They keep saying Ontario needed the last wave because the province is getting old.
Look at the chart. House prices up. Births down. More people in.
That’s not an aging problem we solved. That’s a housing problem we created. We dumped extra demand on the same starter homes, then wondered why couples stopped at one kid.
Average mom is almost 32. A lot of families never had the second child because the house that used to fit them doesn’t exist at a price they can pay.
Immigration adds bodies. It does not add the kids who were never born. You can’t fix an aging country by making it harder to raise a family, then importing the next wave to cover the hole.
@patsearle Make houses affordable by significantly decreasing immigration... plus there are probably some mechanisms to incentivise entrepreneurs.
Sadly many more will leave.
@MPelletierCIO Yep, supply and demand, pound in immigrants at an unsustainable rate, demand.
But who really paid for it, young couples not able to afford the starter house.
@Tablesalt13 Whats their true intent? The last massive round crushed our TFR partly by making the second bedroom unattainable. More immigrants will be far less native more Canadians. Bad economic policy, there are better returns with higher fertility.
People keep pointing at 2022 like that’s the real price.
It isn’t. That was the panic bid. The house that fits a kid came off that high and it’s still a stretch for anyone actually trying to have the second one.
If you’re waiting for the peak to return you’re not buying a home. You’re sitting on a lottery ticket. For the sake of raising TFR, lets hope its a losing ticket.
@ElectionMapsIF What reversal? TFR is still way below replacement, actually almost the lowest its ever been. Cohorts are shrinking significantly each decade. All eventually go to zero. There is a big band in millenials that are about to miss the bus. We need to get TFR way higher.
@BagelPolling Disagree, the mercator projection over represents Northern nations size, its misleading. I think its had a psychological impact on promoting immigration to western nations, misrepresenting how much land we have.
@Martyupnorth Conservatives need to go further right. Combine with PPC. Make immigration their top issue.
They missed an opportunity last time to rally behind a form of Canadian nationalism, Carney took a variant, it worked.
42,000 sounds clean. It isn’t.
Almost all of it was full-time. Unemployment didn’t even move because ~37,000 people left the labour force. That’s not “everyone kept their job.” That’s people falling off the list.
Youth got clipped. Wages are crawling at 2%. Then you’ve got a realtor driving Uber next to 93,000 other drivers.
I want the split. How much of this is a real job dying, and how much is a student or TFW exiting so the headline looks like a mystery?
Either way the family house didn’t get cheaper. The guy who used to sell it is now competing for a fare. Thats the real issue we should be discussing, not counts.
Wages are half of it.
The other half is the house those wages are supposed to buy. Last wave didn’t just bid down pay. It bid up the 3-bed. Couples I see in the GTA didn’t skip kid #2 because they hate work. The starter that used to fit a crib isn’t priced off a Canadian wage anymore.
Train the kids already here. Build the house they can actually fill. Intake on top of that is how you get a bigger GDP and fewer grandchildren.
Vast opinions on the right, yes. That’s why it can’t message like the left.
Births still compounds if they don’t cross the party line. Church vs weed is a fight inside the tent. The kids still show up on the same roll, no?
The left’s trick is discipline. Ours is just not defecting. Extra births thus do matter as long as they stay in the coalition.
Back to the start, the divergence didnt happen until recently, thus if you control mass immigration, im expecting pull back, how much, thats TBD.
Yes the challenge with the right in general, too vast of positions and opinions to consolidate. Where the left with exception of communist extremists is strong at consolidating in shared positions and taking concessions for their greater cause. This sheep effect may be our distruction. How do we get a united right or more fundamentally agree on core tenets? let the remaining nuance rest within the party position.
Interesting perspective, got any examples? Didn't work on the baltics front for hundreds of years... in Baltics they assimilated you.
Note, in this mental exercise, you could easily replace Germans with Russians or with anyone else really. The point was birth rates are paramount to the future, whoever has babies, will be the future of the baltics.
How many German families does it take to grow a new Prussia?
This is a thought experiment. Not a plan.
Imagine a group of German couples moves today to the old Prussian-Baltic edge — the Kaliningrad region, and maybe the nearby Baltic coast. For some reason the usual brakes are off for them. They keep having about six children per family, generation after generation. Their kids stay, marry each other, and do the same.
Everyone already living there does not get that miracle. Birth rates in that corner of Europe are about 1.2 children per woman. Towns get older. School classes get smaller. The census shrinks.
Two clocks, same land.
A family that has six children, whose children do the same, triples in size every thirty years.
The ground they arrive on is already small, and getting smaller.
Kaliningrad region: about a million people now.
The three Baltic states together: about six million.
Historic German East Prussia was about 1.6 million.
Because the people already there are not replacing themselves, the *next* generation in those places is much smaller than the one alive today. After three generations you are not trying to outnumber 1939. You are trying to outnumber a thinned-out classroom.
So if the question is: **how many couples do you put on a plane in 2026 so that, around 2116, their descendants are the majority of a new Prussia?**
For a Kaliningrad-sized Prussia — a million people now, fewer young people later — you need on the order of 10,000 to 15,000 couples.
For something closer to old East Prussia in living numbers, more like 25,000 to 35,000 couples.
For a majority among the young in the three Baltic states after those countries have spent ninety years below replacement, more like 25,000 to 40,000 couples.
That is the surprise. It is not millions. The missing local children do half the work. Ten or twenty thousand large families, left alone for three generations, can become the bigger people in a place that stopped having enough kids of its own.
Faster than that, the math dies. In thirty years those families have only had the first wave of children. Majority still means packing hundreds of thousands of adults and calling it migration, not a dynasty.
Two catches sit under the joke.
The map is sloppy. The Baltics are not Prussia. East Prussia is Kaliningrad plus a strip of Poland. The Prussia that ran Germany was Brandenburg. It is still in Germany.
And six children per family does not usually survive contact with apartments and office jobs. This story assumes it does, on purpose.
The clean answer: move ten to forty thousand six-child couples today, wait ninety years, and a shrinking Baltic-Prussian census can hand their great-grandchildren a majority. That is not a reconquest. It is what happens when one group keeps having children and the other does not.
I’m listening.
When you say a Northeast conservative and a Southern conservative aren’t the same, what do you mean that actually lasts into the kids?
Church, guns, taxes or something that shows up once those kids are 25?
I’m not sure the label matters as much as whether the higher-fertility group stays that group. Thats the real variable. If you think it doesn’t, Id love to hear why.
Agree, but my point wasnt re. the war now it was the grander European security. Also wrong decade. The men in the line were born when TFR was higher. 1.20 among ethnic Russians is the next army, not this one.
I also don’t buy “imperial expansion” for a fight over land that was Russian-ruled and Russian-speaking for a long time. That’s a border war on contested ground, not Russia growing a new empire.
To support your point and mine, they’re still failing the cheap version of imperialism. Recruitment is slipping, they’re chewing the same male cohort, and they can’t convert it into a clean hold. That’s attrition with a historical claim, not a rising empire.
Worry about this year’s guns if you want. Don’t use this year’s guns to ignore the birth chart and my main point, which is that they're doomed without more babies. Or advanced tech, which we know isn't coming for them.