How do you think a Canada of 50 million people by 2050 will be?

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Leagues always say that when they're not in expansion mode. There's nothing preventing leagues from moving to 40 teams, 50 teams, etc. Besides, getting an expansion franchise isn't the only option. One can buy a team and re-locate it.

Canada has two strikes against it in the derby for major professional sports franchises.

1) - as a high tax jurisdiction socialist country, we don't have very many billionaires around who could finance such an acquisition.
2) - Canada will likely always have a lower valued dollar compared to the US. This makes it more expensive to buy a team and to operate it, as big league sports conduct all their operations in US currency.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Canada has two strikes against it in the derby for major professional sports franchises.

1) - as a high tax jurisdiction socialist country, we don't have very many billionaires around who could finance such an acquisition.
2) - Canada will likely always have a lower valued dollar compared to the US. This makes it more expensive to buy a team and to operate it, as big league sports conduct all their operations in US currency.

1) - Corporate taxes were actually lower in Canada till Trump sought to close the gap with us 2 years ago. It's why head offices like RBI (Tim Hortons, Burger King, Popeyes) were placed in Canada instead of the US. Canada may have more social programs but that tends not to translate into higher taxes than the US because of their bloated military. It's true that we don't have as many billionaires but we have enough of them and a large enough corporate sector to support the number of pro teams suggested. Besides, this isn't about now but when Canada hits 50 million people. That's decades away.

2) - One can speculate about exchange rates but at the end of the day it's impossible to predict these things decades into the future. The US may be economically stronger than Canada today but my hope is that we'll be the wealthier society by the time we hit 50 million. There's no reason why we can't.

[vid]

For reference:

(Green line is how many US dollars you can buy with a Canadian dollar, while the red line is how many Canadian dollars you can buy with a pound; therefore, they're inverted.)



Source: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-conte...ollar_book.pdf

[GreatTallNorth2]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

I think London could hit 550k however I see most of the growth going to Hamilton and KW-C. All day GO service to Toronto will be the draw.

London's CMA is already over 500,000. And in the past 2-3 years the city has seen a significant amount of growth from people leaving the GTA and buying more affordable homes in London. I don't see that changing. Currently builders cannot keep up with demand for new homes, condos, etc. I've lived here all my life and I've never seen this amount of proposals for condo buildings downtown (with many of them being built). That's not to take away from the growth in K/W or Hamilton or wherever, but a mid size city like London that offers low housing prices, with a university, major hospitals, shopping, etc that is only 1.5 hours to the GTA is pretty attractive to people (old & young).

[ssiguy]

I agree with wave46's concern about Canada's economy.

Canada has been too reliant on housing to prop up it's economy with the obvious posterchild being BC. It is a false economy that is the result of speculation and not productivity gains. The concern for de-industrialization is also a valid one and one need only look to Australia. Due to uncompetitive wage and land prices {much due to the skyhigh real estate}, Australia has completely de-industrialized and is now back to where they were 120 years ago of just relying on commodity exports. They have built a national model of BC's economy. By allowing their primary exports to also be raw commodity ones, they have also set themselves up to be very vulnerable to the whims of the stock market where booms can become busts like Alberta. This is also fraught with danger as their big exports are, like {BC & Alberta's} very carbon intensive in a quickly decarbonizing world.

2019 was the first year siunce 1902 that Australia hasn't produced a single automobile. It's manufacturing sector is strictly small-mid size and only for domestic consumption and not international trade. Canada will not follow that path {thank God} in such a profound way but the future of our magor industries is not rosy as multinationals seek out cheap labour countries and then export back to us what we once made ourselves.

[ssiguy]

As far as London, I don't know if you are talking about the city or metro. London CMA is already about 545k but even the city is already 415k so in order for London to only reach 500k by 2050 would require a massive slowdown in population growth to about one-quarter what it is today. I think it's fair to say the city's growth rate will slow but the very minimum will be 550k.

As stated earlier, London is benefitting from people leaving Greater Toronto and for those who want to escape the big city, KWC or Hamilton often don't fit the bill as they are increasingly becoming just suburbs the way Missisuaga was 40 years ago.

London, being a major regional centre, offers all the government, health, education, and social services but with very good entertainment, shopping, and resturants for a city it's size due to being a regional destination. London also benefits from being London. London has a very good reputation nationwide as being a very pleasant, green, safe, affordable, and attractive city and it's a reputation it richly deserves. This is where quality of life really becomes an economic advantage as luring and keeping highly skilled workers {and the businesses that need them} is far easier to do in a city with a high quality of life.

[saffronleaf]

As London grows in stature, it should change its name so people don't always have to ask which London they're talking about. Maybe New London or West London. Lol idk just bugs me.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Canada has two strikes against it in the derby for major professional sports franchises.

1) - as a high tax jurisdiction socialist country, we don't have very many billionaires around who could finance such an acquisition.
2) - Canada will likely always have a lower valued dollar compared to the US. This makes it more expensive to buy a team and to operate it, as big league sports conduct all their operations in US currency.

People seem to be basing their predictions on population size which doesn't mean much when it comes to certain leagues. TV contracts are what matters and at the moment there's no indication the NBA wants to expand in the near future and when they do it's likely to be to places other than Canada.

Montreal must prove to NBA it has value as an expansion city

Michael Grange @michaelgrange October 10, 2018, 6:08 PM

...

"The NBA is not considering adding a team to the 30 already in place in the short term," said spokesman Michael Fortier. "Our goal is instead to be ready the day that opportunity comes along."

...

So were an NBA team to be plopped into the Bell Centre there is a case that it would be supported. No great argument here.

But the NBA only cares marginally about that. Their primary concern is how putting a team in the Montreal – or any other market – would tangibly grow the business to the point it would offset the cost of having to share existing revenues, estimated at $7.4- billion last season.

And how would having a team in Montreal help that process more than a franchise in any other market?

And by the way – if there is any argument that splitting the Canadian market with the Raptors would somehow cut into their pie – that could be a strike too.

In the meantime there are about $800-million reasons why the NBA isn’t pushing to add more franchises in the near term: that’s the annual share each team gets now from the league’s massive $24-billion television deal that kicked in prior to the 2016-17 season and continues to 2024-25.

Sure a massive expansion fee – keep in mind the Las Angeles Clippers sold for $2-billion, without a building — would be welcomed, but it would have to be weighed against diluting the current rights deal.

...

But nothing would happen unless the Molson family, owners of the Montreal Canadiens and the Bell Centre, are primary investors – as longshot as a Montreal NBA bid might be it would be a non-starter if they didn’t own their building or at least have co-tenant status. The league has long since passed the days when they tolerate a franchise playing second-fiddle when it comes to building availability and scheduling.

...

Even then the argument gets harder to make. It’s hard to imagine Seattle and Las Vegas as markets that wouldn’t be at the front of the line if-and-when the league did expand. The commissioner’s office is also rightfully intrigued about the potential Mexico City would offer in expanding the league’s overall footprint. For that matter adding teams in Europe before they try to squeeze more juice out of a well-serviced North American landscape makes sense. Even in Canada there might be the urge to right a wrong in putting another franchise in Vancouver and further deepening the league’s tie to the vital Asian market.

All that aside, the real question that interests in Montreal would have to answer what having a team in Montreal would do for the other 30 (or 31 or more) teams in the league.

Being part of the NBA would undoubtedly be great for a city trying to raise its profile in North America and elsewhere, and it would probably serve the local ownership well. But what would Montreal do for the NBA?

Source: https://www.sportsnet.ca/basketball/...xpansion-city/

[ericmacm]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

As London grows in stature, it should change its name so people don't always have to ask which London they're talking about. Maybe New London or West London. Lol idk just bugs me.

The name London is fine. In the future, it will probably get rather large and mildly important in an international sense, but it will never reach the stature of the original London, and most people in Ontario (and Canada) know what people mean when they talk about London.

Although, if it were to be renamed, Talbot would probably be the natural choice.

[saffronleaf]

Here's how I think the ethnic demographics will probably shape up in 2050 in our three biggest metropolitan areas.

Toronto (Inner Green Belt; includes Toronto, Hamilton, Oshawa CMAs):
- Total population is 9.5 million
- Ethnic demographics (adds up to more than 100% b/c of Mixed):
-- 23% European
-- 22.5% South Asian
-- 16.5% East Asian
-- 13% Southeast Asian
-- 12% Black
-- 10% Mixed
-- 8% West Asian & North African
-- 4% Latin American
-- 1% Indigenous
- Toronto will likely have the highest number and percentage of visible minorities, at 76%
- Toronto will likely have the largest South Asian community in the Western world, at a little more than 2.1 million
- Toronto will likely have the highest percentage of South Asians in the Western world, at about 22.5%
- Toronto will likely have the largest East Asian and Southeast Asian communities, although Vancouver will likely have a larger percentage of each, and Winnipeg will likely have a larger percentage of Southeast Asians
- People with ancestry in the Asia-Pacific region (including South Asians, Southeast Asians, and East Asians) would comprise 52% of the population

Montreal:
- Total population of 6.3 million
- Ethnic demographics (adds up to more than 100% b/c of Mixed):
-- 54.5% European
-- 21% Black
-- 10.5% West Asian & North African
-- 8.5% Latin American
-- 7.5% Mixed
-- 1.5% South Asian
-- 1.5% East Asian
-- 1.5% Southeast Asian
-- 1% Indigenous
- Montreal will likely remain the 4th most populous predominantly Francophone metropolitan area behind Kinshasa, Paris, and Abidjan
- Montreal will likely remain the 2nd most populous predominantly Francophone metropolitan area in the Western world behind Paris
- Montreal will likely have the largest Black population in Canada with over 1.3 million (predominantly from Haiti and Francophone Africa)
- Montreal will likely have the highest percentage of Black people in Canada at about 21%
- Montreal will likely have the highest percentage of West Asian & North African (mainly from Algeria) and Latin Americans

Vancouver (Lower Mainland; includes Vancouver and Abbotsford CMAs):
- Total population of 4.1 million
- Ethnic demographics (adds up to more than 100% b/c of Mixed):
-- 30% East Asian
-- 23% European
-- 17% South Asian
-- 16% Southeast Asian
-- 10% Mixed
-- 5% West Asian & North African
-- 3% Indigenous
-- 3% Latin American
-- 3% Black
- Vancouver will likely have the highest percentage of East Asians in the Western world
- People with ancestry in the Asia-Pacific region (including South Asians, Southeast Asians, and East Asians) would comprise 63% of the population
- East Asians will likely comprise a plurality; likely comprising the only non-European plurality among Canadian metropolitan areas

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

^You know this happens in Canada. I can think of 3 sweatshops operating within 1km of CityPlace that operate on this piecework principle and 1 in rural Ontario.

You should report them if they don't comply with Federal and Provincial labour standards:

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/jo...standards.html

https://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Here's how I think the ethnic demographics will probably shape up in 2050 in our three biggest metropolitan areas.

This type of thing is a bit difficult to predict as we can't really just extrapolate current trends (not sure if that's what you've done here or if you arrived at your numbers some other way), but I imagine that we'll see a big increase in African immigration across the country as hundreds of millions more Africans reach the middle class and become prospective emigrants.

Likewise, as South Asian immigration picks up I would expect to see significant growth across the country and not just in Toronto; while immigration from increasingly prosperous East Asian countries is bound to slow down. I would also expect the mixed-race population to be larger by then. Not sure exactly how the numbers would play out given declining birth rates and all, but a pretty significant chunk of the kids born in places like Toronto and Vancouver over the next 30 years are going to be mixed. I believe it's already one of the fastest growing demographics among children.

[Laceoflight]

We can't predict the unpredictable... but if the trend continues, the demographic weight of Québec within Canada will pursue its slow decline. In 2050, Québec should account for ~21,5% of our country's population, with ~10,87 M inhabitants. It the commuting patterns towards the main cities continue to grow, Montréal, Québec, Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivières and Gatineau should integrate a few communities within their respective CMA.
* Montréal (including St-Jean) would be around 6,22 M.
* Québec would have grown enough to absorb Donnacona, St-Ferréol, St-Apollinaire and Pont-Rouge. The metropolitan area would be around 1,15 M people.
* Gatineau (the Québec part of Ottawa) : ~442 k
* Sherbrooke/Magog : ~341 k (including Windsor and East Angus)
* Trois-Rivières, slow but steady growth, the long awaited high speed train is not built yet in 2050 : ~199,5 k
* Saguenay, quite stable : ~177 k
* The surprise will probably be Granby/Bromont. The increasing commuting of Waterloo/Shefford towards the centre of the agglomeration will push it to ~152 k
* Drummondville will probably continue to grow to ~138 k
* Finally, located at the doors of Montréal, Joliette will continue its steady growth to become a real satellite city at ~113 k.

Municipalities :

• Montréal 2,67 M (Island: 3,02 M), Laval 561 k, Longueuil 295 k, Terrebonne 160 k, Mirabel 119 k, Saint-Jérôme 118 k, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu 113 k, Brossard 108 k.
• Québec 666 k, Lévis 181 k.
• Gatineau 358 k.
• Sherbrooke 237 k.
• Trois-Rivières 162 k.
• Saguenay 149 k.
• Drummondville 103 k.

Regions:
Gaspésie and Côte-Nord will continue their decrease. Côte-Nord could hypothetically lose its administrative region status, with a population of less than 69000.
Estrie will see its relative importance increase, with RCMs of Haute-Yamaska and Brome-Missisquoi leaving Montérégie to join a new "Cantons-de-l'Est" administrative region (this process is already in motion in 2020). New Cantons-de-l'Est: 624 k. New Montérégie: 1,8 M.

Villages:
If the depopulation phenomenon continues, a few villages/municipalities could face closure, of become seasonal-only / cottage-only territories.
* Region Bas-Saint-Laurent: Saint-Médard, Saint-Vianney, Saint-Jean-de-la-Lande, Saint-Pierre-de-Lamy, Sainte-Florence and Saint-Guy.
* Region Capitale-Nationale: Baie-Sainte-Catherine and Rivière-à-Pierre.
* Region Estrie: Stanstead township, Val-Racine and Saint-Benoît-du-Lac.
* Region Outaouais: Alleyn-et-Cawood, Sheenboro and Portage-du-Fort.
* Region Abitibi-Témiscamingue: Champneuf, Belcourt and Rochebaucourt.
* Region Côte-Nord: Franquelin, Baie-Johan-Beetz, Rivière-au-Tonnerre, L'Île-d'Anticosti, Schefferville and Godbout.
* Region Gaspésie: Saint-Godefroi, Shigawake and La Martre.
* Region Chaudière-Appalaches: Saint-Magloire.
* Region Lanaudière: Saint-Cléophas-de-Brandon.
* Region Laurentides: Lac-Tremblant-Nord, Lac-des-Seize-Îles and Barkmere.

[ssiguy]

Laceoflight bring up a very valid and important point of depopulation.

It will be a phenomenon that effects all Canadian provinces and not just Quebec. Even in our faster growing provinces, there are huge swaths of the provinces that are suffering from population decline and many that are just struggling to hold on to the people they have. This will increase as the young people move to the cities and the small towns and rural areas they leave become much older.

This will lead to real infrastructure challenges where we have under built or over capacity infrastructure iun our cities and over capacity and under utilization of ones in our small towns.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

This type of thing is a bit difficult to predict as we can't really just extrapolate current trends (not sure if that's what you've done here or if you arrived at your numbers some other way), but I imagine that we'll see a big increase in African immigration across the country as hundreds of millions more Africans reach the middle class and become prospective emigrants.

Likewise, as South Asian immigration picks up I would expect to see significant growth across the country and not just in Toronto; while immigration from increasingly prosperous East Asian countries is bound to slow down. I would also expect the mixed-race population to be larger by then. Not sure exactly how the numbers would play out given declining birth rates and all, but a pretty significant chunk of the kids born in places like Toronto and Vancouver over the next 30 years are going to be mixed. I believe it's already one of the fastest growing demographics among children.

Totally agree that it is very hard to predict. I relied on Statscan's 2036 ethnicity projections and tried to take into account the projected shift in immigration from Africa and West Asia.

One thing I tried to emphasize I guess is the different immigrant demographics between Quebec and the rest of Canada.

Also agreed on the mixed race point. To be honest that was more like a stand in number I threw on there. I hope it's a higher figure by then.

[Taeolas]

I suspect another major factor in the future will be ecological refugees. While Canada won't escape climate change issues; we are in one of the better positions to weather the changes than other countries. So that will probably increase the number of people heading our way to escape flooding, heat waves, wild fires, etc... That could very well offset any stabilization we would otherwise have and may actually lead to an increased growth rate for us in general.

[softee]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Toronto (Inner Green Belt; includes Toronto, Hamilton, Oshawa CMAs):
- Total population is 9.5 million

Montreal:
- Total population of 6.3 million

I'd bump Toronto-Hamilton-Oshawa up to over 10.5 million since it's already at 7.5 million now, and I don't see The GTA and Montreal CMA having the same numerical population growth over the next 30 years.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

There's more to it than this.

Government services were expanded after WWII, partially using deficit financing, then we went through a period of comparative austerity in the 1990's and 2000's. This timeline had the effect of creating generational inequity in spending. One generation got more stuff and another generation is burdened with more of the bill.

We have the same thing going on with regional and municipal planning and infrastructure spending. This is what is making housing expensive, not construction costs. It's an artificial shortage of zoned and serviced land.

If you were born in the 1950's you profited from cheap education and health care when you were young, huge returns in the housing market, and falling tax rates during your peak earning years. If you were born in 1990 and didn't have somebody to pay your way chances are you're either a member of the underclass, working poor, or you financed your own expensive education and still might not be able to own your own place depending on where you are. You won't get a pension and you won't get 7% a year tax-free on your house. You'll pay higher taxes than boomers with 0 income and millions in wealth.

You always post such well thought-out responses!

To expand the topic of generational inequities, the period of time in which one lives always has a huge effect on the quality of their lives, and it’s nobody’s fault, nor has it been masterminded by anybody. It’s just the reality that one is born into. All through history this has been true, and there are so many variables that can affect your life experience.

Just think about the generations that lived through the two world wars. They had bigger stresses and worries than any generations after them (so far). For them just surviving the war without dying or losing family members was considered to be good fortune. Not to mention how people were treated who were part of any non-white ethnic group, or any non-heterosexual person for that matter. And every generation has to deal with the baggage of the previous generations... the social norms, the expectations, and on and on...

You can go back further in history and broader than just Canada... but what I am getting at is that there will always be those who had it better than you and those who had it worse. You have to deal with the situation that you have and do the best that you can with it.

This is why I get tired of all the ‘boomer’ and ‘millennial’ bullshit. There are enough things in the world that need our attention, and that’s what we should be focusing on, rather than who had it better than who... i.e. fuck the divisiveness and let’s all get together and solve some of these problems!

[EpicPonyTime]

Originally Posted by isaidso

What do you mean by MLS not being allowed to? Surely they can set up in any market they want. CPL has no legal avenue to block competition from another league.

The Canadian teams in MLS have to receive the approval of the CSA to do so. By 2050 the gap between MLS and the CPL will likely be smaller, so it's less likely they will grant approval for a Canadian team to forgo our own national league in favour of the Americans'. Just look at what happened with the Fury.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by EpicPonyTime

The Canadian teams in MLS have to receive the approval of the CSA to do so. By 2050 the gap between MLS and the CPL will likely be smaller, so it's less likely they will grant approval for a Canadian team to forgo our own national league in favour of the Americans'. Just look at what happened with the Fury.

I did not know they needed CSA approval. I'd prefer a strong CPL rather than have big markets siphoned to MLS. I suppose time will tell.