Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

OMG, look at the price of food in Nunavut (pics incl'd.)


Recommended Posts

Luckily they live in one of the richest nations of the first world!

Rest of the country does not breed very well either. Except in the opposite direction,

In 2005/2006, only three provinces and one territory experienced higher population growth than the 10.0 people per 1,000 inhabitants recorded in Canada as a whole: Alberta (29.5 per 1,000), British Columbia (12.3 per 1,000), Ontario (10.2 per 1,000) and Nunavut (24.4 per 1,000).

For the fourteenth consecutive year, Newfoundland and Labrador saw its population fall in 2005/2006, resulting in a negative growth rate (-8.4 per 1,000). The growth rates of the other provinces ranged from -4.6 people per 1,000 inhabitants in Saskatchewan to 7.1 per 1,000 in Quebec.

http://www41.statcan...867_000-eng.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some very strange numbers from Northwest on this issue. They claim to have an earnings of 5.6% of revenue, meaning their expenses account for 94.4% of their prices. They go on to say that Costs of Goods Sold is half of their expenses, and freight is a further 13.5%.

Lets take a look at what they are saying, given the example of a $100 pack of bottled water:

$47.20 - cost of acquiring or producing the bottled water

$12.74 - freight cost to deliver the bottled water

$34.46 - other costs (my guess, higher inventory and warehousing costs given lack of infrastructure up north, higher wages, etc)

$5.60 - profit

They do say that it depends on the product itself, the percentages will change depending on what item you are looking at, but their numbers appear to be highly suspect. I find it hard to believe that the cost of goods sold is 50% of their expenses, there is no way it costs them $47.20 to acquire a pack of bottled water down south, for some other products this breakdown would make sense.

I think further inquiry into their COGS is necessary, as sometimes it is difficult to determine what is included. For example:

Farm operation grows some food, it costs $200 for them to produce.

Farm operation ships food up north, costing $800 in freight.

Farm sells food to Northwest for $1000, Northwest refers to this price as the cost to acquire the food.

Northwest ships the food the rest of the way north, costing $100 freight.

Northwest then analyzes their costs as $1000 for the food itself, and $100 for freight.

In reality, it cost $900 for freight in this example, and only $200 for the food itself, but it is reasonable that Northwest may record the transaction as a $1000 cost for the food itself, and $100 to deliver it. This may account for their unreasonably high COGS, but if this is the case, they should be 100% willing to share this information, time will tell if this is the case, or if something else is causing COGS to be so high.

However, I would say that if Northwest is only making 5.6% profit, and they can readily prove this, then this is going to be a very difficult problem to solve. Perhaps it really is just far too expensive to support a population in the far north. Given that relocation is generally undesirable, there may be little that can be done other than continually fork over a boatload of money to pay for an unsustainable situation. Usually when a corporation acts in an unsustainable manner, the people will jump all over them and call for their heads, but I don`t see that happening here - given we are talking about people, who are generally allowed to be as unsustainable as they want.

Fun times.

Link, posted earlier in the thread, that discusses expenses/revenues.

http://www.huffingto..._n_1588144.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wetcoaster has a way of holding people guilty by association of race.

And he says we lack education and knowledge of the Constitution and law.  He seems to be lacking some serious early childhood common sense education of not holding people guilty by association.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really know either. If the numbers include migration, they only further support my claim that Canadians don't populate very well. I thought you were questioning the population growth so I linked the graph showing decline in natural growth. Sorry, I'm kinda lost now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Upon a few minutes of reflection, I would say compromise is in order. I think that if people in Nunavut want the rest of Canada to look for ways we can change our lives or make sacrifices in order to help them, then they must also be willing to look for ways they can change their lives or make sacrifices in order to improve the situation.

We can make things much easier on them in the form of subsidy, but they can also make sacrifices that will make subsidizing far less painful. I think that unless both sides are willing to give something up, this problem will never be solved. This may mean more subsidy going up north than some people are comfortable with, but it may also mean more natives relocating or reforming their lives than some are comfortable with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...