. If the colony outstrips the natives, they change the culture and eventually the governance of a place by right of conquest. Then they can change names and there's no denying it. States encompass territory, but nations are defined by their people and culture.
    - squigz 1y ago
      "Perfect assimilation" doesn't seem like something that actually happens in reality.
    - ahoka 1y ago
      You might want to read up on Quebec.
    - rayiner 1y ago
      They don’t even need to achieve a majority. Look at New York City or urban New Jersey. You think those places are the same as they would have been had they remained British and Dutch?
      - nyeah 1y ago
        It's been a ... little while since NYC was Dutch. Let me put my tricornered hat on and think carefully.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    “In The Culture Transplant, Garett Jones documents the cultural foundations of cross-country income differences, showing that immigrants import cultural attitudes from their homelands—toward saving, toward trust, and toward the role of government—that persist for decades, and likely for centuries, in their new national homes. Full assimilation in a generation or two, Jones reports, is a myth. And the cultural traits migrants bring to their new homes have enduring effects upon a nation's economic potential.” https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-transplant https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-tran... This is especially true in Toronto, where immigrants from the subcontinent grow up in enclaves surrounded by other immigrants.
    - achrono 1y ago
      > Toronto, where immigrants from the subcontinent grow up in enclaves surrounded by other immigrants. Citation please, because this is sweeping. Two questions to consider: 1. Are these enclaves representative of the subcontinent, or of a few over-represented communities that is actually a small fraction of the Indian subcontinental population? 2. Of all the people from the Indian subcontinent here, how many live in enclaves versus otherwise?
      - breitling 1y ago
        >Citation please Brampton, Thorncliff, Scarborough, etc. There's no shortage of immigrant heavy neighborhoods. Heck, I'm in Durham and the demographics are changing rapidly.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    - roenxi 1y ago
      True enough but probably not relevant to anything. Every society is already a patchwork of families with different beliefs that date back centuries. So noting that immigrants will form a complicated tapestry of new beliefs doesn't really bring much to the conversation - there wasn't subgroup of the host nation were they meant to assimilate with in an alternative scenario. The hypothetical culture that countries tell themselves they have appears to be mostly mythical. So it turns out immigrants are just people too and behave in the only way they possibly can. Although maybe don't just let anyone in, dump them in the middle of nowhere and hope they turn out well. That'll probably end poorly. Setting people up with economic opportunities make for happy societies.
- komali2 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - logicchains 1y ago
    It's a conspiracy theory to suggest that there's some deliberate elite conspiracy to replace white Canadians. It's not a conspiracy theory to state that if current demographic trends continue then whites (as in people with white skin) will be a minority there by the end of the century; it's basic extrapolation.
    - NilMostChill 1y ago
      source? for the trends i mean, not the extrapolation.
      - logicchains 1y ago
        For the trends, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada has some charts in the "Ethnic origin" section.
        ptsneves 1y ago
        Yeah, dismissing data as racist is quite annoying. I looked at the fertility rate in Poland and it is 0.33 per1000. In Portugal it got better at the expense of 10% of the population being immigrant in a span of 5 years. Of course the natives revolted, all while they enjoy their lives without dependants . The fault is not of the Indians, or immigrants that come for a better life, and are often needed. The fault is all the developed world, and some not, deciding that having children is not good. I have a the very controversial opinion that not wanting to have children is a disease as we are living organisms and all of them reproduce. There might be manageable diseases but current demographics is a public health crisis. I am very capitalist but if there is something where the state needs to intervene is to make any kind of employment disturbance into families a severe liability. I just got to know a parent lost its job after coming from paternity leave, for me that company is on my bad book forever, and I sold its stock. More importantly evolution will evolve around the people that don’t want to reproduce because they will not pass their childless traits. Crudely, it will consider all childless people even if they live to a 100 as death on birth. If somebody said that 60% of the developed world will die in about 5 generations this would be a catastrophe for Bruce Willis, but as it takes time and we have immigrants that have other fertility inclinations to fill the gap, the frog boils slowly into oblivion.
- kannanvijayan 1y ago
  When I was a fresh immigrant child comments like these used to make me feel more uncomfortable than they do now. How I perceive these comments has changed over time. What I want to address about this comment is the implicit identity associations involved. It's clear that you're drawing an identity distinction between "Canadian" and "Indian". One of the things I've noticed about my own personal associations is that my own identity as an "Indian" kind of dissolved over the course of a decade or so after I immigrated as a child. And when it evolved it didn't evolve in the direction of "Canadianness", for some generic definition thereof. My cultural identity broadened along horizons that had nothing to do with nationality. When I think of "my tribe" now, it's on a values and interest basis. "My people" aren't Canadians or Indians, they're programmers and engineers and scientists and mathemeticians. Where I draw identity lines, it's no longer along national lines. My tribe's Gods are Turing and Church. Our saints are Torvalds and Carmack and Stroustrup and Van Rossum and Wall. We are friendly with the neighboring tribes that follow Euler and Goedel, as well as the yonder followers of Einstein and Newton and Feynman. And I think that perspective dichotomy is reflective of an underlying deep shift in how people form identities, one that's being driven by the rise of instant, rich global communications through the internet. So when I read comments like yours these days, I see yet another sign of the tension between that old structure and the new. To bring this back to a Canadian context, Stephen Harper (former conservative PM) actually called this out very astutely a long time ago when talking about the Somewheres vs the Anywheres: https://macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/stephen-harper-has-some-ideas-about-conservative-populism/ https://macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/stephen-harper-has-some-... > Harper argues that today’s conservative populism deserves a respectful hearing because it harnesses the legitimate anxieties of the Somewheres, who haven’t been doing all that well in the globalized economy. As for the Anywheres, they don’t get it. I'd only disagree about that last statement. I get it :) It's just that having been born in a very Somewhere place and having become an Anywhere, I really can't explain the depth of freedom you feel when you escape those identity bounds. It's not that I don't understand the cultural perspective of the Somewheres. It's just that I see it as a prison.
  - yadaeno 1y ago
    Your system of drawing lines and forming “tribes” within social classes reminds me of the caste system.
Larrikin 1y ago
>I would challenge you to go to a coffee shop in any major city and try to find a Canadian worker. Why do Canadians put up with going to coffee shops that make you call into a call center in another country to order coffee?
- breitling 1y ago
  For non-Canadians, this may be hard to comprehend how quickly the demographics have shifted, but the Indians are here in person. No need to send the order to a call center in India. We have that many.

geraldwhen 1y ago

Based on immigration rates and birth rates, Canada will be mostly Indian at some point in the future. The “future Canadian worker” is Indian.

thoroughburro 1y ago
The future Canadian worker is a Canadian with Indian ancestry, you no doubt mean.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- netbioserror 1y ago
  You're assuming perfect assimilation happens. Otherwise you simply have a colony. If the colony outstrips the natives, they change the culture and eventually the governance of a place by right of conquest. Then they can change names and there's no denying it. States encompass territory, but nations are defined by their people and culture.
  - squigz 1y ago
    "Perfect assimilation" doesn't seem like something that actually happens in reality.
  - ahoka 1y ago
    You might want to read up on Quebec.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    They don’t even need to achieve a majority. Look at New York City or urban New Jersey. You think those places are the same as they would have been had they remained British and Dutch?
    - nyeah 1y ago
      It's been a ... little while since NYC was Dutch. Let me put my tricornered hat on and think carefully.
- rayiner 1y ago
  “In The Culture Transplant, Garett Jones documents the cultural foundations of cross-country income differences, showing that immigrants import cultural attitudes from their homelands—toward saving, toward trust, and toward the role of government—that persist for decades, and likely for centuries, in their new national homes. Full assimilation in a generation or two, Jones reports, is a myth. And the cultural traits migrants bring to their new homes have enduring effects upon a nation's economic potential.” https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-transplant https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-tran... This is especially true in Toronto, where immigrants from the subcontinent grow up in enclaves surrounded by other immigrants.
  - achrono 1y ago
    > Toronto, where immigrants from the subcontinent grow up in enclaves surrounded by other immigrants. Citation please, because this is sweeping. Two questions to consider: 1. Are these enclaves representative of the subcontinent, or of a few over-represented communities that is actually a small fraction of the Indian subcontinental population? 2. Of all the people from the Indian subcontinent here, how many live in enclaves versus otherwise?
    - breitling 1y ago
      >Citation please Brampton, Thorncliff, Scarborough, etc. There's no shortage of immigrant heavy neighborhoods. Heck, I'm in Durham and the demographics are changing rapidly.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
  - roenxi 1y ago
    True enough but probably not relevant to anything. Every society is already a patchwork of families with different beliefs that date back centuries. So noting that immigrants will form a complicated tapestry of new beliefs doesn't really bring much to the conversation - there wasn't subgroup of the host nation were they meant to assimilate with in an alternative scenario. The hypothetical culture that countries tell themselves they have appears to be mostly mythical. So it turns out immigrants are just people too and behave in the only way they possibly can. Although maybe don't just let anyone in, dump them in the middle of nowhere and hope they turn out well. That'll probably end poorly. Setting people up with economic opportunities make for happy societies.
komali2 1y ago
[flagged]
- logicchains 1y ago
  It's a conspiracy theory to suggest that there's some deliberate elite conspiracy to replace white Canadians. It's not a conspiracy theory to state that if current demographic trends continue then whites (as in people with white skin) will be a minority there by the end of the century; it's basic extrapolation.
  - NilMostChill 1y ago
    source? for the trends i mean, not the extrapolation.
    - logicchains 1y ago
      For the trends, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada has some charts in the "Ethnic origin" section.
      - ptsneves 1y ago
        Yeah, dismissing data as racist is quite annoying. I looked at the fertility rate in Poland and it is 0.33 per1000. In Portugal it got better at the expense of 10% of the population being immigrant in a span of 5 years. Of course the natives revolted, all while they enjoy their lives without dependants . The fault is not of the Indians, or immigrants that come for a better life, and are often needed. The fault is all the developed world, and some not, deciding that having children is not good. I have a the very controversial opinion that not wanting to have children is a disease as we are living organisms and all of them reproduce. There might be manageable diseases but current demographics is a public health crisis. I am very capitalist but if there is something where the state needs to intervene is to make any kind of employment disturbance into families a severe liability. I just got to know a parent lost its job after coming from paternity leave, for me that company is on my bad book forever, and I sold its stock. More importantly evolution will evolve around the people that don’t want to reproduce because they will not pass their childless traits. Crudely, it will consider all childless people even if they live to a 100 as death on birth. If somebody said that 60% of the developed world will die in about 5 generations this would be a catastrophe for Bruce Willis, but as it takes time and we have immigrants that have other fertility inclinations to fill the gap, the frog boils slowly into oblivion.
kannanvijayan 1y ago
When I was a fresh immigrant child comments like these used to make me feel more uncomfortable than they do now. How I perceive these comments has changed over time. What I want to address about this comment is the implicit identity associations involved. It's clear that you're drawing an identity distinction between "Canadian" and "Indian". One of the things I've noticed about my own personal associations is that my own identity as an "Indian" kind of dissolved over the course of a decade or so after I immigrated as a child. And when it evolved it didn't evolve in the direction of "Canadianness", for some generic definition thereof. My cultural identity broadened along horizons that had nothing to do with nationality. When I think of "my tribe" now, it's on a values and interest basis. "My people" aren't Canadians or Indians, they're programmers and engineers and scientists and mathemeticians. Where I draw identity lines, it's no longer along national lines. My tribe's Gods are Turing and Church. Our saints are Torvalds and Carmack and Stroustrup and Van Rossum and Wall. We are friendly with the neighboring tribes that follow Euler and Goedel, as well as the yonder followers of Einstein and Newton and Feynman. And I think that perspective dichotomy is reflective of an underlying deep shift in how people form identities, one that's being driven by the rise of instant, rich global communications through the internet. So when I read comments like yours these days, I see yet another sign of the tension between that old structure and the new. To bring this back to a Canadian context, Stephen Harper (former conservative PM) actually called this out very astutely a long time ago when talking about the Somewheres vs the Anywheres: https://macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/stephen-harper-has-some-ideas-about-conservative-populism/ https://macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/stephen-harper-has-some-... > Harper argues that today’s conservative populism deserves a respectful hearing because it harnesses the legitimate anxieties of the Somewheres, who haven’t been doing all that well in the globalized economy. As for the Anywheres, they don’t get it. I'd only disagree about that last statement. I get it :) It's just that having been born in a very Somewhere place and having become an Anywhere, I really can't explain the depth of freedom you feel when you escape those identity bounds. It's not that I don't understand the cultural perspective of the Somewheres. It's just that I see it as a prison.
- yadaeno 1y ago
  Your system of drawing lines and forming “tribes” within social classes reminds me of the caste system.

Larrikin 1y ago

>I would challenge you to go to a coffee shop in any major city and try to find a Canadian worker. Why do Canadians put up with going to coffee shops that make you call into a call center in another country to order coffee?

breitling 1y ago
For non-Canadians, this may be hard to comprehend how quickly the demographics have shifted, but the Indians are here in person. No need to send the order to a call center in India. We have that many.