NHL and NHLPA “watching closely” decline of Canadian dollar

[Yukon Joe]

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.

 

[BMN]

"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]

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

 

[lakeshirts37]

Yes the US the might shut the government down again, because of the trillions added to debt each year.

respectfully, im not sure you fully understand this

 

[BB79]

Yeah, the dollar fluctuating is a sign that Canada doesn't support its teams

Teams? I think you mean citizens

 

[The don godfather]

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]

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.

 

[Tawnos]

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]

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.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

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]

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

 

[MeHateHe]

Which I could ‘like’ this post 100 times.



Lol

Do like I do: make 100 sock puppet accounts.

 

[jetsmooseice]

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]

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.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

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.

Well, I’m not trying to state anything as a certainty. But that doesn’t mean one shouldn’t make projections based on available information.

I hesitate to try to explain my point again to address your question of “how is that different from any generation, the older ones die, and new kids come?” It seems like despite the validity of your point of “not being able to predict”, you would at least partially grasp the concept of shrinking generations and the ensuing consequences which it doesn’t look like you do.

It is a hard fact that the number of infants born in Canada in 2010 is far lower than say 1950. Like many times lower. You’re losing more natural born citizens (ie contributors to an economy in terms of consumers and workers) than you are gaining in terms of natural born workers of younger generations. Can that trend reverse at some point? Absolutely. Can anyone predict that? No. But you can’t go back in time and add to already existing generations. This is where the immigrant thing arises. People make their emotional pleas in all different political directions, but immigration is the only thing (for the foreseeable future) that can make up for the lowered birth rate in many developed nations. The US, Russia, France, China etc. They all face it and acknowledge its potential economic challenges. Again, the generations behind the baby boomers are at their max population NOW. The only way to add to those generations is to bring in people from other places within those generations. You can’t spontaneously produce more 15 year old Canadians soon to become workers so that you can fill the gap in terms of employees demanded.

Again, I’m not trying to take a stand on “how I feel about immigration”. But the impacts of lowered fertility rates and birth rates isn’t something that can just be “solved” or something in which we cannot derive information to use in the future.

I’m disappointed that what you have taken out of all the information I put forward that I am “certain” of how complex issues unfold. I’m not. My goal isn’t to shove an opinion down anyone’s throat but engage in conversation and hopefully have people share knowledge back.

 

[Golden_Jet]

It is a hard fact that the number of infants born in Canada in 2010 is far lower than say 1950. Like many times lower.

Yes that is true for both countries.

Fertility rates
1950
Canada - 3.503
USA - 3.148

2007
Canada - 1.612
USA - 2.052

2024
Canada - 1.483
USA - 1.786

In 2007 the dollar was at par with each other
Birth rate has no affect on the Canadian dollar.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

Yes that is true for both countries.

Fertility rates
1950
Canada - 3.503
USA - 3.148

2007
Canada - 1.612
USA - 2.052

2024
Canada - 1.483
USA - 1.786

In 2007 the dollar was at par with each other
Birth rate has no affect on the Canadian dollar.

Okay, by you saying “birth rate has no effect on the Canadian dollar”, you’re doing exactly what you accused me of in terms of certainties.

Exchange rates are a product of massively complex global markets. Birth and fertility rates produce consequences which interact with other factors that then eventually have little affects on certain things that effect other things…blah, blah, blah you get my point.

The commentary on population and growth rates wasn’t meant to directly tie into what does or does not affect exchange rates. But certainly population and various demographic considerations are relevant when you’re talking about market size and the economic capacity within those markets for potential investors.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Okay, by you saying “birth rate has no effect on the Canadian dollar”, you’re doing exactly what you accused me of in terms of certainties.

Yes that’s why I provided some facts, see 2007 rates.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

Yes that’s why I provided some facts, see 2007 rates.

You are forcing an oversimplified and binary correlation (or lack thereof). Exchange rates fluctuate, both in the long-term and short-term, due to countless factors. It’s not something you can line up a single statistic against another, not see a discernible correlation, and susbsequently conclude “one does not affect the other”. It’s a complete disconnect from the complexity of the entire system. Some seemingly mundane event that happened 200 years ago could the affect the markets today.

either way, I don’t why you’re stuck on this. As I said in my previous post, I didn’t bring up population growth to say “this determines exchange rate”. I brought it up to talk about its POTENTIAL consequences on the opportunity for investors in a future Canadian NHL franchise.

To follow along with what another poster said earlier on your comment about the US governem t shutting down over the national debt, it seems like your understanding from a business/economic sense is limited. Feel like I’m arguing with someone who just wants to argue for the sake of “winning” an argument.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Feel like I’m arguing with someone who just wants to argue for the sake of “winning” an argument.

Pot meet kettle

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

Pot meet kettle

Okay.

Seems as if you suspect that I have something personally against teams moving to Canada or otherwise think negatively of the country which I can assure you is not the case. Just looking to talk business in the business forum, that's all.