Meaningful discussions

I should have probably found my way to this event in Toronto. I remember blogging about this group early on but the summit that was put on not only attracted some heavy hitters it also seems to have focused on a lot of important topics (such as industry attraction and cheap energy) rather than the usual moaning and griping about the raw deal dealt Atlantic Canada over the years or the generic tax cut, trade liberalization line (not that either one has no merit but both have been talked about for oh, let’s say, 140 years with limited outcomes).

Tangible policies like a focus on industry attraction, finding a way to become a low cost area for energy, etc. are far more interesting to me.

By the way, should we be promoting this?

The East Coast of Canada is the place to be if you are in love with more people professing about love there; 89 per cent of those from Atlantic Canada said they were in love, while only 67 per cent of those in the Pacific Coast province of British Columbia said the same on love.

Or maybe it’s that old card saw “Lucky at love, unlucky at economic development”?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Meaningful discussions

  1. nbt says:

    I love the maritimes (don’t get me wrong), but I have to admit, it’s a good place to settle down in love, but not a good place to start your career (and then find love).

    On that subject, I think you will find Richard Florida’s new book interesting on a number of fronts. I found it interesting that he said he found/met his wife in Detroit.

    Being the true economist.academic that he is, he said that his chances increased significantly (to meet a hottie like his wife) because the numbers showed that there was a mass exodus of males in the Detroit area due to the decline in the car manufacturing industry. Higher percentage of women then men. Thus, increases his chances of finding “true love”. Actually, I find that comical.

    Anyway, his advice to males is clear, if you want to marry up, keep a close eye on the numbers (i.e. demographics).

  2. mikel says:

    What a bizarre blog! Now there is an interesting book-love and economic development!

    How about this..” Be in love…in this place” (in Moncton it could be ‘be in love..for ten minutes…sorry, couldn’t resist.)

    But again, online polls are pretty unreliable, despite angus reid’s assertion that they are MORE reliable. They claim people are LESS likely to lie when not talking to somebody, I’d suggest they are MORE likely to lie.

    So you have a poll of 1000 people (who happen to be on AR’s mailing list), broken up into the typical six groups with a vague attempt at being demographically accurate. So that’s five groups (maybe six). That means 200 people from all the atlantic coast, since its a minute population base that’s probably AT MOST 150 people, say 75 men and 75 women, which of course isn’t statistically significant at all-which of course is why media reports NEVER say that, and only quote the pollsters assertions about ‘statistically accurate’-which is usually pretty high.

    Like with all small statistical averages, the smaller the sample, the more varied results get with small changes. So overall, it averages out to about the same.

    That’s not to rain on anybody’s parade, if people want to believe there is magic fairie dust in the air around the atlantic coast, that’s their business. If people are ‘less focused’ on a career then perhaps there is more time for love. The kinds of jobs, like financial services, law, and public trading, which are synonymous with ‘ambition’ don’t exist to much degree in the east. In the ‘exodus’ theme, those who DON”T have anybody significant are more likely to leave.

    I don’t go much for ‘demographics’ and ‘playing the odds’. If there are more women than men around but you never leave your yard then it doesn’t make much difference. You don’t need THOUSANDS of women-you only need ONE (at least at a time, unless you’re very lucky:)

    It’s fun to look at the statscan numbers and relate them to the topic. Right now there are more women than men in NB. Of the 612 thousand 15 and over, only one third are single. More New Brunswickers are widowed than are divorced. That’s sometimes good, sometimes bad. In a disadvantaged economy there is no escaping the fact that it is VERY difficult to get by being single, which makes people ‘a lot less hesitant’ about being in love-to be blunt.

    Interestingly, there are about 100 more MEN ‘legally married’ than there are women, which means the gay marriage thing is fairly large, or there are a lot of ‘mail order marriages’ whose wives haven’t shown up yet.

    There are more ‘lone parent’ families than there are ‘common law families’, (20% the number of ‘regular’ families), which means many WERE ‘in love’ or at least ‘in lust’-two things that can get confused:)

    One worrisome point is that the census shows that the average ‘family’ only has 2.8 people-that’s .8 kids (no head). Even in MARRIED couple families its only .9 (no hair on the kid). That doesn’t bode well.

    For the language debate, there are now more than half ‘french only’ households of ‘english only’ households, and almost half where french is the only language spoken in the house.

    There are also cultural differences to what ‘love’ means, and not just gender differences. Here in ontario I know plenty of people who are being lined up for ‘planned marriages’. Of course I had a friend who had a planned marriage when I lived in Oromocto, so thats not a big deal. It’s still quite popular among those from India and Pakistan.

    Yes, statistics CAN be interesting…at least to some.

  3. nbt says:

    More New Brunswickers are widowed than are divorced. That’s sometimes good, sometimes bad.

    Just an uneducated (and non-researched) assessment, but could the above reflect the very conservative nature of our province, not to mention, the amount of religious influence in a relatively rural province (even the cities are rural in attitude to a certain degree)? You know, a societal trait that may keep people away from divorce and in a bad marriage.

    The same trait that prevents significant change and slows down progress (i.e. like the attitude you encountered at the door mikel during the MMP plebiscite in Ontario).

    Very cautious, very conservative.

  4. mikel says:

    An interesting comment, but ‘divorce’ has been around a LONG time. I’m not sure ‘honey I’ve become progressively liberated therefore I want a divorce’ is a line that is actually given preceding divorces.

    Close to 40% of divorces have alcoholism and spousal battering as precedents-so its serious business. One would expect that to be HIGHER in provinces with poor economic indicators, however, the rural nature of the province may help there. I lived in a rural area for part of my childhood, and people just didn’t let their neighbours ‘get away with shit like that’.

    However, aging populations tend to have fewer divorces, the main decade for divorce is the twenties-close to 50-50, and as mentioned often, most of those people leave the province to become somebody else’s statistic. Plus, like the survey, when you have a smaller sample group, small changes tend to make percentages change rapidly. If divorce rates ‘within specific age ranges’ were known across the board then perhaps other causes besides age could be looked at.

    Most of the other NB statistics are generally the same as the rest of canada. More women are setting up independant households, and the number of children has fallen drastically to not even one. Anybody with children can tell you what a joy AND financial burden children can be and what kind of stress they can put on a marriage.

    As for religion the evidence is spotty about divorce rates. In a US survey the only religion that boasted lower divorces than non religious people was ‘active catholics’. That’s not surprising, since they are more typically ‘annulled’ than divorced-in fact it is surprising that active catholics would be so high!

    So I’d suspect that it is the lack of twentysomethings that have more to do with it than any inherent ‘cautiousness’.

    Finally, the comparison to MMP is not apt. I find it a GOOD thing that people don’t readily change political systems without the information. Statistics show that the more familiar people are with what MMP entails, the more likely they are to support it. So that has nothing to do with ‘being conservative’ or cautious, because that is the same across all age groups and political affiliations. The difference is that those who DO know about MMP tend to be, well, ‘better educated’, shall we say, about various political structures and their international diversity.

    Both of those are GOOD things. Maybe I’m a cockeyed optimist but it shows a maturity in political decision making that is lacking among political representatives, and it shows that people support ‘change’ only when it can be shown that it is in the best interest of those involved.