NHL and NHLPA “watching closely” decline of Canadian dollar

Yukon Joe

Registered User
Aug 3, 2011
6,849
4,860
YWG -> YXY -> YEG
Good stats. Definitely seems like I was a bit off in my original perception of the US having an “edge” in terms of immigration numbers.

Not sure what you mean by “waving away” on immigration. I’m just saying that you can deduce certainties from growth based on natural born citizens because…well…those people have already been born and are in the country. There won’t be any more Canadian citizens born in 2010 alive in ten years as there are now.

On the other hand, we don’t know the future of immigration in terms of hard numbers. Across 27 years, yes, it has been on the rise, but this is neither a completely linear year by year nor a guaranteed long term rate. It could rise, fall, or stay roughly the same based on a whole host of issues that is so complex it’s barely worth discussion. Regardless, it’s inherently harder to predict than the population rising and falling based on already born citizens living within the country.

I know HF Boards does not want to get caught up in political debates (for good reason!) an immigration, and what the correct level of immigration should be, is quite contentious.

It was just to point out that discussing birth rates really isn't the most important factor - in either country.

It's mostly about immigration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CharasLazyWrister

BMN

Registered User
Jun 2, 2021
368
498
"tanking dollar" - Canadian dollar is at $0.69. It usually hovers in the mid-70s. Again obviously Canadian teams would prefer a higher exchange rate - but "tanking" is hardly the word for it.
Lotta people here that either didn't live through or have forgotten the .62/.63 days...
 

lakeshirts37

Registered User
Jun 25, 2019
1,270
1,335
The POV you replied to was the second response in a thread about declining revenue due to a declining exchange rate. One would naturally assume that “never talking about expanding in Canada again” in this context was about the aforementioned very unfavorable exchange rate.

You, strangely and apparently due to preexisting bias, created this nonsensical binary about how the post was saying that an unfavorable exchange rate meant Canadians don’t support their teams. Multiple times in this discussion, you have simply discarded all of the relevant information and subbed an artificial argument which you then counter while trying to hold the person (me, in most cases in this thread) to the false argument that you yourself concocted. And it started with your very first response to the third post in the thread.

What it seems like is this is an emotional topic for you and you’re only going to talk business as far as it supports your desired conclusion based on that bias.
Yes this was exactly what I was getting at. Not at all about team support. Very bizarre from @WeaponOfChoice
 

The don godfather

Registered User
Jul 5, 2018
20,930
22,356
Woodbridge Ontario
Everything will be fine once that clown leaves problem he isnt leaving and its showing world markets instability and why cad is tanking hard right now. Were in unprecedented times here in Canada right now.
 

the big nobody

Registered User
Jun 4, 2024
102
127
New West, BC
Well, predicting future population is certainly not an exact science. We know the current birth rate in Canada of 1.33 is well below the accepted Western replacement rate of 2.1, while the US is around 1.6 or 1.7. Even if the birth rate rose (it won’t), you still have a solid two generations of people in which more cannot be born.
You are confusing fertility levels with birth rates. The fertility levels can be below replacement (the 2.1 you cited) while still producing natural (e.g. exclusive of immigration/emigration) population growth, at least in the near-term; Canada is an example of this, for a more extreme example see South Korea. There are still more births than deaths in Canada (the birth rate), which means there is still natural population growth, absent immigration, however slim.

Also, neither you nor anyone else can definitively claim the birth rate and/or fertility level cannot rise in the future; this assertion rests on the laughable notion that birth rates were even higher before the post-WW2 baby boom, in which case there would've been no boom at all. We have no way of predicting future conditions, just as prior generations had no way to predict the conditions we live under today.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Golden_Jet

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
29,431
11,243
Charlotte, NC
So I don't want to get political here.

Canada's population is actually growing faster than the US. We've grown at rates of 2-3% per year the last couple of years. We hit 30 million in 1997, but 40 million in 2023. That's a one third increase in 27 years.

Yes that is almost entirely due to immigration.

You can say lots about immigration, which I don't want to get into. But while you mention immigration it's only to wave it away with " we don’t know is the future in terms of immigration".

Looking at growth rates is a fairly meaningless comparison when looking at populations that are nearly an order of magnitude apart. Yes, Canada grew at a faster rate, but the United States added 50 million people more than Canada did in those 27 years.
 

MeHateHe

Registered User
Dec 24, 2006
2,767
3,192
I know HF Boards does not want to get caught up in political debates (for good reason!) an immigration, and what the correct level of immigration should be, is quite contentious.

It was just to point out that discussing birth rates really isn't the most important factor - in either country.

It's mostly about immigration.
This kind of political post isn’t a problem. It’s the dumb political posts (arguing that the exchange rate is a result of one factor, for example) that are a problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CharasLazyWrister

CharasLazyWrister

Registered User
Sep 8, 2008
25,008
22,329
Lunenburg, MA
You are confusing fertility levels with birth rates. The fertility levels can be below replacement (the 2.1 you cited) while still producing natural (e.g. exclusive of immigration/emigration) population growth, at least in the near-term; Canada is an example of this, for a more extreme example see South Korea. There are still more births than deaths in Canada (the birth rate), which means there is still natural population growth, absent immigration, however slim.

Also, neither you nor anyone else can definitively claim the birth rate and/or fertility level cannot rise in the future; this assertion rests on the laughable notion that birth rates were even higher before the post-WW2 baby boom, in which case there would've been no boom at all. We have no way of predicting future conditions, just as prior generations had no way to predict the conditions we live under today.

That makes sense to cite the difference in those two rates, but it still doesn’t change the point I made about populations decling eventually. As of now, more people are being born that dying, but the point is that will change as the larger generation(s) (ie the oldest) moves on over the next however many decades. Don’t think there’s any disagreement there.

I also don’t disagree with you on your second point about not being able to predict things. The further out you get, the more impossible the task becomes. That being said, there is a fair amount we can deduce about the near future on some economic fronts (note “fair amount”) considering we know pretty accurately how many 18 year old natural born citizens will exist in Canada in a decade (a relative few will meet tragic passing and the rest of the current 8 year olds will be that age). Of course there is emigration out of Canada, immigration into Canada, as we’ve already talked about and numerous other factors. But in terms of the next however many decades, where it is possible to predict with SOME accuracy, these are the kinds of things an investor is looking at.

Anyways, overall population is but a small part of the equation. It’s a great topic to discuss but I don’t want to put too much weight into it in the realm of this thread. There’s plenty of reasons that make expansion into Canada challenging from a business sense (and given the lack of actual market competition amongst franchises) for the foreseeable future. It is too bad because Canada obvoisly has a higher concentration of true fans deserving of a team. But unfortunately, the highest professional league is a multi billion dollar corporation whose main driver is money
 

CharasLazyWrister

Registered User
Sep 8, 2008
25,008
22,329
Lunenburg, MA
This kind of political post isn’t a problem. It’s the dumb political posts (arguing that the exchange rate is a result of one factor, for example) that are a problem.

Which I could ‘like’ this post 100 times.

Everything will be fine once that clown leaves problem he isnt leaving and its showing world markets instability and why cad is tanking hard right now. Were in unprecedented times here in Canada right now.

Lol
 

jetsmooseice

Up Yours Robison
Feb 20, 2020
2,009
2,588
Looking at growth rates is a fairly meaningless comparison when looking at populations that are nearly an order of magnitude apart. Yes, Canada grew at a faster rate, but the United States added 50 million people more than Canada did in those 27 years.
Part of the problem with immigration from a business-of-hockey perspective is that it does little to help hockey teams in the short term.

My impression is that most immigrants in Canada a) aren't that interested in hockey as it tends to be an obscure activity in their home countries, and b) won't have the inclination to spend money on hockey given for a variety of reasons (sheer cost of getting settled in a new country, supporting family overseas, lack of interest to justify ticket-buying, etc.).

I'm sure a lot of children and grandchildren of today's immigrants will be hockey players, NHL fans, etc. But that could be 10, 20, 30 years down the road.

What probably does a lot more to support hockey teams is growth from inter-provincial migration. Bringing in a single newlywed 30 year old from Kitchener or Saskatoon with a commerce degree is probably going to do more for the local NHL team than bringing in 10 families from overseas that are completely uninterested in hockey.
 

Golden_Jet

Registered User
Sep 21, 2005
27,144
14,245
As of now, more people are being born that dying, but the point is that will change as the larger generation(s) (ie the oldest) moves on over the next however many decades. Don’t think there’s any disagreement there.
How is that different from any generation, the older ones die, and new kids come in.
There are a lot of things you’ve said in here, you are assuming as fact, when actually nobody knows.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad