Western Expresso

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by cheswick

Not sure I agree with the implication that we have a shortage of cops and firefighters and the high salary is needed to recruit qualified candidates.

This clearly isn't more then anecdotal but when I was 19 I had a group of people I worked with that were attempting to get on with the cops. There was a physical test, then a couple interviews. Hundreds of people would take part in all these tests that happened at least twice a year. Even when you made it through all these steps you were essentially just put on a waiting list to potentially become a Cop. There was no shortage of successful candidates that were on the waiting list. I knew of 3 people who made it through to the wait list and they were told it could be years, they ended up going to corrections because it was easier to get on with them.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by dmacc

This clearly isn't more then anecdotal but when I was 19 I had a group of people I worked with that were attempting to get on with the cops. There was a physical test, then a couple interviews. Hundreds of people would take part in all these tests that happened at least twice a year. Even when you made it through all these steps you were essentially just put on a waiting list to potentially become a Cop. There was no shortage of successful candidates that were on the waiting list. I knew of 3 people who made it through to the wait list and they were told it could be years, they ended up going to corrections because it was easier to get on with them.

I have a couple buddies who just got on. They didn't wait terribly long but one of them spent about a year working as a cadet before being accepted.

Not surprising that it takes so long to become a cop here considering your salary soon makes you a member of the 1%

[Winnipegger]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

UN HDI 2018

12th Canada 0.926
13th U.S. 0.924

Man. 0.894 = South Carolina or Slovenia, #25
Sask. 0.908 = North Carolina or Austria, #20

Minn. 0.950 = #1 Norway
N. Dak. 0.948 = above #2 Switzerland
S. Dak. 0.931 = Alberta or #10 Netherlands
Mont. 0.923

The regional numbers are concerning to me, and it is obvious when you visit those states. No midwestern state is lower than Sask. What's really troubling too is that Canada has slipped from 1st to 12th in less than two decades. I guess smugness and sanctimoniousness are the best ways to address that.

24 U.S. states have a HDI above 0.930 compared with 2 provinces, Alberta and Ontario and they are only just above that line. 12 U.S. states are at 0.940 or above, which puts them on par with #2 Switzerland and #1 Norway. Australia at 0.939 is #3, that hurts as much as when the Bombers lose to the banjo pickin' inbreds. The U.S. average is weighed down by a handful of poor southern states in a country that does not have an equalization formula like Canada.

I'm not quite sure what the point of this post was. It seems like your trying to use a weighted index, designed to highlight international trends, to compare national jurisdictions. And while the UN does do provincial and state HDI comparisons, I think you are putting too much stock in the regional variances.

You conveniently left out that while Manitoba's HDI ranking is near Slovenia's, it's also near France's. The point being that minor differences in this index aren't really that indicative of the overall standard of living experienced by the average person. Would you say that the average Manitoban is better or worse off than the average French? I don't think anyone could accurately make that assessment.

Manitoba's HDI is lowered by poor educational and health outcomes, primarily brought about due to our high level of at-risk populations. If our at-risk populations were in-line with the majority of other Canadian provinces, our educational and healthcare outcomes would be just as good. And even at their lowered rates, they are a far-cry from deplorable or substandard. It's not like Manitoba's life expectancy is 10 years lower than the Canadian average or something like that.

The HDI is a very high level composite index of educational outcomes, healthcare outcomes, and GDP per capita. And while those are good indicators of living standards on a global basis, within Canada the differences between provinces for the average person aren't in proportion to the difference in the index values. Finally, the UN considers any area with an HDI above 0.8 to have "very high human development", and so as long as all Canadian provinces are at or above that, I don't think we have anything to worry about.

There are many other metrics that would be useful in provincial comparisons because they are more sensitive to the average person, the HDI likely isn't one of them. If we are to derive anything from the HDI index for Manitoba, the main thing would be that it highlights how poorly we have treated our Indigenous population and how much more we need to invest in their wellbeing (whatever that looks like) in order to try and produce better outcomes.

[ywgwalk]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

The HDI is a very high level composite index of educational outcomes, healthcare outcomes, and GDP per capita.

So when comparing ND/SD/Manitoba it just boils down to who fracks the most oil. Wonderful.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by ywgwalk

So when comparing ND/SD/Manitoba it just boils down to who fracks the most oil. Wonderful.

Minnesota and South Dakota do not produce oil.

So clearly there are other reasons for the disparity of the HD indexes between Manitoba and those states.

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Minnesota and South Dakota do not produce oil.

So clearly there are other reasons for the disparity of the HD indexes between Manitoba and those states.

As Winnipegger said our "at-risk" populations would explain it. MB and SK have a far larger indigenous population than any other province so the abysmal quality of life on-reserve is almost certainly what's dragging those numbers down.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

I'm not quite sure what the point of this post was. It seems like your trying to use a weighted index, designed to highlight international trends, to compare national jurisdictions. And while the UN does do provincial and state HDI comparisons, I think you are putting too much stock in the regional variances.

You conveniently left out that while Manitoba's HDI ranking is near Slovenia's, it's also near France's. The point being that minor differences in this index aren't really that indicative of the overall standard of living experienced by the average person. Would you say that the average Manitoban is better or worse off than the average French? I don't think anyone could accurately make that assessment.

Manitoba's HDI is lowered by poor educational and health outcomes, primarily brought about due to our high level of at-risk populations. If our at-risk populations were in-line with the majority of other Canadian provinces, our educational and healthcare outcomes would be just as good. And even at their lowered rates, they are a far-cry from deplorable or substandard. It's not like Manitoba's life expectancy is 10 years lower than the Canadian average or something like that.

The HDI is a very high level composite index of educational outcomes, healthcare outcomes, and GDP per capita. And while those are good indicators of living standards on a global basis, within Canada the differences between provinces for the average person aren't in proportion to the difference in the index values. Finally, the UN considers any area with an HDI above 0.8 to have "very high human development", and so as long as all Canadian provinces are at or above that, I don't think we have anything to worry about.

Kazakhstan is 0.800, Romania 0.811, Greece 0.870. Mexico is 0774. HDI of 0800 is absolutely unacceptable here. Canadians should rightfully want and expect this country to have very near to the highest living standards in the world. We certainly used to! How could any person not be concerned that Canada has fallen from 1st to 12th in less than 20 years? Only globalists that consider Canada a post nation I suppose. If you think as long as we are above 0800 (58th place) that is okay then you have no loyalty to this country.

There are many other metrics that would be useful in provincial comparisons because they are more sensitive to the average person, the HDI likely isn't one of them. If we are to derive anything from the HDI index for Manitoba, the main thing would be that it highlights how poorly we have treated our Indigenous population and how much more we need to invest in their wellbeing (whatever that looks like) in order to try and produce better outcomes.

I don't put too much stock in any HDI figures, but they are broadly indicative. The post was in response to earlier posts regarding some Canadian indicators and the U.N. I used the U.N.s HDI figures, if you can come up with other international comparisons with respect to living standards please provide.

I chose the closest country to Manitoba. There are very narrow margins between most of the wealthy countries. So sure, France's figure in only marginally higher. No you can't make that assessment by HDI figures alone, and nor are they a reliable measure of happiness, but as I said before, as the HDI measures life expectancy, education, and per capita income, the HDI is broadly indicative of living standards.

I'm sure there are a number of reasons and I think we can be certain that all jurisdictions have "at risk" populations, whatever that is supposed to mean, my guess is that you are referring to all economically disadvantaged persons.

I was only cursorily aware of where Canada and Manitoba stood in terms of the HD index. Meaning that I was aware that Canada had been slipping in recent years and the Manitoba was below the Canadian average. I did not know that this province fared so poorly compared with the midwestern states, and most especially with neighbouring Minnesota. I am shocked and disappointed myself.

Kazakhstan is 0.800, Romania 0.811, Greece 0.870. Mexico is 0774. A HDI of 0.800 would be absolutely unacceptable here. Canadians should rightfully want and expect this country to have very near to the highest living standards in the world. We certainly used to. How could any person not be concerned that Canada has fallen from 1st to 12th in less than 20 years? Only globalists that consider Canada a post nation I suppose. Can't believe that anyone could reasonably think that as long as we are above 0.800 (58th place) that is nothing to worry about. I'm not big on analogies, especially false ones, but it's kind of like your kid coming home with straight Ds. "Nothing to worry about sweetheart, you passed".

Without evidence I do not think that conclusion can be reached. Could be a contributing factor, but it is definitive. I think it is more broadly correct to say the Manitoba has a low HDI because it is a (relatively) poor province.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by EdwardTH

As Winnipegger said our "at-risk" populations would explain it. MB and SK have a far larger indigenous population than any other province so the abysmal quality of life on-reserve is almost certainly what's dragging those numbers down.

Far larger? A few points higher you're right, 12% vs. 9% for South Dakota. Does that difference alone explain the HDI discrepancy between Man. 0.894 and Sask.0.908 and S. Dakota 0.931 (equivalent to Alberta)? If it does then the suggestion that U.S. policies with respect to indigenous peoples leads to better economic outcomes for the indigenous population becomes reasonable and somewhat probable, and I simply can not believe that that is true without evidence. Again, I think the likely explanation is that those two Canadian provinces have lower economic output.

A question I thought of yesterday that really troubles me is if Canada did not have equalization what would Manitoba's HDI be? Thirty cents on the dollar of Manitoba's budget comes from equalization.

By the way, the lowest HDIs amongst the midwestern states are 0.910 for Indiana and Missouri, and they also arguably have a similar proportion of "at-risk" (another newspeak term) peoples in their populations.

[Tacheguy]

I think it is generally accepted that small states, such as the Dakotas, enjoy the benefits of a disproportionate level of political power. Each has the same Senate representation as the state of California. The political/vote marketplace inevitably spits out policies that are hugely favourable to these areas. Farm subsidies, ethanol subsidies, military base spending..etc. If the political playing field was representative of population these states would essentially wither to their natural state.

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Far larger? A few points higher you're right, 12% vs. 9% for South Dakota. Does that difference alone explain the HDI discrepancy between Man. 0.894 and Sask.0.908 and S. Dakota 0.931 (equivalent to Alberta)? If it does then the suggestion that U.S. policies with respect to indigenous peoples leads to better economic outcomes for the indigenous population becomes reasonable and somewhat probable, and I simply can not believe that that is true without evidence. Again, I think the likely explanation is that those two Canadian provinces have lower economic output.

A question I thought of yesterday that really troubles me is if Canada did not have equalization what would Manitoba's HDI be? Thirty cents on the dollar of Manitoba's budget comes from equalization.

By the way, the lowest HDIs amongst the midwestern states are 0.910 for Indiana and Missouri, and they also arguably have a similar proportion of "at-risk" (another newspeak term) peoples in their populations.

Don’t confuse federal transfers to provinces with equalization. All provinces get federal transfers. On a per capita basis Alberta has received more than Manitoba on occasion.

[dmacc]

Do equalization payments count towards our HDI? i didn't think equalization payments are counted as part of our GDP and therefore wouldn't count to our HDI? I'm not sure if that's correct or not.

[Curmudgeon]

The median population for the U.S. states is about 4.5 million, half have a higher population, half have lower. Both Minnesota and Massachusetts for example have more, so they would not have a disproportionately high share of political power. Their HDIs are 0.950 and 0.960 respectively. By comparison, number one Norway is 0.953.

As for the Dakotas, are they subsidized more heavily by Washington than is Manitoba (30 cents on the dollar) from Ottawa? Without spending some time doing some research, I can't answer that question and nor should you attempt to. otherwise the weight of the assertion is no better than a guess.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

Don’t confuse federal transfers to provinces with equalization. All provinces get federal transfers. On a per capita basis Alberta has received more than Manitoba on occasion.

I would expect Alberta to receive much higher nominal transfer payments than Manitoba as it has more than 3 times the population. Not sure when "on occasion" was, maybe in the 1930s, but from fiscal 2010-2011 to and including budget 2019-20, total federal transfers to Manitoba have ranged from $3.35 billion to $4.26 billion, or $2,626 to $3,111 per capita, while for Alberta they have ranged from $3.37 billion to $6.39 billion, or $905 to $1,465 per capita.

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

I would expect Alberta to receive much higher nominal transfer payments than Manitoba as it has more than 3 times the population. Not sure when "on occasion" was, maybe in the 1930s, but from fiscal 2010-2011 to and including budget 2019-20, total federal transfers to Manitoba have ranged from $3.35 billion to $4.26 billion, or $2,626 to $3,111 per capita, while for Alberta they have ranged from $3.37 billion to $6.39 billion, or $905 to $1,465 per capita.

Yes and the difference is essentially the equalization component. So you agree that Manitoba does not derive 30% of its revenue from equalization as you stated. That was my point.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

As for the Dakotas, are they subsidized more heavily by Washington than is Manitoba (30 cents on the dollar) from Ottawa? Without spending some time doing some research, I can't answer that question and nor should you attempt to. otherwise the weight of the assertion is no better than a guess.

A bit of quick and dirty googling reveals this snapshot from 2014, found on ballotopedia:


Federal aid to state budgets, 2014 (from the US Census Bureau)

State -- Federal aid as a % of general revenues -- Ranking (by % of general revenues)

North Dakota 16.8% 50
Minnesota 24.0% 48
Montana 39.1% 4
South Dakota 37.2% 7

Dollars to donuts ND's percentage has shot up in light of the fact that the O&G boom has ended.

[Tacheguy]

An important point to keep in mind is that federal transfers in states like the dakotas (all states for that matter) often go directly to clients (usually farmers) rather than state governments. Rigorous comparative analysis is impossible. What is the economic value to North Dakota of the airbase located there? What is the benefit (and cost to urban areas) of protectionist agricultural trade policies, which are advanced and protected by these small state senators?

[esquire]

^ I was wondering the same. This being SSP, my thoughts first went to the Interstate highways which are federally funded. But is that direct procurement from Washington? Or is the money routed through North Dakota first? The answer can have a material impact on those numbers, even though the underlying dynamic doesn't necessarily change.

[Curmudgeon]

Manitoba 2019-20 budget

Revenues: $17.025 bn, Federal transfers $4.262 bn or 25.0%.

Correct Tache, when I said 30 cents on the dollar I meant federal transfers and not solely the equalization component of those transfers which are $2.255 bn or 13.25% of total revenues. An error on my part, I'm not an expert on government budget terms by any measure. So it's 25 rather than 30 cents on the dollar. Perhaps it was 30 cents in one year, I do remember hearing that or reading that. In any event, despite that error, the equalization component is the highest per capita equalization among the provinces excepting N.B. and P.E.I. Not something to be proud of and a testament to the wealth transfer inflicted on Manitoba by Canada in the 60s, 70s and 80s in favour of the two central provinces.

I also agree that direct comparisons of federal support are impossible due to varying criteria. If we do compare federal transfers in Canada to federal aid in the U.S., then Manitoba has a higher portion of its revenues coming from the national capital than do Minnesota and North Dakota, but again, I'm not sure that comparison is valid. And good on little North Dakota, it's now 6th among the states in GDP per capita and tops the Midwest. Minnesota is the region's runner up.

A point I made earlier that Canadians care deeply about how we stack up economically vs. the U.S. has sure proven true. If Canada slips to living standards equivalent to Kazakhstan or Romania, while the U.S. stays near the top of the pack, the consequences, up and to including the continued existence of Canada, would be huge. And I know, I know, we shouldn't be concerned at all. If we have similar living standards to Romania and lower than Greece and a 60 cent dollar we can keep our rose-coloured glasses on and our heads in the sand and say we're better and we are happier and that we have "free" health care. Sunny days folks, sunny days.

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Manitoba 2019-20 budget

Revenues: $17.025 bn, Federal transfers $4.262 bn or 25.0%.

Correct Tache, when I said 30 cents on the dollar I meant federal transfers and not solely the equalization component of those transfers which are $2.255 bn or 13.25% of total revenues. An error on my part, I'm not an expert on government budget terms by any measure. So it's 25 rather than 30 cents on the dollar. Perhaps it was 30 cents in one year, I do remember hearing that or reading that. In any event, despite that error, the equalization component is the highest per capita equalization among the provinces excepting N.B. and P.E.I. Not something to be proud of and a testament to the wealth transfer inflicted on Manitoba by Canada in the 60s, 70s and 80s in favour of the two central provinces.

I also agree that direct comparisons of federal support are impossible due to varying criteria. If we do compare federal transfers in Canada to federal aid in the U.S., then Manitoba has a higher portion of its revenues coming from the national capital than do Minnesota and North Dakota, but again, I'm not sure that comparison is valid. And good on little North Dakota, it's now 6th among the states in GDP per capita and tops the Midwest. Minnesota is the region's runner up.

A point I made earlier that Canadians care deeply about how we stack up economically vs. the U.S. has sure proven true. If Canada slips to living standards equivalent to Kazakhstan or Romania, while the U.S. stays near the top of the pack, the consequences, up and to including the continued existence of Canada, would be huge. And I know, I know, we shouldn't be concerned at all. If we have similar living standards to Romania and lower than Greece and a 60 cent dollar we can keep our rose-coloured glasses on and our heads in the sand and say we're better and we are happier and that we have "free" health care. Sunny days folks, sunny days.

I think you raise some valid concerns. I would be interested in what you see as forward looking policy prescriptions?

[dmacc]

The provincial revenues are increased by 33% due to the transfer payments. The provinces revenue is $12.75 billion and the Feds contribute $4.25 which increases our budget by 33%. So you weren't wrong, you just didn't know how you were right haha.