Metropolitan area populations, 1940

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Calgary and Charlotte were smaller than Altoona? LOL. Altoona is one of those places where you get off the highway for gas and (if you're lucky) lunch. Calgary might have one of the biggest cores in North America, and Charlotte is arguably the #2 banking center in North America.

Calgary and Edmonton from less than 100,000 each to ~1.5M today. Edmonton has become a bigger deal since building the 800 footer Stantec tower, JW Marriott, and arguably the best new arena in the NHL.
Calgary has the most impressive downtown per capita in North America, but since oil crashed around 2014 the downtown office vacancy rate is still hovering around 32%!

Both Calgary and Edmonton have very ambitious LRT expansions as well.

[Docere]

Winnipeg was the "gateway to the west" and by far the largest city of the Canadian Prairies pre-WWII.

Around the turn of the 20th century, it was deemed the "Chicago of the north."

[Docere]

Calgary and Edmonton both surpassed Winnipeg in population during the 1970s, the same time Toronto surpassed Montreal.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Docere

Calgary and Edmonton both surpassed Winnipeg in population during the 1970s, the same time Toronto surpassed Montreal.

so many Canadians don't realize that Winnipeg was the biggest city in the Prairie Provinces for decades. The Exchange district is impressive with its collection of 1900s-1920s/1930s buildings

https://goo.gl/maps/uptr9EPMHvPMCijV9

https://goo.gl/maps/MMUA2bFqTMbq8go39

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by north 42

I’d add the Windsor and Niagara regions to that possible boom town list as well, both are growing quickly now, and the fundamentals are there for continued strong growth, especially Windsor with the new multi billion dollar international crossing as well as the huge new electric battery plant and all of its spinoff feeder plants that will follow. Both should be around 500K in the very near future.

Windsor is forecast to lead the nation in economic growth rate in 2023.

https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/windsor-forecast-to-lead-nation-in-economic-growth-rate

The Conference Board of Canada is forecasting the Windsor CMA will enjoy the highest GDP growth in Canada this year at 2.4%, which is 12 times the predicted provincial growth and nearly double the predicted national growth. The region is also predicted to outpace the provincial and national gains in 2024.

https://windsorstar.com/news/windsors-economic-outlook-goes-from-worst-to-most-promising

Windsor really should be a 2 million+ metro already. It's Southern Ontario, long established, a gateway to the heavily populated US midwest, adjacent a major metro, has Great Lakes access, and with one of the best climates in the country. Why hasn't it happened? One can only grow so large having a branch plant economy and mindset.

Landing large foreign investments is wonderful but when that's the only major economic driver your destiny is in the hands of foreign industry. Windsor will only grow into a major metro if it consistently grows briskly and it can only do that if it lands major investment after major investment continuously. That's an almost impossible string of good fortune and why Windsor is more accurately described as having a boom/bust economy. If Windsor wants to grow into a major metro it can't simply rely on foreign investment. It will need to develop home grown industrial players as well.

The track record thus far speaks volumes. Windsor has had an auto industry since 1904 yet it's failed to produce a single globally relevant company. Waiting for Windsor (or Oshawa) to build a Canadian rival to Tesla or a Canadian EV battery company is becoming an exercise in frustration. All that auto expertise and know how but nothing on that front so far. Germany certainly didn't peg its economic future on landing Renault or Honda factories. They built their own companies.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Calgary and Edmonton from less than 100,000 each to ~1.5M today. Edmonton has become a bigger deal since building the 800 footer Stantec tower, JW Marriott, and arguably the best new arena in the NHL.
Calgary has the most impressive downtown per capita in North America, but since oil crashed around 2014 the downtown office vacancy rate is still hovering around 32%!

Both Calgary and Edmonton have very ambitious LRT expansions as well.

In that respect, they're the Dallas and Houston of Canada. They've used natural resource wealth and a low cost of doing business to fuel strong growth. The challenge for Alberta is whether they can diversify their economy away from energy. If they can't, rapid growth will stall.

Texas has made a successful transition and why it continues to boom. A ton of non-energy big business (Oracle, Charles Schwab, Tesla) has moved to Texas. Can Alberta do the same? I suspect they can. Alberta doesn't have that branch plant mentality that plagues many places in Canada. They're aspirational, ambitious, and are one of the most pro-business jurisdictions on the continent.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

back during MLB's golden age, the 16 teams of the NL and AL stayed in the same 10 cities for 5 decades, from 1903 - 1953.

when you look at these 1940 metro populations, it becomes apparent that when MLB started reshuffling/expanding teams in the 50s/60s, LA and the bay area were at the top of their list.

baltimore, minneapolis, milwaukee, and kansas city were also key early relocation destinations as well, which makes sense looking at how things stood at the time.



Top 50 US Metropolitan Districts, 1940

1. New York 11,690,520 (3 MLB teams)
2. Chicago 4,499,126 (2 MLB teams)
3. Los Angeles 2,904,596
4. Philadelphia 2,898,644 (2 MLB teams)
5. Boston 2,350,514 (2 MLB team)
6. Detroit 2,295,867 (1 MLB team)
7. Pittsburgh 1,994,060 (1 MLB team)
8. San Francisco 1,428,525
9. St. Louis 1,367,977 (2 MLB teams)
10. Cleveland 1,214,943 (1 MLB team)
11. Baltimore 1,046,692
12. Minneapolis-St. Paul 911,077
13. Washington 907,816 (1 MLB team)
14. Buffalo 857,719
15. Milwaukee 790,336
16. Cincinnati 789,309 (1 MLB team)
17. Providence 711,500
18. Kansas City 634,693
19. Scranton-Wilkes Barre 629,581
20. New Orleans 540,030
21. Houston 510,397
22. Hartford 502,193
23. Indianapolis 455,397
24. Seattle 452,639
25. Atlanta 442,294

It's interesting to see the expansion of MLB mirroring US population shifts. From its Northeast/Midwest base it spread south and west. If recent population trends in the US/Canada persist over the long term, I wonder if the next shift for MLB will be to Canada.

I obviously have a vested interest in seeing the Canadian market reach its potential but sense that the number of MLB teams won't increase much beyond its current 30. Montreal and Vancouver should have teams while Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa will likely be larger than Cincinnati, Kansas City, Cleveland, and Milwaukee 20 years from now. That's not that far off.

There would be stiff competition, of course, from US cities like Charlotte, Portland, and Orlando but I doubt the league can ever become nationally relevant in Canada without regional representation nationally. Hopefully, I'll see that become a reality in my life time but maybe it's just wishful thinking.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Texas has made a successful transition and why it continues to boom. A ton of non-energy big business (Oracle, Charles Schwab, Tesla) has moved to Texas. Can Alberta do the same? I suspect they can. Alberta doesn't have that branch plant mentality that plagues many places in Canada. They're aspirational, ambitious, and are one of the most pro-business jurisdictions on the continent.

Alberta faces a few obstacles that Texas didn't. The first is that it isn't really near anywhere else, and the second is that incomes are uncompetitively high.

Other than the fact that Texas is an economy larger than Canada's with about 30 million people, and is close to other markets, the state never fell completely into the resource trap and Houston and DFW have median household incomes that are kind of middle of the pack for metros of their size. Calgary's HH income is the highest in Canada at over $100k. From an employer POV, it's sort of hard to justify locating operations in Alberta, far from suppliers or markets, and paying someone 20-25% more than in Ontario.

Alberta's other two problems are that its climate is bad - even by Canadian standards - and that it is a bit of a political and values outlier compared to the rest of the country. When I was younger I would often hear Torontonians and Vancouverites who had nothing really holding them back talk about how they were recruited by a firm in Alberta but refused to go either because "it snows in June" or "they're all social conservative nut jobs over there". These might be stereotypes, and may speak more to the aloofness of Torontonians and Vancouverites, but they're pretty persistent.

But Alberta obviously has many good things about it. Its scenery is beautiful. It has a very educated workforce, and maybe the best K-12 public education system in the country. Given the high salaries and low housing costs, it probably has the best standard of living in Canada. And one final thing: I find Albertans to be very friendly and outgoing and to have a lot of civic pride, which is a welcome change from the typical Canadian chill.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Alberta faces a few obstacles that Texas didn't. The first is that it isn't really near anywhere else, and the second is that incomes are uncompetitively high.

Other than the fact that Texas is an economy larger than Canada's with about 30 million people, and is close to other markets, the state never fell completely into the resource trap and Houston and DFW have median household incomes that are kind of middle of the pack for metros of their size. Calgary's HH income is the highest in Canada at over $100k. From an employer POV, it's sort of hard to justify locating operations in Alberta, far from suppliers or markets, and paying someone 20-25% more than in Ontario.

Alberta's other two problems are that its climate is bad - even by Canadian standards - and that it is a bit of a political and values outlier compared to the rest of the country. When I was younger I would often hear Torontonians and Vancouverites who had nothing really holding them back talk about how they were recruited by a firm in Alberta but refused to go either because "it snows in June" or "they're all social conservative nut jobs over there". These might be stereotypes, and may speak more to the aloofness of Torontonians and Vancouverites, but they're pretty persistent.

But Alberta obviously has many good things about it. Its scenery is beautiful. It has a very educated workforce, and maybe the best K-12 public education system in the country. Given the high salaries and low housing costs, it probably has the best standard of living in Canada. And one final thing: I find Albertans to be very friendly and outgoing and to have a lot of civic pride, which is a welcome change from the typical Canadian chill.

Fair point about the other advantages Texas has over Alberta, but on the social conservative stereotype/values, why would this obstacle be any worse for Alberta? Blue state Americans and Red state Americans probably have an even larger gap politically/social-values wise than their Canadian counterparts (I can't image Alberta conservatives are much more that conservative relatively speaking to Ontarians or British Columbians than say, Texas conservatives are to New Englanders, New Yorkers, or Californians).

Also on the climate front, it's not quite the same but one could argue the Texas heat disadvantage kind of also works as a parallel to the Alberta cold disadvantage relative to Americans and Canadians in milder climates alike.

Yet Texas was able to overcome, or well at least prosper in spite of, these disadvantages.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Windsor really should be a 2 million+ metro already. It's Southern Ontario, long established, a gateway to the heavily populated US midwest, adjacent a major metro, has Great Lakes access, and with one of the best climates in the country. Why hasn't it happened? One can only grow so large having a branch plant economy and mindset.

Landing large foreign investments is wonderful but when that's the only major economic driver your destiny is in the hands of foreign industry. Windsor will only grow into a major metro if it consistently grows briskly and it can only do that if it lands major investment after major investment continuously. That's an almost impossible string of good fortune and why Windsor is more accurately described as having a boom/bust economy. If Windsor wants to grow into a major metro it can't simply rely on foreign investment. It will need to develop home grown industrial players as well.

The track record thus far speaks volumes. Windsor has had an auto industry since 1904 yet it's failed to produce a single globally relevant company. Waiting for Windsor (or Oshawa) to build a Canadian rival to Tesla or a Canadian EV battery company is becoming an exercise in frustration. All that auto expertise and know how but nothing on that front so far. Germany certainly didn't peg its economic future on landing Renault or Honda factories. They built their own companies.

I don't know the historical antecedents, but I suspect Windsor is an automotive city bc of Detroit overflow, not bc of anything inherent with Windsor. If there were some budding Windsor-based mobility concept, it would probably be birthed in Detroit, as that's where almost all the human and physical infrastructure lies.

Windsor has an auto industry bc it's next to Detroit and bc American firms wanted the Canadian market too. Also, no one in the U.S. thinks of Toronto as an industrial city, but there seems to be a pretty big auto presence. Mississauga and Oshawa have major auto factories, and I believe the GTA has some research/design centers, suppliers and mobility concepts. If Canada wished to really push a Canadian version of Detroit, it might be in the GTA. A Canadian Rivian or Tesla would probably end up in Oakville or the like (or, if it really grew, in Silicon Valley, or some Sunbelt burg).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Fair point about the other advantages Texas has over Alberta, but on the social conservative stereotype/values, why would this obstacle be any worse for Alberta? Blue state Americans and Red state Americans probably have an even larger gap politically/social-values wise than their Canadian counterparts (I can't image Alberta conservatives are much more that conservative relatively speaking to Ontarians or British Columbians than say, Texas conservatives are to New Englanders, New Yorkers, or Californians).

AB and TX aren't really that similar. Yes, both have energy industries and are right-of-center domestically, but that's about it.

A lot of TX growth is primarily due to Mexico. TX is the second youngest state (only Mormon Utah is younger) and much of the growth is due to large(r) Hispanic working class family sizes. TX produces more babies, and a much greater share of population in babymaking years, again, second to Utah. Alberta doesn't have this geographic quirk.

TX is often grouped with states like FL, NC and AZ as a huge domestic net in-migration state. It isn't, really. It gets positive domestic in-migration, but nothing like an Orlando or a Phoenix. Most of the growth is homegrown babymaking. It has the family characteristics of postwar baby-boomer era U.S., just much browner.

Also, about half of TX has population decline. Much of West TX and rural TX has population decline, and isn't (demographically) that different from, say PA or OH. But the larger metros have insane growth. Austin, especially, but San Antonio, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, El Paso, Corpus Christi, McAllen and Brownsville all have crazy growth.

Another Mexico factor - TX is a huge logistics hub. Massively important for global trade. Laredo will probably have 2 million people in a generation. As the U.S. shifts production from China to Mexico, the level of trade will skyrocket. This, long-term, is much more important for TX than oil. Alberta has nothing like this.

[north 42]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't know the historical antecedents, but I suspect Windsor is an automotive city bc of Detroit overflow, not bc of anything inherent with Windsor. If there were some budding Windsor-based mobility concept, it would probably be birthed in Detroit, as that's where almost all the human and physical infrastructure lies.

Windsor has an auto industry bc it's next to Detroit and bc American firms wanted the Canadian market too. Also, no one in the U.S. thinks of Toronto as an industrial city, but there seems to be a pretty big auto presence. Mississauga and Oshawa have major auto factories, and I believe the GTA has some research/design centers, suppliers and mobility concepts. If Canada wished to really push a Canadian version of Detroit, it might be in the GTA. A Canadian Rivian or Tesla would probably end up in Oakville or the like (or, if it really grew, in Silicon Valley, or some Sunbelt burg).

Windsor is a tool and die powerhouse, as it has managed to have the largest cluster of tool and die companies in North America, all mostly Canadian grown, most with nothing to do with US companies, and they supply much of the North American market.

Of coarse Windsor’s location next to Detroit has helped it to be the Canadian automotive capital, and it is helping it be the Canadian automobility capital of Canada as well, but most of its new investment has nothing to do with Detroit, it’s attracting investment on its own. There is still wrong with using your prime location to grow and diversity your economy though.

If anything, Windsor’s location next to Detroit has actually hurt the city for the past 50 years, as Detroit’s woes have tarnished Windsor’s reputation and made it harder to attract people here. That has finally changed, as more people realize what the region offers, and that includes its now enviable location next to Detroit. The city is now growing quickly and there is investment in many industries, not just automotive.

[Docere]

If there's any state most comparable to Alberta, it's probably Colorado which share Plains and Rocky Mountain geography. Denver used to be more of a "cowtown"/energy center and Colorado was a pretty Republican state until the Obama era (and more in the western than southern style of conservatism).

But Alberta is much more prairie than mountain, and no interior west state was ever as dominated by oil.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Docere

Metropolitan areas, 1940, 90,000+

1. New York 11,690,520
2. Chicago 4,499,126
3. Los Angeles 2,904,596
4. Philadelphia 2,898,644
5. Boston 2,350,514
6. Detroit 2,295,867
7. Pittsburgh 1,994,060
8. San Francisco 1,428,525
9. St. Louis 1,367,977
10. Cleveland 1,214,943
11. Montreal 1,145,282
12. Baltimore 1,046,692
13. Minneapolis-St. Paul 911,077
14. Toronto 909,928
15. Washington 907,816
16. Buffalo 857,719
17. Milwaukee 790,336
18. Cincinnati 789,309
19. Providence 711,500
20. Kansas City 634,693
21. Scranton-Wilkes Barre 629,581
22. New Orleans 540,030
23. Houston 510,397
24. Hartford 502,193
25. Indianapolis 455,397
26. Seattle 452,639
27. Atlanta 442,294
28. Louisville 434,308
29. Albany-Schenectady 431,575
30. Rochester 411,970
31. Birmingham 407,851
32. Portland 406,406
33. Springfield, Mass. 394,623
34. Denver 384,372
35. Vancouver 377,447
36. Dallas 376,548
37. Youngstown 373,428
38. Columbus 365,796
39. Akron 349,705
40. Toledo 341,663
41. Haverhill-Lawrence-Lowell 334,969
42. Memphis 332,477
43. Norfolk 330,396
44. Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton 325,142
45. San Antonio 319,010
46. New Haven 308,228
47. Worcester 306,194
48. Winnipeg 299,923
49. Omaha 287,698
50. Fall River-New Bedford 272,648
51. Dayton 271,512
52. Syracuse 258,353
53. San Diego 256,368
54. Miami 250,537
55. Richmond 245,674
56. Nashville 241,769
57. Ottawa 226,290
58. Quebec 224,756
59. Oklahoma City 221,229
60. Bridgeport 216,621
61. Grand Rapids 209,873
62. Tampa-St. Petersburg 209,693
63. Fort Worth 207,677
64. Salt Lake City 204,488
65. Canton 200,352
66. Trenton 200,128
67. Hamilton 197,732
68. Utica 197,128
69. Wheeling 196,340
70. Jacksonville 193,619
71. Chattanooga 193,213
72. Wilmington 188,974
73. Tulsa 188,564
74. Flint 188,554
75. Des Moines 183,974
76. Reading 175,355
77. Davenport-Rock Island-Moline 174,995
78. Harrisburg 173,367
80. Huntington 170,979
81. Peoria 162,566
82. Sacramento 158,999
83. Duluth-Superior 157,099
84. Tacoma 156,018
85. Bay City-Saginaw 153,388
86. Knoxville 151,829
87. Johnstown 151,871
88. South Bend 147,022
89. Binghamton 145,156
90. Waterbury 144,822
91. Evansville 141,614
92. Spokane 141,370
93. Beaumont-Port Arthur 138,608
94. Charleston, W. Va. 136,332
95. Kenosha-Racine 135,075
96. Fort Wayne 134,385
97. Erie 134,039
98. Lancaster 132,027
99. San Jose 129,362
100. Wichita 127,308
101. Little Rock 126,724
102. Windsor 123,973
103. Phoenix 121,828
104. Savannah 117,970
105. El Paso 115,801
106. Mobile 114,906
107. Altoona 114,094
108. Charlotte 112,986
109. Hamilton-Middletown 112,696
110. Austin 106,193
111. Atlantic City 100,096
112. Charleston, S.C. 98,711
113. Edmonton 97,842
114. Fresno 97,504
115. Calgary 93,021

If Dallas and Fort Worth had been counted together in 1940 as one metro (which, obviously, it was not yet), it would have had a population of 583,000, placing it ahead of New Orleans as the largest southern population center and just behind Scranton-Wilkes Barre. The nascent Metroplex was beginning to happen back then, but nobody really noticed.

[ssiguy]

It's not surprising that Canadian cities have generally grown faster than American ones since 1940. At the time the US had 12X Canada's population and now has slightly less than 9X.

Canada has generally grown faster than the US since 1940 but now that difference is numbing. Canada grew by 2.7% last year {over one million people} and it looks like it will continue as all the major political parties support strong immigration. In 6 years Canada will overtake Spain, in 14 years Italy, in 21 years France, and if the numbers continue Canada will be home to 80 million by 2050.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't know the historical antecedents, but I suspect Windsor is an automotive city bc of Detroit overflow, not bc of anything inherent with Windsor. If there were some budding Windsor-based mobility concept, it would probably be birthed in Detroit, as that's where almost all the human and physical infrastructure lies.

Windsor has an auto industry bc it's next to Detroit and bc American firms wanted the Canadian market too. Also, no one in the U.S. thinks of Toronto as an industrial city, but there seems to be a pretty big auto presence. Mississauga and Oshawa have major auto factories, and I believe the GTA has some research/design centers, suppliers and mobility concepts. If Canada wished to really push a Canadian version of Detroit, it might be in the GTA. A Canadian Rivian or Tesla would probably end up in Oakville or the like (or, if it really grew, in Silicon Valley, or some Sunbelt burg).

Windsor and Oshawa aren't cities that simply landed large scale auto investment from foreign players. They owe their position to being early movers in this industry but became foreign owned shortly after.

Gordon McGregor of Windsor formed the Ford Motor Company of Canada in 1904 by striking a deal with Henry Ford only a year after the latter had begun production in Detroit. Parts were imported from Detroit and Canadian Fords were shipped across the British Empire. So proximity to Detroit and Ford helped but Windsor owes its place due to this arrangement at the beginning of the North American industry. Oshawa owes its key position due to being home to McLaughlin Motors, the strongest Canadian auto company back then. General Motors bought McLaughlin and renamed it GM Canada.

So industry players did emerge in Canada/US at the very same time (1865-1915). Economics of scale put Canadian companies at a severe disadvantage to US rivals and most quickly went out of business. High tariffs were imposed to help the few remaining Canadian firms that survived but US firms simply bought out these Canadian companies to get around the tariffs.

Few people around the world associate cars/manufacturing with Canada but Canada had the 2nd largest auto industry in the world 1918-1923. We fell to 6th by the 2000s and are now 11th. The Canadian auto industry has been majority foreign owned for a very long time but it's also true that it has strong capability, presence, and know how in every segment: auto parts, final assembly, engines, R&D, self driving vehicles, etc. Despite the decline 1923-2023, signs point to a strong rebound. There have been $16 billion in EV announcements the last year alone. Canada really is a country that should have its own domestic brands. If it does happen, Windsor is as good a place as any.

There's talk of Magna being the preferred partner for Apple if/when they enter the EV space. Magna is the world's 3rd largest auto parts company and have been producing Mercedes Benz, BMW, and Aston Martin cars on behalf of those companies for years. There's also Project Arrow launched by the Canadian Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association. It''s 100% Canadian designed, tested, and built. It was unveiled at the 2023 CES in Las Vegas. They either want to mass produce it under its own name or shop it to an established foreign auto company.



https://www.canadadrives.ca/blog/news/up...das-first-zero-emissions-concept-vehicle
https://betakit.com/is-canada-ready-for-an-ev-future/

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Alberta faces a few obstacles that Texas didn't. The first is that it isn't really near anywhere else, and the second is that incomes are uncompetitively high.

Other than the fact that Texas is an economy larger than Canada's with about 30 million people, and is close to other markets, the state never fell completely into the resource trap and Houston and DFW have median household incomes that are kind of middle of the pack for metros of their size. Calgary's HH income is the highest in Canada at over $100k. From an employer POV, it's sort of hard to justify locating operations in Alberta, far from suppliers or markets, and paying someone 20-25% more than in Ontario.

Alberta's other two problems are that its climate is bad - even by Canadian standards - and that it is a bit of a political and values outlier compared to the rest of the country. When I was younger I would often hear Torontonians and Vancouverites who had nothing really holding them back talk about how they were recruited by a firm in Alberta but refused to go either because "it snows in June" or "they're all social conservative nut jobs over there". These might be stereotypes, and may speak more to the aloofness of Torontonians and Vancouverites, but they're pretty persistent.

But Alberta obviously has many good things about it. Its scenery is beautiful. It has a very educated workforce, and maybe the best K-12 public education system in the country. Given the high salaries and low housing costs, it probably has the best standard of living in Canada. And one final thing: I find Albertans to be very friendly and outgoing and to have a lot of civic pride, which is a welcome change from the typical Canadian chill.

All valid points. Alberta certainly has geographic and climate challenges not faced by Texas but I don't see these as insurmountable obstacles. People have lots of pre-conceived notions about Alberta but visiting and staying there for a few weeks gave me a fresh perspective. It's certainly colder than Toronto but, personally, I found winter in southern Alberta preferable. It's far sunnier, dry, and you get extreme warming events multiple times throughout the winter.

Geographically, Alberta is poorly situated far from markets but that's more of an issue if you're a manufacturer. If you're in services or technology it matters far less. The North is rapidly opening up to commercial exploitation, the grain belt expands further north each passing decade, and polar shipping routes are forming. I get that these things are long off but it bears mentioning that logistically, Alberta will become less peripheral geographically over the LONG term.

Alberta wages are similar to Texas. Lower real estate prices than Ontario/BC, lower taxes, and cheap energy make the cost of doing business in Alberta very competitive. One can't look at wages alone.

Not that you're doing this, but Canadians have been writing Alberta off for as long as I can remember. It's often viewed as a boom/bust resource economy that people only move to temporarily for the high wages. When the bottom fell out of oil prices a curious thing happened. Rather than transplants fleeing Alberta en masse, most stayed. Growth went down but the province still grew its population at a healthy clip. Why? People take 2-3 year positions then realize that Alberta is a great place to live and has a lot going for it.

I'm pretty bullish on Alberta's long term prospects. It might not become a location for mass manufacturing but it can grow into a powerhouse without it. They have the most educated population in Canada, no provincial sales tax, low income/corporate taxes, affordable real estate, they elect pro-business governments, and they have a culture that's ambitious and aspirational. Couple that with gorgeous topography (Rockies, foothills, Badlands, prairie) and Alberta starts looking very appealing. I wouldn't be surprised to see Alberta's population zoom to 7.5 million by 2040.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

It's not surprising that Canadian cities have generally grown faster than American ones since 1940. At the time the US had 12X Canada's population and now has slightly less than 9X.

Canada has generally grown faster than the US since 1940 but now that difference is numbing. Canada grew by 2.7% last year {over one million people} and it looks like it will continue as all the major political parties support strong immigration. In 6 years Canada will overtake Spain, in 14 years Italy, in 21 years France, and if the numbers continue Canada will be home to 80 million by 2050.

2.73% population growth is unsustainable for 27 years in a row but I do expect Canada to become more populated than Spain, Italy, and France. Btw, the population ratio between Canada and the US is currently 8.4 to 1 and could fall to 7.3 to 1 by 2030. The US will still be a colossus compared to Canada but we're not the tiny speck we used to be.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

It's not surprising that Canadian cities have generally grown faster than American ones since 1940. At the time the US had 12X Canada's population and now has slightly less than 9X.

Canada has generally grown faster than the US since 1940 but now that difference is numbing. Canada grew by 2.7% last year {over one million people} and it looks like it will continue as all the major political parties support strong immigration. In 6 years Canada will overtake Spain, in 14 years Italy, in 21 years France, and if the numbers continue Canada will be home to 80 million by 2050.

How sustainable are these growth figures? Canada is absolutely massive but the actual Canada where people live is relatively small.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by JManc

How sustainable are these growth figures? Canada is absolutely massive but the actual Canada where people live is relatively small.

My personal, unscientific and inexpert opinion is that this phenomenon will last another 10 years.

My personal bias - and I think other people might share this to some degree - is that Canada's off the charts immigration levels are mostly a labour shortage/keep costs low/keep housing prices high strategy while baby boomers still have some spending power in early retirement. It also helps keep Canadian labour costs 20% lower than the US, which has always been our "secret sauce". The largest birth cohort in Canadian history were people born in 1957 who conveniently retired en masse in 2022. In 10 years, many of them will either be dead or at least not be avid consumers, and there won't be as much of a need to service them.

There are other obstacles: with increasing automation and technological change, will we need as many people to be productive? A country like the US, which leads technological change and productivity growth, will introduce more and more labour-saving technologies in response to its own labour shortages and lack of immigration, and Canadian businesses - facing lower costs in the US - will have to follow.

The other is that the countries we source immigrants from, like India and the Phillippines are at or reaching replacement fertility rates and probably don't want to be exporting young, able bodied workers.

And one more thing - if I may be blunt - is that at rates of 1M people per year, a lot of Canadians, including first generation Canadians themselves will probably sour on immigration. Right now Canadians are very welcoming of immigrants, but who knows how long that will last if Canadians who are born here and have nowhere else to go have to compete for scarce apartments and have to sit in gridlock induced by the massive influx of people from other countries?