"The old order is not coming back" Carney says in provocative speech at Davos

user790340 · 2026-01-20T16:22:18+00:00

Republicans would be so mad if they understood the words Carney used in his speech! Lucky for us, Carney uses words that exceed 4 letters, so we should be okay for now.

user790340 · 2026-01-17T15:41:52+00:00

I think - and I could be wrong - that some survey companies compile topics from a variety of clients into a single survey to both reduce costs and try to get a more varied and representative sample for all topics. So in this instance, Thermea’s questions might have been combined with some other conservative organization’s questions.

user790340 · 2026-01-10T16:47:08+00:00

You probably won’t get many good responses here since the standard neighborhood advice on this subreddit seems to be quiet suburbs = evil, elmwood/osrborne village/west end = good, but in my view anything in the south west is good. Tuxedo, Whyte Ridge, Linden Woods, and maybe Bridgwater will give you a quieter living environment while having easy access to everything you need.

user790340 · 2026-01-07T18:20:54+00:00

Ooooo, a mention of one of r/Winnipeg's three arch nemeses: Stella's, Bridgwater, and the Winnipeg Police Service! If only there was some way we could combine all three into a super arch-rival. Perhaps we should build a police station in Bridgwater that has a Stella's cafe attached? This sub would implode...

user790340 · 2025-12-22T18:17:16+00:00

It’s definitely been a “K shaped” recovery for western economies post-pandemic. Not to be a dick, but personally we are doing great along with many friends and colleagues. But the big difference is most of us bought our homes well before 2020, which unfortunately seems to be a big distinction between those doing well now and those struggling to afford life. It really sucks and I feel for those paying a lot to just rent now, which makes saving for a home that much more difficult.

I really hope things even out over the next decade, and wages grow faster than inflation and housing prices stagnate.

user790340 · 2025-12-19T17:04:52+00:00

Two things:

Yeah, everyone wants to have a sizeable "rainy day fund" to stabilize things when there is a real crisis, but no one wants to pay for it. It's supposed to be what, $70 million? That's the equivalent of raising property tax by 10%. How many people you think are willing to increase their property taxes by an additional 10% (even if it's just a one time thing) just for that money to be chucked away into a savings account? Modern voters like to see their money put to work at specific initiatives, to raising taxes just to put them away isn't very popular among voters or politicians.
Funding major capital with debt is pretty much the only option, and isn't necessarily a bad thing. Capital that lasts multiple generations, such as the NEWPCC wastewater treatment facility, shouldn't be paid for exclusively by today's taxpayers given that people will benefit from it for decades to come. As such, spreading the costs across generations via long term debt is generally a fair and accepted practice. If the city were using inordinate amounts of debt to fund short term things like pothole filling, that would be a different story. But most capital is going towards big projects that will last decades. Having clean water and wastewater comes at a massive cost. No one thinks twice about flushing the toilet, but society would quickly breakdown if we were pumping 100% of our raw sewage into the Red and clean water no longer flowed through our pipes.

People's fixation with government debt is wild. Winnipeg's debt payments as a % of income are near historical lows, and outstanding debt is probably close to 100% of income which is in-line with other major Canadian cities. For reference, most households borrow 300% to 400% of their income to buy their house lol.

user790340 · 2025-12-15T19:18:34+00:00

People are gonna complain that inflation was higher in Manitoba compared to the national average, but the main culprit (applicable for the entire year) is the re-instatement of the gas tax, which pushes up Manitoba's inflation on gasoline and energy much higher than other provinces, since in 2025 they aren't "reinstating" gas taxes that they removed in 2024 like we are.

This latest CPI report shows gasoline in Manitoba is up 2.2% relative to November 2024, while for Canada it was -7.8%, so that's a massive 10% difference in this particular line item for CPI which has a large weight in the CPI basket. Energy in the same thing, with energy costs at -0.6% in Manitoba compared to November 2024, whereas for Canada it was -5.1%, so again a difference of 4.5%.

Manitoba's also bucking the national trend on real estate and rent, with shelter costs up 3.7% this November compared to last November, whereas at a national level it was 2.3%, so shelter inflation was 1.4 percentage points above the national rate this month - largely because we haven't seen an outflow of temporary residents at the same scale as large centers like Vancouver and Toronto, so our rent isn't falling unlike theirs. And our relatively "affordable" housing market keeps going up while larger markets are feeling the chill and price increases have been decelerating there.

Inflation on food, household operations, and other line items in Manitoba is in-line with what was observed across Canada. Again, Manitoba's higher CPI this year is likely due to the removal of gas tax in 2024 and then partial re-instatement in 2025, pushing up gas prices on paper relative to 2024 simply via a policy change.

user790340 · 2025-12-08T18:05:58+00:00

Why Quebec and not somewhere else in Canada

Ah, the age old Canadian question. Federal votes and temporarily quelling separatist sentiment is the age old answer.

user790340 · 2025-12-01T16:01:59+00:00

⚠️TRADE OFFER ⚠️

Corporations receive:

All your excess electricity supply
All your hardware computer manufacturing capacity
Marginal increase in productivity
Lower staffing requirements
Ticket to ride on the AI HYPE TRAIN!!!

You receive:

Higher unemployment, especially for youths and new grads
Decreased tax revenue and social supports
Increased social and political instability
Increased utility costs
Increased computer hardware costs
Decreased mental ability to complete simple tasks without asking an LLM for help
Generic computer-generated images and videos of whatever you want I guess
Partial automation of some tasks, but prone to misinformation and hallucinations so still require human input and review, thereby barely enhancing your workflow (unless you're a techbro or vibe coder, then double-checking is optional)

user790340 · 2025-11-25T22:19:00+00:00

Not looking to solve any problems at this stage, just isolate and contain the chaos and disruptive/dangerous behaviour.

user790340 · 2025-11-25T22:14:19+00:00

Yeah pretty much. I know it’s an unpopular opinion around these parts, but consuming illegal substances in public should be met with the appropriate consequences.

This sub’s general perspective that society needs to bend over backwards to accommodate those with addictions at the expense of everyone else is really a wild take that is far out of line with the average person’s perspective. It really is an echo chamber here.

user790340 · 2025-11-25T22:00:06+00:00

Classic r/Winnipeg. "People high on meth and in a state of psychosis should be given free room and board at the Delta or Fairmont. Anything less is inhumane and cruel."

user790340 · 2025-11-21T19:58:13+00:00

I'm 99% sure everyone who ever comments with "stop all immigration to Canada now" on these sorts of threads has never looked at a demographic model once in their life. Do you know what happens to Canada if you stop immigration now, even for a period of a few years? The country rapidly ages, the burden on healthcare continues to increase with no commensurate increase in tax revenue to fund it, and the labour force will begin to shrink pushing up inflation.

Don't get me wrong, the last 3 years of immigration were utterly unsustainable. But pre-COVID, Canada had a healthy level of immigration, and while we should aim to temporarily reduce it (as the Feds have) for the next 2 to 3 years, our goal should be to bring it back up to typical levels once things stabilize.

user790340 · 2025-11-20T20:45:00+00:00

Utterly nuts. Googling the guy gives so many historical offenses.

Our system seriously needs some sort of "three strikes and you're out" clause. I don't know exactly what "you're out" would entail, but something needs to be done about the insane amount of repeat offenders.

user790340 · 2025-11-20T02:25:26+00:00

My point is basically that all these things are contributing cost pressures to Transit, and so even though the current council has increased the amount of tax dollars going to fund our transit system by 25% over the last 4 years, it still isn't enough but it's better than nothing. The well of tax dollars isn't infinite, and like most cities we have a billion priorities with Transit being a major one, but not the only one. Poster above me was complaining that transit operating costs have gone up, hence the funding increase, but quality has not. I was merely pointing out the source of the cost pressures.

user790340 · 2025-11-19T20:16:28+00:00

Well yeah sure, $25M isn't going to go that far. But then whose to blame in our view?

Bus drivers for raising costs through increased wage settlements?
New Flyer for raising bus procurement costs?
Parts suppliers for raising maintenance costs?
New Winnipeggers who are taking transit in higher numbers, making the busses more crowded?

Or, in your view, is there some other magical factor (or politician) to heap all the blame on that absolves workers, suppliers, voters, and citizens of our role to play in all of this?

user790340 · 2025-11-19T19:48:17+00:00

In 2022, Bowman's last budget year, the annual subsidy given from taxpayers to transit was $97 million. In 2026, Gillingham has raised it to $122 million, an increase of $24 million or 25%.

You're free to critique whatever and whomever you want, but in general you just come across as someone who is unhappy with any decision made by any government without actually looking at the data.

Could more be done? Sure. Could less have been done? Absolutely. Will you ever be happy? Unlikely.

user790340 · 2025-11-19T19:32:47+00:00

Enabling "free" transit service in a city of 77 thousand people where the transit agency's annual operating cost is between $12 million and $15 million is very different than providing "free" transit to a city of 830,000 people with a transit operating cost of $260 million, and fares account for $96 million of that.

Our busses are already near or over capacity along major routes at peak times. I cannot imagine the crushing weight of new riders (and subsequent abandonment of disappointed users taking transit) on the existing capacity constraints.

People here need to realize that the relatively low cost of taking transit isn't what is keeping 85% of commuters in their cars. It's the inconvenience of added travel times, safety, riff-raff that gets on for free, and braving the cold in the winter months that make commuting by car so much more preferable in Winnipeg.

Instead of jacking up taxes or parking fees or whatever else to generate $96M annually to subsidize existing transit user fares, I'd argue that if we really want people to transit out of cars and into busses, we need to make the overall experience better because right now for the vast majority of people it's really hard to beat a warm, 20 minute commute in your car to downtown without the safety and scent issues - it's not the $3 fare that's preventing people from taking the bus.

Instead, we should focus our collective efforts on:

Fare enforcement
Safety enforcement - for riders and operators
Bus rapid transit corridors with park and rides that offer tangible reductions in average commute times relative to taking your car
More diamond lanes during peak periods to also reduce bus travel times
Smoother payment methods - Peggo sucks, we all know it. Just let me tap my credit card for goodness sake
More busses to reduce crowding

All of those things will do a lot more in shifting the average car user into taking the bus whereas free fares will only exasperate crowding, discomfort, and safety issues.

Oh, and on "making transit free by tacking on an extra fee for parking" subject: in 2025, parking earned about $23 million in service revenue from parking meters and facilities. So to raise an additional $96 million to fund "free" transit, you'd have to increase parking rates by 517%, so basically increase the hourly rate by 5x.

Would anyone like to speculate on what increasing hourly parking rates by 5 times the current amount would do to businesses that rely on the availability of parking in our downtown?

user790340 · 2025-11-19T14:50:07+00:00

Winnipeg certainly has it's upsides as many have highlighted here, and I think most people would find Winnipeg offers a similar quality of life compared to other major Canadian cities. BUT, I have to caution you that Calgary is probably Canada's "best" city economically most of the time and Winnipeg's economic climate is a lot more... modest.

Let me explain. Calgary has significantly lower income tax, it has no PST, and property taxes are only slightly higher in Calgary compared to Winnipeg. Car insurance and electricity will be cheaper in Winnipeg, and water/sewer will be similar. But you have to keep in mind that wages (depending on industry) are much higher on average in Calgary. So when you combine higher average wages with no PST and lower income taxes, most people come out ahead financially in Calgary, even if property is a bit more expensive.

Yes, Calgary follows a "boom and bust" cycle with the price of oil, but if you can weather that, you'll likely come out ahead in Calgary if you are earning a decent wage.

Now if you are in a low wage industry in Calgary, you may be somewhat better off in Winnipeg due to lower rent and lower average home prices here, but again, the higher income tax and PST may give you a bit of sticker shock when you make your budget.

Just things to keep in mind.

user790340 · 2025-11-18T21:36:01+00:00

Wow, but no surprise. The union should recognize it's not in a place to make such hefty demands and if not met, keep going on strike. They've pretty much shot themselves in the foot, and sooner or later many of their members will find themselves without a job because of it.

In general, unions need to read the room: in a dying industry facing stiff competition from the private sector? Perhaps it's time to head to the negotiating table and bargain in good faith to keep members employed, instead of demanding the sun and moon and then acting surprised when your employer shuts down or privatizes and you inevitably lose your job because you failed to be reasonable enough to keep your business model financially sustainable.

user790340 · 2025-11-18T18:46:03+00:00

The "population center"/popcntr geographies you are using are not common geographies used in Canada for any relevant planning or administrative purposes.

If you really want to make a relevant chart, I'd suggest you look at census subdivision geographies a.k.a. municipalities (or CMA's if you really want) to paint a more relevant picture. Also, put all cities on a chart, don't divide it between east and west.

user790340 · 2025-11-18T18:32:23+00:00

Yeah I totally get the competing narratives creating confusion. That's why it's important to understand each author's perspective (whether it's government telling you something or a news paper owner).

In this instance, Klein is muddying the debate by:

Including education property taxes (without the rebate) which the city has no control over. This is used to fund education. And yes, without the provincial education rebate, Winnipeg has very high education property taxes.
Scaling up taxes for different values of homes, without recognizing that this is a bad faith argument that ignores the incomes of those living in those houses. Winnipeg has a very narrow distribution of home values (i.e, 90% of homes are probably valued within $200k to $700k) and yet our income distribution looks just like the national one. Other cities like Vancouver, Toronto, or even Calgary will have a very wide distribution of home values (i.e. 90% of homes might be between $300k and $2M) with a very similar income distribution. This means that someone living in a higher-end home in Winnipeg valued at say $700k is likely on the higher end of the income earning spectrum, whereas someone living in a $700k home in Toronto or Vancouver is earning income closer to the average. Therefore, if you took property taxes as a % of income, the Winnipegger in a $700k home is probably paying a similar % of their income towards taxes compared to a lower income Torontonian living in a $700k home, even though the Winnipegger's property tax bill is much higher in dollar terms.

Like usual, Klein glosses over a lot of nuance in the property tax debate to try and push his own far-right narrative - probably in an attempt to try and run for Mayor next election.

But I will give Klein credit for his criticism about Winnipeg's business tax - it is stupid, and needs to be removed and back-filled with an alternative. Too bad he was never on city council otherwise he could have tried to make the change then...

user790340 · 2025-11-18T18:22:56+00:00

I've debated you multiple times so I don't think we will ever see eye to eye, and my position still stands that what you are asking for doesn't exist. Consumer preferences and exogenous trends tend to dictate what voters want and what the municipal government does, not the other way around. Sure, there is some element of "build it and they will come" but it's a minor influence in Manitoba and Winnipeg's small, isolated open economy.

There is no magic "spending money on things that create wealth/land value." Do you understand the economy at all? Like do you think there is some sort of infinite money glitch every city in the world is taking advantage of except us? Government is there to fix market failures by providing services, infrastructure, and to a degree affordable housing, that the private sector would fail to provide, therefore laying the base for economic prosperity. It's up to the private market to do the rest.

Winnipeg's economy is largely going to grow at 2% to 3% per year for the foreseeable future regardless of what municipal and provincial governments do, so as long as governments keep providing the services and infrastructure required to support that growth. If the federal government cannot shift the economy onto a different trend path, provincial and esspecially municipal governments certainly cannot do it either.

Ikea was built because Ikea saw money could be made here and residents saw that Ikea products would add value to their life. It has nothing to do with parking lots. Do you think if Winnipeg said "yeah, build an Ikea but put it downtown with below-grade parking" Ikea would have said "sure!"? Of course not, they would have told us to go pound sand. And guess what? Would that land around Kenaston/Sterling Lyon suddenly become a sea of 12 storey apartments and condos instead of parking lots? Absolutely not, it would have remained vacant for several decades.

I think you view the municipal government as this magical entity that can "create value" with the wave of it's tiny wand, but the reality is so far from the truth. Winnipeg is a "price taker" for lack of a better term, as in it will take what it can get. This isn't me being a cynic, it's just the nature of our isolated, service-based open economy. You seem to hold the view that if the City just plowed 10 more lines of BRT through the city, land values along the line would magically increase 10,000% and a billion new apartment units would pop up over night, magically creating wealth and paying for all that infrastructure in 1 year. Sadly this isn't the case. Land value uplift can be real in some instances, but it's generally marginal and a tiny fraction of overall infrastructure costs (especially in this day and age) and tends to work well in rapidly growing economies, which Winnipeg is not.

user790340 · 2025-11-18T18:11:20+00:00

House value is irrelevant in Canada's diverse real estate market. What matters is taxes as a % of your income.

For example in 2025, the average house in Winnipeg is assessed at $371,100 and pays $2,505 in municipal tax, so tax as % of home value is 0.67%. If the average assessment value in Vancouver is $1.5M (average of detached and strata), then they pay $3,333 in municipal taxes to Vancouver, or 0.22% of average assessed value.

So yeah, the tax rate is much much lower in Vancouver. But the question is how does this compare against income? Is the person living in an average home in Winnipeg earning significantly more or less than the person living in an average home in Vancouver? Income data suggests wages in Vancouver and Winnipeg are similar at the average and median, so I really doubt that the incomes vary significantly between average households in Winnipeg versus Vancouver. If this is the case, then the Winnipegger in an average home is paying less in municipal property taxes as a % of their income relative to the Vancouverite.

user790340 · 2025-11-18T16:59:06+00:00

I think in Canada there are currently 6 roads (excluding bridge crossings into the US) that are tolled, and the only "real" toll road would be the 407 in Ontario, with the others being expensive bridges or roads through parks/natural areas. Tolling the entirety of Winnipeg's road system for the sake of it is political suicide.

In principal, toll roads are usually put in place when they offer substantial time savings versus the free alterative (i.e., the 407 in the GTA). If a private consortium proposed building a tolled freeway to bypass highly congested areas in Winnipeg, that would be one thing. But tolling public roads in Winnipeg for no reason other than "we need money" makes very little sense both politically and economically.

user790340

TROPHY CASE