Winnipeg CMA Population in 5 Years: Predictions

[drew]

Originally Posted by wayward_prince

what exactly do you base the 8,000 on..and for how long do you think it's been growing by that rate..how many years? and don't factor in new immigrants because of the several thousand who arrive here, almost half leave for greener pastures within six months.

^ and what exactly do you base YOUR claim on?

[DowntownWpg]

Population growth isn't necessarily something that is a good reflection on the city.

Population growth and the birth rate is most notable in poverty situations. An example being the birth rate per women in the developing world versus the developed world.

If I can recall correctly, this correlation is also noticeable in Manitoba, where Aboriginal women (a substantial amount in poverty and/or with addictions problems) have 3.5 children on average, versus something like 1.2 per non-Aboriginal woman.

Myself, I'd be just as interested to see some numbers on how the new Winnipeggers got here (amount of immigrants, inter-provincial migration, new births broken out by socio-economic factors, etc)

[1ajs]

true

but does this mean we are 7th now?

[ILYR]

Originally Posted by wayward_prince

what exactly do you base the 8,000 on..and for how long do you think it's been growing by that rate..how many years? and don't factor in new immigrants because of the several thousand who arrive here, almost half leave for greener pastures within six months.

I had posted these plots some time ago in another thread. The are for Manitoba, but Winnipeg and Manitoba population growth go hand in hand. The number are for total growth, so that includes births, deaths, immigration, inter-provincial migration. Based on the plots below Winnipeg and Manitoba are seeing increased growth compared with then last 30 years. I believe that for many those "greener pastures" are, in fact, in Winnipeg and Manitoba.

[drew]

Originally Posted by DowntownWpg

Population growth isn't necessarily something that is a good reflection on the city

Winnipeg loses population. Winnipeg sucks.

Winnipeg's population growth is stagnant. Winnipeg sucks.

and now

Winnipeg gains population. Winnipeg sucks.

To be quite honest, with citizens like this running around Winnipeg, it's a wonder why anyone would move here. And these kinds of attitudes certainly aren't helping to retain any immigrants either.

[DowntownWpg]

Originally Posted by drew

Winnipeg loses population. Winnipeg sucks.

Winnipeg's population growth is stagnant. Winnipeg sucks.

and now

Winnipeg gains population. Winnipeg sucks.

To be quite honest, with citizens like this running around Winnipeg, it's a wonder why anyone would move here. And these kinds of attitudes certainly aren't helping to retain any immigrants either.

While I know how popular it is to decry 'the naysayers' on this board, your out-of-context interpretation of only the first line of my post isn't the point I was trying to make.

If I may:
- it would be interesting to see a detailed statistical break-out of where the new Winnipeggers are coming from.
- there is a correlation between birth rates and poverty. To expand, we need to address poverty issues (all levels of gov) or most likely our problems are only going to increase at the same rate as those born into poverty.

It is important to understand this stuff, at the very least for public policy reasons.

[trueviking]

not to parade on your rain, but winnipeg's population growth is almost exclusively through immigration....the sponsorhip programme brings in 12 000 people to the province each year....80% to winnipeg.

the fact that we no longer lose people through migration to other provinces means that we grow by basically that amount.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by wayward_prince

what exactly do you base the 8,000 on..and for how long do you think it's been growing by that rate..how many years? and don't factor in new immigrants because of the several thousand who arrive here, almost half leave for greener pastures within six months.

err...where you been?...winnipeg has grown by that amount for the last 5 years and has averaged 5000 for the last 10....your hypothesis that immigrants leave in 6 months is completely false....look at the statistics and compare immigration to population growth numbers and you will see that you are formulating your opinion on myth and not fact.

the immigrant sponsorship programme pretty much guarantees that we will continue to grow at at least that pace....moe likely it will be at a greater pace.

[DowntownWpg]

Originally Posted by trueviking

not to parade on your rain, but winnipeg's population growth is almost exclusively through immigration....the sponsorhip programme brings in 12 000 people to the province each year....80% to winnipeg.

the fact that we no longer lose people through migration to other provinces means that we grow by basically that amount.

That is certainly good to hear. I have to ask, because I am interested in these type of stats, where did you find that data?

Also, I stand corrected, the Aboriginal birth rate is closer to 2/women now (still much higher than non-Aboriginals)

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/m...boriginals.pdf

[trueviking]

today's free press.

google the sponsorship progrramme...you'll easily find the numbers over the last 5 years.

[DowntownWpg]

Cool, just found it, thanks.

[jmt18325]

Most immigrants stay in Manitoba. They was an story about it on the National a year or two ago.

[Keng]

Originally Posted by wayward_prince

what exactly do you base the 8,000 on..and for how long do you think it's been growing by that rate..how many years? and don't factor in new immigrants because of the several thousand who arrive here, almost half leave for greener pastures within six months.

I think Winnipeg qualifies as greener pastures. That's an old argument.

[Boreal]

I understand the concept behind the lines drawn on a map in terms of determining a CMA, and I can certainly come to terms with Selkirk not being counted (although, on a personal level, I do consider it part of the CMA) but I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around the St. Andrews exclusion. Perhaps it is more self sufficient than I thought, but based on nothing more than hearsay, almost everyone I know who resides or has resided in that neck of the woods both works and plays in Winnipeg the vast majority of the time. I suppose this is just nitpicking, and ultimately it doesn't matter what Stats Can really defines as our CMA, as it is in some regards arbitrary.

[SmileyBoy]

Originally Posted by Boreal

I understand the concept behind the lines drawn on a map in terms of determining a CMA, and I can certainly come to terms with Selkirk not being counted (although, on a personal level, I do consider it part of the CMA) but I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around the St. Andrews exclusion. Perhaps it is more self sufficient than I thought, but based on nothing more than hearsay, almost everyone I know who resides or has resided in that neck of the woods both works and plays in Winnipeg the vast majority of the time. I suppose this is just nitpicking, and ultimately it doesn't matter what Stats Can really defines as our CMA, as it is in some regards arbitrary.

At least in Canada, you have better definitions of metro areas than we do in the US. Down here, a metro area is stirctly defined by county boundaries. (e.g. Grand Forks' metro area is "defined" as around 102,000 even though probably 20,000 of those people live in far eastern Polk County and don't commute to GF.) No matter how weird or oblong a county's shape is, it's still included in a metro area, regardless of if people in the fringes of that county usually have nothing to do with the central city in their daily lives. We're lucky in Fargo that the counties that define our 2-county metro are basically geometric squares that spread out equidistantly from the city centre. 4-county metro is a little more complicated, because a lot of people in Wahpeton/Breckenridge commute to and from F-M.

[DowntownWpg]

I have a Stats Can paper printed at home, came out a few months ago. Forget the title, so I had trouble finding it via Google, but will try to link to it later today.

In summary, StatsCan takes in a variety of factors in defining their CMA. Notable for this conversation is that density is a major consideration.

Hence, for Winnipeg's CMA, places like St. Andrews and beyond are not included.

IMO, when you're driving out of Winnipeg, a bit past the Perimeter Highway, and you've got farm fields on either side of the highway... guess what!?! you're no longer in Winnipeg's metropolitan area!

I know some people disagree with this, because they want the Winnipeg population to appear bigger than it is. But, that is just the way it is. If you really want to make the city appear more populace than it is, you can sneakily refer to the Capital Region.

As for StatsCan data sets, if you are conducting your own study there is no reason why you cannot define your own versions of CMAs, Urban-Rural, etc. SPSS is your friend.

IMO, inside the red line is what is (roughly) reasonable to consider as Winnipeg's metro population:

[Only The Lonely..]

Originally Posted by DowntownWpg

In summary, StatsCan takes in a variety of factors in defining their CMA. Notable for this conversation is that density is a major consideration.

Hence, for Winnipeg's CMA, places like St. Andrews and beyond are not included.

IMO, when you're driving out of Winnipeg, a bit past the Perimeter Highway, and you've got farm fields on either side of the highway... guess what!?! you're no longer in Winnipeg's metropolitan area!

I don't agree with the notion that a metropolitan region must be continuous in its built form in order for the population of neighbouring areas to count.

Consider as an example the city of Ottawa, which has a green belt surrounding Ottawa proper.

Despite having to drive through the country ("green belt") to get there, would you not consider Kanata and Nepean Ontario to be part of metropolitan Ottawa?

I know I would, and I’m sure StatsCan does too.

I think StatsCan has defined the correct criteria for belonging to a CMA; and that is 50% of a community's workforce must be employed in the metropolitan centre for it to be considered part of a larger urban region.

Thus, East St.Paul would belong to Winnipeg's CMA but Selkirk would not..

[Pootkao]

I bid 1 dollar, Bob.

[DowntownWpg]

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

I don't agree with the notion that a metropolitan region must be continuous in its built form in order for the population of neighbouring areas to count.

Consider as an example the city of Ottawa, which has a green belt surrounding Ottawa proper.

Despite having to drive through the country ("green belt") to get there, would you not consider Kanata and Nepean Ontario to be part of metropolitan Ottawa?

I know I would, and I’m sure StatsCan does too.

I think StatsCan has defined the correct criteria for belonging to a CMA; and that is 50% of a community's workforce must be employed in the metropolitan centre for it to be considered part of a larger urban region.

Thus, East St.Paul would belong to Winnipeg's CMA but Selkirk would not..

I'm no Ottawa expert, so am not that sure as to if I would consider, personally, Kanata and Nepean in the Ottawa CMA.

However, I think that the criteria you indicated re: 50% workforce, is related to the Capital Region formula. CMA is more population density based, IIRC.

[vid]

Originally Posted by trueviking

not to parade on your rain, but winnipeg's population growth is almost exclusively through immigration

Winnipeg might have something similar to Thunder Bay, where the population is stagnant but the demographics are changing. The non-aboriginal population decline by 1%, but was more than offset by a 25% growth in the aboriginal population. And while the average white person is 45, the average native is 25.

Looking at immigrants and non-immigrants you probably won't notice that, but if you take a look at population change among the aboriginal and non-aboriginal populations you might see something similar. Virtually all of Thunder Bay's non-aboriginal population gains are from immigrants.