SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   Canada (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   Provincial Economies II (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=222249)

Xelebes Apr 18, 2016 2:56 PM

Provincial Economies II
 
Continuing on from the previous thread.

And proceed.

Acajack Apr 18, 2016 3:00 PM

When I was in university 20+ years ago, I had an economics professor who once mentioned that, based on resources and economic potential, the island of Newfoundland should probably have a population of about 150,000.

Of course, most of us on here might like to see a prosperous Newfoundland with a couple million people, but barring a dramatic transition to, perhaps, a Singapore-style economy (unlikely in that geographic and political location), that's just not going to happen.

kwoldtimer Apr 18, 2016 3:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 7411462)
When I was in university 20+ years ago, I had an economics professor who once mentioned that, based on resources and economic potential, the island of Newfoundland should probably have a population of about 150,000.

Of course, most of us on here might like to see a prosperous Newfoundland with a couple million people, but barring a dramatic transition to, perhaps, a Singapore-style economy (unlikely in that geographic and political location), that's just not going to happen.

I might have said about 300,000, as long as 250,000 of them were in the St Johns area.

Acajack Apr 18, 2016 3:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer (Post 7411466)
I might have said about 300,000, as long as 250,000 of them were in the St Johns area.

I am not sure how scientific his observation was (likely not very, although he was a Newfoundlander himself if I recall, or at least had family origins there), but yeah... I think that sadly, a case can be made that the island may have way too many people right now for what can realistically and durably be done there economically.

I don't know what the exact figure(s) for all of this would be, though.

SignalHillHiker Apr 18, 2016 3:17 PM

I'm not sure if the number of people matters quite as much as their location and the percentage that is urbanized. We could easily be Iceland - which has 325,000 people living in a more centralized area. We have the resource wealth to support even more than that, really. None of it just happens to be worth much at this moment in time, but these sort of things go in cycles.

Acajack Apr 18, 2016 3:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker (Post 7411485)
I'm not sure if the number of people matters quite as much as their location and the percentage that is urbanized. We could easily be Iceland - which has 325,000 people living in a more centralized area. We have the resource wealth to support even more than that, really. None of it just happens to be worth much at this moment in time, but these sort of things go in cycles.

Yeah, I think in Iceland 250,000 of the 325,000 people live in or near the capital.

I think there is a lot of resistance and denial to this evolution in Newfoundland, but you're still moving in that direction par la force des choses.

It's going to be painful for many, I guess. I wonder if Iceland went through the same thing at one point?

SignalHillHiker Apr 18, 2016 3:31 PM

Not to the same extent - it's much smaller in size. We have 17,542 km of coastline, the vast majority of which was dotted with settlements, even if only by one family.

Coastline of Iceland is 4,970 km.

MolsonExport Apr 18, 2016 4:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 7411494)
Yeah, I think in Iceland 250,000 of the 325,000 people live in or near the capital.

I think there is a lot of resistance and denial to this evolution in Newfoundland, but you're still moving in that direction par la force des choses.

It's going to be painful for many, I guess. I wonder if Iceland went through the same thing at one point?


Well with the collapse of their banking system and consequently, their economy in 2009, I strongly suspect that the idea of leaving crossed the minds of more than a few.

Depopulation is very sad, and I would hate to see this occur for Newfoundland as a whole.

But it has been a fact in a great many places, due to numerous reasons (most of which have their roots in changing economic circumstances coupled with fertility/death rates). Ireland, the Highlands of Scotland, the Mezzogiorno, Cape Breton Island, Gaspe, rural flight in the Deep South post Reconstruction, most medium-sized and smaller cities of the Midwest Rustbelt (and quite a few big ones too), Eastern Germany and swathes of the former Eastern Bloc, and now, northern/rural areas (indeed, most areas outside of Tokyo) of Japan.

Ireland, the land of some of my forefathers:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...since_1600.png
wikipedia

Great, but very sad song to describe the depopulation
Video Link

Stryker Apr 18, 2016 4:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 7411462)
When I was in university 20+ years ago, I had an economics professor who once mentioned that, based on resources and economic potential, the island of Newfoundland should probably have a population of about 150,000.

Of course, most of us on here might like to see a prosperous Newfoundland with a couple million people, but barring a dramatic transition to, perhaps, a Singapore-style economy (unlikely in that geographic and political location), that's just not going to happen.

He's either clueless or your taking his statement out of context.

We have a huge number of areas with sparse populations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 7411478)
I am not sure how scientific his observation was (likely not very, although he was a Newfoundlander himself if I recall, or at least had family origins there), but yeah... I think that sadly, a case can be made that the island may have way too many people right now for what can realistically and durably be done there economically.

I don't know what the exact figure(s) for all of this would be, though.

It's nothing to do with it, the problem is that we have pre-industrial(in reality pre farming) settlement patterns.

When about 40% of your population live in secluded villages over a massive geographic area your bound to have problems.

lio45 Apr 18, 2016 4:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker (Post 7411485)
I'm not sure if the number of people matters quite as much as their location and the percentage that is urbanized. We could easily be Iceland - which has 325,000 people living in a more centralized area. We have the resource wealth to support even more than that, really. None of it just happens to be worth much at this moment in time, but these sort of things go in cycles.

Your real problem seems to be the size and cost of your civil service.

Would probably be more fair to the average Newfoundlander to break these unions once and for all and force them to accept more reasonable conditions than to dump all these new fees on people who likely have sub-civil-service pay and benefits in the first place.

Or else I agree with the guy who wrote that other article: if you're young, it's not your mess, you can refuse to participate and move away.

Stryker Apr 18, 2016 4:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lio45 (Post 7411550)
Your real problem seems to be the size and cost of your civil service.

Would probably be more fair to the average Newfoundlander to break these unions once and for all and force them to accept more reasonable conditions than to dump all these new fees on people who likely have sub-civil-service pay and benefits in the first place.

Or else I agree with the guy who wrote that other article: if you're young, it's not your mess, you can refuse to participate and move away.

Reasonable conditions?

You have any idea how hard it is to attract a nurse or a teacher, or even a janitor to edge of the earth.

lio45 Apr 18, 2016 4:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stryker (Post 7411557)
Reasonable conditions?

You have any idea how hard it is to attract a nurse or a teacher, or even a janitor to edge of the earth.

Why would you need to "attract" them? Newfies can't become nurses and teachers? Let alone janitors. Come on.

SignalHillHiker Apr 18, 2016 4:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lio45 (Post 7411550)
Your real problem seems to be the size and cost of your civil service.

Would probably be more fair to the average Newfoundlander to break these unions once and for all and force them to accept more reasonable conditions than to dump all these new fees on people who likely have sub-civil-service pay and benefits in the first place.

Or else I agree with the guy who wrote that other article: if you're young, it's not your mess, you can refuse to participate and move away.

It's definitely a problem, yes, especially when it comes to health and education. We spend a fortune on both to provide a clinic and schools in every other village. We actually operate schools with more staff than students - a dozen at last count, I believe, including several with one, two, or three students. But everyone feels entitled because they pay provincial taxes.

I just want to grab them by the shoulders and say... buddy, you don't pay enough taxes in your goddamn life to cover the cost of running the ferry to your town for one fucking day. The rest of us are supporting you because you insist on living here.

Oh, you won't drive an hour to a regional hospital in the nearest large town, you want a clinic with an MRI machine in your village? O.K., here you go. Well, of course you don't have a doctor. You literally cannot pay people enough to fucking live there.

And on, and on... but we have to be sensitive because the same arguments we make the rural areas are the ones the federal government could make to us. This is where I think independence would help in the long run. It'd be harder to leave, encouraging urbanization instead of out-migration. We're still urbanizing, but most of those commuting to work in Alberta continue to live in their rural villages, building giant homes, expecting Fort McMurray or even Edmonton-level services for their town of 80 people.

I don't want to think about it anymore. :haha: Time to raise a smile and wait for oil to go up. Wait a long time.

Acajack Apr 18, 2016 6:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stryker (Post 7411547)
He's either clueless or your taking his statement out of context.

We have a huge number of areas with sparse populations.



It's nothing to do with it, the problem is that we have pre-industrial(in reality pre farming) settlement patterns.

When about 40% of your population live in secluded villages over a massive geographic area your bound to have problems.

Yeah, I know. But in some cases any population at all is too much for the economic viability of a given piece of land. (Not saying that's the case for Newfoundland BTW.)

SignalHillHiker Apr 18, 2016 6:18 PM

First real example of this shift from public service to private profit that usually accompanies Liberal rule here. The government is closing a public long-term care facility in Mount Pearl. Just down the street a failed condo project owned by the Premier will be converted to a private long-term care facility. Saves his ass on this particular project, reduces wages for staff, and increases costs for families. And that's assuming quality of care remains the same, which may not be the case. The only benefit is for the owner, in this case the Premier.

Opposition are calling for Premier to admit he's in a conflict of interest.

J_Murphy Apr 18, 2016 6:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker (Post 7411761)
First real example of this shift from public service to private profit that usually accompanies Liberal rule here. The government is closing a public long-term care facility in Mount Pearl. Just down the street a failed condo project owned by the Premier will be converted to a private long-term care facility. Saves his ass on this particular project, reduces wages for staff, and increases costs for families. And that's assuming quality of care remains the same, which may not be the case. The only benefit is for the owner, in this case the Premier.

Opposition are calling for Premier to admit he's in a conflict of interest.

What is the failed condo project owned by the Premier?

SignalHillHiker Apr 18, 2016 6:23 PM

Sundara - I think it's the one on Blackmarsh.

Acajack Apr 18, 2016 7:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lio45 (Post 7411564)
Why would you need to "attract" them? Newfies can't become nurses and teachers? Let alone janitors. Come on.

I am on board with you on this and have extensive family experience on this question.

One side of my family is from one of the most economically depressed parts of the Maritimes.

I have a lot of trouble reconciling that one the one hand

a) most of my cousins complain of not being able to find jobs "down home", and say that they'd love to stay if only there were jobs

and on the other

b) that employers in their region say they can't find people to fill a whole bunch of positions

So which one is it, a) or b)?

My sense is that while the job market kinda sucks and that there certainly aren't enough jobs for all the young people who grew up there, a lot of people who don't really want to stay will say that they would have liked to in order to preserve appearances and not appear disloyal to their hometown or region.

SignalHillHiker Apr 18, 2016 7:53 PM

Telegram has a story on it now, Murph:

http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Loca...dara-project/1

And Anne Squires and Randy Simms were involved as well. :haha:

FFS. That's an obscene amount of controversy for one project.

Bcasey25raptor Apr 18, 2016 7:58 PM

The BC economy is apparently doing well, but walking around downtown Vancouver lately gives me a different impression. So many businesses are closing down and theres a hell of a lot of empty store fronts. Parts of downtown are becoming depressingly empty.


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.