Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa
It is hard to tell. Such a huge portion of the population does jobs that are more or less optional (i.e. society would not really be affected if nobody was doing that job). 1980s Canada functioned as a fairly modern economy with 25 million for example.
|
A lot of the infrastructure that still serves Canada today was a product of the 1960s-1980s. Most of the housing stock. Much of the large scale infrastructure (power stations, military investment, highways, bridges, railways, transit). Built with half the people.
Scandinavia today doesn’t have a population much larger than Canada of the 1980s, yet it seems to get more per body in terms of output or infrastructure or being a force on the world stage.
Mostly, Canada’s late era growth maxed out the legacy that had been built prior to 1990. What does another 20 million bodies get this country? A dozen more Miltons ringing the GTA? More Amazon depots? A bigger oligopoly in various sectors? More condo towers?
When the skyscrapers in our cities reflect the industrial might of a developing country and not just a scheme of pumping up housing, I’ll be more supportive of numbers to support that. Until the mindset of 21st century Canada moves beyond houses and (mediocre) healthcare, I don't see what 50, 60, or 70 million matters. Give me a vibe of aiming for near France in terms of stature, and I’ll support growth. Otherwise, what’s the point, except to make accountants happier with the metric on paper?