You don't understand, it's not about me individually. It's about macroeconomics and governmernt policy. Canada alleges that she needs to employ 200,000-400,000 skilled PRs each year, due to scarcity of such skilled workers in Canadian labor marke. THAT ALLEGATION/CLAIM IS FALSE, which is evidenced by the facty that PRs go to extreme length to land any job, which often turns out to be a survival job.
...
Furthermore, what I am talking about is not me personally (or you or any other individual per se), but state that here is serious policy flaw if you consider macro-economic conditions in Canada, and the false hope given by misleading allegation and propaganda, which results in 400,000 desperate PRs coming to Canada and then starting a rat race to clean toilets with MBA's in their pockets and years of experience working for leading companies in their field in India, France, USA, Germany and so on.
I think the claim that mbas are in a rat race to clean toilets in Canada - or drive rickshaws, as this individual has claimed many many times, is way overstated - like, it's clearly nonsense.
That said, sure, there are issues in finding jobs, in many cases requires changing professions, etc. There are professional reports on wage gaps (between those born in Canada and immigrants, which not surprisingly declines over time) and other job market frictions.
Personally I agree that Canadian employers can be, ahem, quite 'provincial', in the sense that they value Canadian experience and education too highly and don't want to take risks. I discuss this with friends. Personally when I compare (generally) to the situation for immigrants in other countries (as opposed to home countries), absolutely - it's hard. But compared to 'most other countries' (that accept immigrants openly anyway), not so very bad. Government does some stuff to mitigate - as well it should - but it's not such an easy thing to just 'fix.' (As an example - does anyone think that
fewer immigrants ever actually leads to
fewer issues of integration like this? Government's not going to fix it by just limiting immigration).
Worse than the USA? Perhaps. Depends who you are / what kind of immigrant / your background / where. If you're a blockchain twit with a crypto background, you probably are better off in the USA (and speaking personally, Canada's probably better off if you go to and remain in USA).
Because let's state this up-front: Canada's immigration system reflects a very explicit
choice to prefer educated, skilled immigrants over others. The difference between the USA and Canada is stark on this dimension - because they are different countries and societies that also have (surprisingly to many) quite different education systems (and results).
You can disagree with that choice - sure -
but if you treat it like it's a mistake, you're just demonstrating you don't know anything much about Canada.
In short, Canada's quite a bit more educated:
https://data.oecd.org/eduatt/adult-education-level.htm#indicator-chart
(Note almost all of these figures compare 25-64 year olds i.e. working age groups).
The point on the chart to pay attention to is tertiary (basically university/post-secondary) education, where Canada's population with tertiary education is 60% (one of highest in world BTW), USA 50%. (Note that the OECD 'upper secondary' is somewhat higher in the USA, but that's precisely the 10% higher level in tertiary, i.e. this chart must total to 100%).
Second, USA has by policy or geography or history or whatever ended up with very different (worse) educational attainment by immigrants:
https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/second-quarter-2017/comparing-income-education-and-job-data-for-immigrants-vs-those-born-in-us
https://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/375/PIAAC 2012 Immigrants Canada Final EN.pdf
(On this second one, look at page 12).
[Warning, these publications' classification of education, domestic terminology in USA and Canada, do not precisely correspond to OECD terminology - caution about comparisons between these studies. The OECD data is good for comparing between countries, the domestic data is perfectly fine in my view for comparing relative educational backgrounds of natives/immigrants.]
Short bits that jump out: over 27% of immigrants in USA do not have high school educations (compared to under 10% for the native born pop). Immigrants to USA edge out native-born only in one educational group, graduate degree (higher tertiary). In sum: the USA imports a lot of undereducated workers and a smallish group of PhDs.
Canada? Look for yourselves, but basically immigrants are better educated than native-born. (Note that wage gap studies are, I believe, almost always like-for-like education/skills, so the wage gap does not necessarily mean that immigrants make less overall than native born as a group).
If you believe the various studies and copmarisons that have been done:
-USA has basically made a choice to have the poorest, working class bear the brunt of the competition with low-skilled immigrant labour (and therefore preferring to protect the interests of the professional class by
relatively restricting their competition with foreigners).
-Canada has made the opposite choice, roughly speaking (with a LOT of caveats here, like skilled professional labour are generally better able to protect their niches and professional advantages - still, numbers put pressure on their relative wages).*
This has obvious implications for a wide variety of social and economic issues, go at it from whatever perspective you like.
But the most obvious of these by far is the impact on equality - overall, it's going to mean less wage divergence. (And equality then has a big impact on a variety of other measures like health, education, social cohesion, and others). But simple example is that the minimum wage is generally higher in Canada.
Now if you wish to frame this as Canada deceiving high-skilled immigrants and putting them to work driving rickshaws, sure - we all know it's severely exaggerated nonsense.
But are there implications about what Canada's policies are for preferring highly educated/skilled workers? Yep. Big ones. They're mostly (in my view) better for everyone, better for the country, better for the children of immigrants, etc. It does have some distributional impacts (relative impacts on different socioeconomic groups), some will do better than others - that's true for ANY economic policy.
*Note, this 'comparative immigration policy from econ/labour class perspective' summation by me is much simplified - in particular, it's possible that there is no negative distributional impact between the high-skilled, but only between high and low-skilled. Or in simple terms, a lot of low skilled immigrants distributes income upwards, lots of high skilled levels them out - basically the definition of something leading to higher equality. It does NOT follow from this that more high-skilled immigration means (in absolute terms) lower incomes for other high-skilled - the crucial quesiton being what we are comparing to (no/low immigration, high immigration of low skilled, or high immigration of high skilled). [Implicitly comparisons here tend to be between different countries in simple wages-to-immigrants which is another whole kettle of fish of factors to consider]
It's a far more complex topic because the labour market for the skilled is NOT remotely like the simplistic view that you just need a better 'matching algorithm' aka CanGosPlan. As an example, the educated/skilled may face a bigger 'search penalty' when looking for employment precisely like their previous job, and even a penalty salary-wise if they are forced to change their field/sub-speciality - BUT that difference might well disappear over a period of a couple of years. There are a zillion other nuances - skilled/educated start more companies, move more, may go for more education, etc - which mean short-term data might contradict long-term.
Whereas - in comparison - unskilled labour sort of takes the wage it's offered and doesn't search for a wage premium suited to its education/skill level.[I'm keeping this super-short because 'unskilled' is often not really the case - the jobs can require a lot of skills and knowledge. But in the most reductive definition, low or unskilled possibly just means labour that gets little to no wage premium for its skills and knowledge, i.e. even a skilled worker could change fields/tasks without taking much of a wage hit.]
[Apologies, I know this has gone off topic by not just making random unfounded vituperative and tendentious claims, and actually referencing data sources.]
