Winnipeg CMA Population in 5 Years: Predictions

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by thurmas

Too bad we didn't have this program 30 years ago and we could have been on more even footing with Edmonton and Calgary population wise. Anyone know roughly how many immigrants out of the 16,000 a year live in Winnipeg. My rough estimate would be 75%

Does somebody need to tell you why Edmonton and Calgary exploded population wise, think about where those immigrants who came to Winnipeg 30 years ago had the program been in place have ended up.

[grumpy old man]

^ His point is no less valid. Had Winnipeg attracted 15k immigrants annually for the last 30 years the city "could have been on more even footing with Edmonton and Calgary population wise".

[thurmas]

Back in the day thousands of manitobans fled to alberta but we had virtually no international immigration to compensate for the losses, today we do. Alberta is growing just as strong but now atleast we are getting some decent growth too. Had we had this program 30 years ago I would say Winnipeg would have maybe 100,000 more citizens.

[RTD]

How are we doing in terms of attracting citizens from other provinces adding to the population growth?

[hexrae]

Some quick math from the article Biff posted

Manitoba grew by 16,227 in the past 12 months, 15,199 of which can be attributed to the arrival of immigrants. That leaves 1028 to divvy up between birth/death flow and non-immigrant growth (inter-provincial flow & other?)

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by hexrae

Some quick math from the article Biff posted

Manitoba grew by 16,227 in the past 12 months, 15,199 of which can be attributed to the arrival of immigrants. That leaves 1028 to divvy up between birth/death flow and non-immigrant growth (inter-provincial flow & other?)

We had a net intraprovincial loss. Not as much as years past, but I do not believe we have ever had a positive intraprovincial growth rate. I can be wrong, but we usually lose more residents to the three Western provinces than we gain from all other provinces.

I am fairly sure the high birth rate of the provinces Aboriginal population plays a key role in the birth rate exceeding the death rate each year.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by thurmas

Back in the day thousands of manitobans fled to alberta but we had virtually no international immigration to compensate for the losses, today we do. Alberta is growing just as strong but now atleast we are getting some decent growth too. Had we had this program 30 years ago I would say Winnipeg would have maybe 100,000 more citizens.

Having a business friendly environment, less govt. red tape, a healthy economy, and less taxes would have done more for growth than any provincial immigration program.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Having a business friendly environment, less govt. red tape, a healthy economy, and less taxes would have done more for growth than any provincial immigration program.

I get what you're saying and agree to some extent but , unfortunately , it's unlikely to have made much of a difference .
For one thing , it's not that Winnipeg or Manitoba is a bad place to be , it's just that Alberta was so much better . We simply couldn't compete . Maybe when the oil runs out we'll see how things go but for now the jobs there are plentiful , they pay well , and frankly , there's just a lot more going on which draws people in too .
Secondly , our tax scheme is arguably worse now thanks to the NDP's incessant drive to slap a tax on every conceivable thing so as to pay for every conceivable (but obscure and dubious) program to transfer wealth from people who work to people who won't .

All the same , Filmon almost had us in the black and even introduced laws that would keep our books balanced . Well , the NDP found a way to break the law but that's beside the point . Under Filmon , Manitoba and Winnipeg didn't grow. Under the NDP we've somehow managed to make leaps forward . To be fair though , the PNP was a PC idea but it was also the NDP that managed to make it into so much more .

[grumpy old man]

^ I'd speculate a galloping global economy is what drove growth in Manitoba more so than the NDP most of those years. We must keep in mind that despite that galloping economy Manitoba is mired in monstrous debt. This despite ever-increasing transfer payments all those years.

[jmt18325]

We must also realize that Manitoba's debt the GDP ratio actually shrank, and much of the dent is actually Hydro's debt. Manitoba was doing better than average before the global recession, and is now doing worse than average (it will do better again soon, according to economists). The NDP have done many good things for this province. Now, there might need to be a change of government right now, to bring in some fresh ideas, but it isn't generally because we've had bad government for the last 10 years.

Even the CTF talked about Manitoba as one of the best performers when it came to balancing budgets and cutting taxes...because we were.

[Winnipegger@Heart]

Any success in the province cannot be contributed to the NDP. They have done nothing in the past to create a business-friendly envrionment. A recent boon for Winkler is a good example: VBINE Energy is building a plant in Winkler, and the reasons are:

"factors for VBINE's decision to locate in Winkler included the city's work ethic, available labour force, co-operation within the business community and proximity to the U.S. market".

(from WFP)

The only good thing the NDP has done, albeit minute, was recently eliminating a whole 1% small business tax.

If we had a more business-friendly provincial government over the last 10 years, either PC or LIberal (or a new party), whatever...the province would be a much better place, and less people would leave. Manitoba employers have finally realized they need to pay more to keep and attract people.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by grumpy old man

^ I'd speculate a galloping global economy is what drove growth in Manitoba more so than the NDP most of those years. We must keep in mind that despite that galloping economy Manitoba is mired in monstrous debt. This despite ever-increasing transfer payments all those years.

We have a winner! It doesn't take the best jockey to make a good horse place with the wind up its ass.

Also, Spocket, when you talk of Manitoba not being able to compete with Alberta, that doesn't really hold water in a ubiquitous sense. For example, it is true, that if we had a more relaxed business environment, we still wouldn't be an option for major financiers, etc. as a location, because the money IS in Alberta. However, if we had a relaxed environment, and perhaps didn't feel hell bent on driving minimum wage through the roof for shits and giggles, we could be appealing to industrial, power intensive firms, that if we were smart, we'd whore subsidized power to, in order to entice them to set up shop here. So, indirectly we wouldn't be competing for the types of employers that Alberta is interested in, but Manitoba could in and of itself be a far more productive place than it is now, becoming relatively more competitive with Alberta. As of today, we're a bit of a business backwater, by western Canadian standards.

Because I feel the need to qualify my minimum wage comment:
- it isn't that we should be chasing firms that only pay minimum. There are plenty of golden arches around town
- however, when minimum wage rises by $0.50 or whatever, it doesn't actually rise by $0.50 in the truest sense, but rises as a percentage.
- for industrial, labour-intensive (lots of employees) firms, that percentage rise often (for the ethical ones) gets transferred through the ranks. So, if the lowest tier gets a 3% bump or whatever the case may be, that is costly in and of itself when inflation is non existant, but is much, much more expensive, when you have to start bumping experienced employees, middle-management, etc. by 3%.
- 3% on $20, $30 or whatever an hour becomes extremely costly, and hence why a minimum wage hike because Mr. Selinger thinks its a good deal to buy votes is very negative.

[Tower Crane]

Originally Posted by hexrae

Some quick math from the article Biff posted

Manitoba grew by 16,227 in the past 12 months, 15,199 of which can be attributed to the arrival of immigrants. That leaves 1028 to divvy up between birth/death flow and non-immigrant growth (inter-provincial flow & other?)

With a net interprovincial loss what is the outlook for the 5 years. As mentioned almost all of the gain is immigration. Does this immigration come at an added cost to support these citizens while they get their pins under them.

A number of people keep saying that there are numerous numbers of people that left that are moving back, the numbers do not seem to be proving that out.

I just don't want to see the province raising Immigration just so it can report positive gains and possibly have to deal with long term pains of whats associated with to much immigration.

[1ajs]

i know people that are moving back and people that are moving hear and some that are seariously thinking of moving here so i duno

whats wrong with making sure the immigrants get their feet rooted properly with the skills they need to communicate?? if we don't give them the hand they need then we will just have gehtos like in paris..........

[FrAnKs]

Do you think guys, as myself someone from Quebec, that Winnipeg will pass over Quebec city and if yes, then Winnipeg could keep this advance ?

Also, what are the last numbers you've got about Winnipeg's growing ?

Thanks.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by Tower Crane

I just don't want to see the province raising Immigration just so it can report positive gains and possibly have to deal with long term pains of whats associated with to much immigration.

I'm not too sure about what long-term pains you're talking about, in regards to immigration. If anything, there are long-term gains (an influx of able-bodied, qualified, working age folks who will be employed and paying taxes). Most immigrants coming here now already have prospects for employment (often good jobs) when they get here, are required to come with a sum of cash already (so they won't be a drain on social assistance in the short transition phase), and are ready to contribute. Otherwise, the next most significant category are those coming to join their families that have already established themselves here.

The image many people have of immigration is of the poor minority or refugee, with few skills, and $10 in their pocket. That's just not accurate - The cities in this country with the highest proportion of immigrants (TO, Montreal, Vancouver) are among are most prosperous, and though not without their issues, seem to be doing fine with high levels of immigration.

The biggest problem I see is that there is a huge pool of untapped talent and skills in the immigrant community, due to the lack of accreditation programs and recognition of foreign credentials. If we could find a way to quickly upgrade recent immigrants' credentials when they get here, I think we would see a reduction in the shortage of doctors/engineers/skilled trades-people/etc...

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by Tower Crane

With a net interprovincial loss what is the outlook for the 5 years. As mentioned almost all of the gain is immigration. Does this immigration come at an added cost to support these citizens while they get their pins under them.

I just don't want to see the province raising Immigration just so it can report positive gains and possibly have to deal with long term pains of whats associated with to much immigration.

Immigration is almost always a good thing for a stagnant growth rate. Immigrants create jobs, contribute to the community, and provide positive economic spinoffs. Anti-immigrant sentiment is usually made up of uneducated people who have never studied the impact of immigration in respect to one's community. As Canadians, nearly all of us were immigrants at one time or another.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by Boreal

We have a winner! It doesn't take the best jockey to make a good horse place with the wind up its ass.

Also, Spocket, when you talk of Manitoba not being able to compete with Alberta, that doesn't really hold water in a ubiquitous sense. For example, it is true, that if we had a more relaxed business environment, we still wouldn't be an option for major financiers, etc. as a location, because the money IS in Alberta. However, if we had a relaxed environment, and perhaps didn't feel hell bent on driving minimum wage through the roof for shits and giggles, we could be appealing to industrial, power intensive firms, that if we were smart, we'd whore subsidized power to, in order to entice them to set up shop here. So, indirectly we wouldn't be competing for the types of employers that Alberta is interested in, but Manitoba could in and of itself be a far more productive place than it is now, becoming relatively more competitive with Alberta. As of today, we're a bit of a business backwater, by western Canadian standards.

Because I feel the need to qualify my minimum wage comment:
- it isn't that we should be chasing firms that only pay minimum. There are plenty of golden arches around town
- however, when minimum wage rises by $0.50 or whatever, it doesn't actually rise by $0.50 in the truest sense, but rises as a percentage.
- for industrial, labour-intensive (lots of employees) firms, that percentage rise often (for the ethical ones) gets transferred through the ranks. So, if the lowest tier gets a 3% bump or whatever the case may be, that is costly in and of itself when inflation is non existant, but is much, much more expensive, when you have to start bumping experienced employees, middle-management, etc. by 3%.
- 3% on $20, $30 or whatever an hour becomes extremely costly, and hence why a minimum wage hike because Mr. Selinger thinks its a good deal to buy votes is very negative.

Oh , I'm not arguing that taxes are the be-all and end-all of population or even economic growth . Actually , I'm arguing to the contrary in many ways. The important thing is that Alberta has been sucking the people out of less prosperous areas for decades now and also attracting investment because , basically , a crowd attracts a crowd . Just to put it our stagnation down to something as simple as over-taxation , to me , isn't very convincing .

I still remember when Howard Pawley was in charge . He ran this province right into the ground . Filmon took his place not just for the sake of change but because people tired of getting nickel-and-dimed out of every penny they earned . Today's NDP isn't really any different in regards to economics or (actually , more importantly) how they operate . The problem with these guys is that they have no clue how to balance a budget (one would think it was fairly straight-forward) and they love to juggle the numbers so much so that even they seem to get confused about just how much is coming in and going out .

The NDP hasn't actually balanced even one budget since taking office . What they've done is to suck funds out of Hydro , introduce all kinds of seemingly innocuous little user fees , and shore up any loopholes in the tax scheme so as to make it seem like nothing is different .

As for all the good things that the NDP has done ... well , I can't think of anything they've done other than hand out money to people who don't work for it . I have no problem paying for people to live reasonably decent lives but the NDP hands out tax money to every outstretched hand attached to a sob story that comes along . They say "Because the public told us that this was what they wanted ." I don't know about you but I don't remember being asked by anybody in government whether we should start handing out "healthy baby allowances" to people who didn't seem to know they needed it . And when the NDP runs out of tax money , well hey , no problem , they just shoehorn some new tax or "user fee" into our lives . If I didn't know any better I'd say that they wanted us all to be poor so as to guarantee votes .

The NDP just doesn't understand market economics and how capitalism contributes to a better society . Fine ... but other people do and when that's the only thing separating you from them , it makes all the difference in the world .

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by Spocket

If I didn't know any better I'd say that they wanted us all to be poor so as to guarantee votes .

The NDP just doesn't understand market economics and how capitalism contributes to a better society . Fine ... but other people do and when that's the only thing separating you from them , it makes all the difference in the world .

Completely agree. The problem with a socialist or nanny-state that we currently have right now, is that you ultimately run out of people to pay for it. It is happening here, and across the country. The middle-class is shrinking by leaps and bounds, and could soon find itself on the endangered species list. It will be painful, but the two headed monster of pensions and health care will force the hands of reform in this country. Its only a matter of time.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by Spocket

The NDP hasn't actually balanced even one budget since taking office . What they've done is to suck funds out of Hydro , introduce all kinds of seemingly innocuous little user fees , and shore up any loopholes in the tax scheme so as to make it seem like nothing is different .

Except that the NDP did balance the budget. You don't like the way they did it, but they did it by introducing proper accounting principles. Hydro is a Crown asset, and its revenue is crown revenue.

As for all the good things that the NDP has done ... well , I can't think of anything they've done other than hand out money to people who don't work for it . y thing separating you from them , it makes all the difference in the world .

Then you simply haven't been paying attention. Economic growth, healthcare, infrastructure, trade, education, crime prevention and prosecution - all have improved under the NDP. You don't want to see it, fine, but you can't pretend it doesn't exist.

Unlike you, some of us can see past party labels. The NDP in Manitoba is nothing like the federal NDP. I vote Conservative federally, and so far in Manitoba, I've voted for the NDP. Obviously, with at least Doer, the federal Conservatives agree with me. They don't sem to mind Selinger either.