Canada's Flawed Unemployment Stats

[Hydraboss]

The Latest number of people collecting EI is 778,000 for an unemployment rate of 8.6%. If that represents the actual percentage of people out of 34 million people working Canada is in Deep Deep Trouble. That stat shows a working population of only 9 million. Only 25% of the people in Canada work? What is up with That?

EI stats are complete bullshit when taken in certain context. Someone already said that the answer you get is based on the question you ask. Take for example, the Alberta unemployment rate:

The June 2009 numbers show Alberta to have a rate of 6.8%. Stats Can

In 2008 when there were so many jobs in the province that employers were flying people in from all over the country AND STILL couldn't fill anywhere near all the available positions, the rate was touted to be 3.6%. Alberta Gov Stats

The 2008 number (up 0.1% from 2007) clearly shows that those people that make up the 3.6% DIDN'T WANT TO WORK. So why are they on the stats? The current number should deduct those people giving an effective rate in Alberta of 3.2%. May not be 100% accurate, but it's a hell of a lot closer.

Mathematically 778000 out of 16 million people is a smaller percentage of unemployed. The problem with unemployment is once you exhaust your benefits you are no longer counted in the unemployment statistic. That could explain the difference between 16 million and 9 million counted as the work force.

If a person's EI ran out, that means they have already collected a year's worth of cash. That year places them back in the spring/summer of 2008 BEFORE the "big crash" and the "massive layoffs". The recession has nothing to do with their needing EI.

[Keepitsimple]

7 million under the age of 19

6 million over 65

Then there's all those wiimin....taking time off work to have babies..lazy good for nothin's

I just love your clever wit. Boy, the guy who started this thread sure had a bee in his uninformed bonnet. I think he was implying that he didn't like the Conservatives. I wonder what party he DOES like?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I am not a big tent party guy either. Even so, cooked books are the perception the public gets, no doubt fueled by opposition MP's whenever things are not going well. When things are going well the story isn't much different because then folks look for lumps under the carpet.

We simply need a different approach to politics. We need a focus and a goal, we need to do something and get it done. One thing at a time and come out with a win. This needs to happen folks.

[madmax]

It was the Liberals that stole form EI.

If you take the position that the Liberals stole from EI.. as I do... then until the Conservatives put back the $8 Billion that they stole to give away to corporations like John Deere as a Golden Handshake, then they too are theives and accomplisses in the theft of Billions from ordinary people.

I agree that the unemployment stats are misleading though. They make the situation look much worse than it really is.

The stats are misleading.. but they can be compared relative to the period of 13 years years ago to today.

Bottom line... its still bad... with ALberta leading the way in increased EI claims... the numbers are brutal.

[madmax]

No one stole from EI (both parties took from it while in government), it's really just another tax as far as the aw is concerned. They did break the law in other ways related to EI though.

They STOLE from EI.... Used the money for to give to the Banks, Oil Companies, and Large Corporate Friends.

They reduced the ability to claim EI... essentially this 3 card monty bait and switch was an ignorant Liberal scheme that the Conservatives continued with until challenged by the UFCW.

[madmax]

I'd much rather have new roads than an insurance fund I'll never be able to draw on.

You have a crystal ball?

[madmax]

Tell that to the Supreme Court. They'll tell you that you're wrong. It's a tax paid to the government, it simply has a special name.

No.. I will tell it to the goddamn government who created the system and what its purpose was for and what it was designed to do. Just because the Liberals noticed the LOOPHOLE back in 1996 and the Conservatives also enjoyed the benefits of that loophole, thus joining the rush to steal from EI and to Divert the funds to their friends.

Yes, EI had a massive surplus... now gone... there were three things that the government could have done.

1) Expand it back to the levels when more people were eligible to collect that pay into it.

2) if not expand it, then lower the EI payroll taxes as they were raking in the surpluses and it was the government denying people the right to collect EI.

3) Leave the fund alone for a rainy day... (look... its raining)...

The Supreme Court rules by law...that doesn't mean the action wasn't both immoral and criminal.

disgraceful...

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Yeah they could have done any of those things, but they didn't and we have no say in how they manage the affairs of state.

[whowhere]

That's a very misleading way of looking at it. The unemployment rate implies that those are people who are actively looking for work. You are proposing lumping in all the people who either can't or don't want to work. If someone isn't even in the job market, what is the value in including them in stats that are specifically to show the health of that market?

It makes sense that one probably should be able to calculate what that number might be, but it's a different statistic.

Unemployed is Unemployed. If there is an able person between 18 and 65 and revenue Canada has no record of this person paying EI and other payroll deductions and is not registered as part of a business then that person has to be included in the umemployment statistic and documented.

All the conservatives are doing is lying to the Canadian people as to what the true unemployment is. What this show is is Stats Can is nothing more than a propoganda spinster for the conservatives.

[tango]

QUOTE (Bryan @ Jul 28 2009, 08:26 PM) *

That's a very misleading way of looking at it. The unemployment rate implies that those are people who are actively looking for work. You are proposing lumping in all the people who either can't or don't want to work. If someone isn't even in the job market, what is the value in including them in stats that are specifically to show the health of that market?

It makes sense that one probably should be able to calculate what that number might be, but it's a different statistic.

Unemployed is Unemployed. If there is an able person between 18 and 65 and revenue Canada has no record of this person paying EI and other payroll deductions and is not registered as part of a business then that person has to be included in the umemployment statistic and documented.

All the conservatives are doing is lying to the Canadian people as to what the true unemployment is. What this show is is Stats Can is nothing more than a propoganda spinster for the conservatives.

Bryan is right of course. We calculate "unemployment" to find out how many people need jobs. We can also count all those who don't need jobs, but that's for a different purpose.

We can count all the independently wealthy who do not need employment, and their spouses and adult children. We can count all the moms and dads working in the home, choosing to live on one spouse's income. We can count all the full time students over 18, and those retired on a pension under 65. Those on permanent disability, you've excluded, but at any given time there are many temporarily disabled that we could count too.

We do count them for "unemployment" when they are again actively looking for work.

[Visionseeker]

No it is an insurance which we pay into. Someone stole from it becuase it is not a tax the government can raid. More book cooking.

It's not really insurance because, if it were, 1- premiums would be based on relative risk (i.e. the volatility of the field of work would affect the premiums paid) and 2- self employed people would be able to participate.

EI is a tax under another name.

[Visionseeker]

It is a tax though. Just like CPP.

CPP is not in the same boat as EI. It is not a tax, but an entitlement to all who contributed and reach a certain age. That makes it more of a lottery really.

[Visionseeker]

I regulary work between 45-55 hours per week without overtime, or lunches, or coffee breaks - get real. I even take my laptio home with me at all times. Interestingly, my ex-wife is an "administrative assistant" (she's a pretty good typist I suppose) and she was paid in excess of $60k last year. Not bad for a glorified secretary who doesn't even need to know shorthand... Especially when I don't know shorthand either.

Bitter, much?

[Cato]

The EI contribution can not be seen as a tax: it will be paid by exactly those, who are the beneficiaries of the system. The fact, that the Liberals have used it in their "debt reduction" sham plays no role in this question; the federal government (i.e. the federal taxpayer) is responsible for supporting the unemployed, no matter if the collected funds are enough or not.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The EI contribution can not be seen as a tax: it will be paid by exactly those, who are the beneficiaries of the system. The fact, that the Liberals have used it in their "debt reduction" sham plays no role in this question; the federal government (i.e. the federal taxpayer) is responsible for supporting the unemployed, no matter if the collected funds are enough or not.

I am not sure about this argument. I see it as a deduction from my paycheck, which is the same thing as a tax, to me anyway.

[whowhere]

The EI contribution can not be seen as a tax

Yes it can be because the money goes directly into the General Revenues of the Government

[whowhere]

Bryan is right of course. We calculate "unemployment" to find out how many people need jobs. We can also count all those who don't need jobs, but that's for a different purpose.

We can count all the independently wealthy who do not need employment, and their spouses and adult children. We can count all the moms and dads working in the home, choosing to live on one spouse's income. We can count all the full time students over 18, and those retired on a pension under 65. Those on permanent disability, you've excluded, but at any given time there are many temporarily disabled that we could count too.

We do count them for "unemployment" when they are again actively looking for work.

How does the government know if you are actively looking for work or not?

The Unemployment stats is a sham. According to the papers 800 hundred thousand are collecting and the rate of unemployment is 8.4 %. Canada only has 10 million people working? What a crock of shit that stat is.

Similarily in the US, 6 million people are collecting Employment Insurance and their unemployment rate is supposedly 9%. Really, so the US only employs 70 million people.

Holy batman, perhaps this is a conspiracy of the governments and media to intentionally depress the spirits of the people. I already know how corrupt Canada is and when I say corrupt I point my finger at the people.

In life one has to correlate their life experience with the lay of the land. I know I have taken it on the chin in every economic downturn since 1992. I have chronically been afflicted and abused by the employment market. For these reasons I have sought out to understand the underpinnings of life rather than focus on building skills and abilities.

Not my fault really, it's because of the character of you people. I regret my life in Canada and I regret I am being held hostage by the corrupt. What can I do but lick my wounds and continue to take measures to baricade and insulate myself from the human trash I am among.

Not much of a life really but I know from my analysis of life you people have no basis to deserve or will get anything more than what you are at this moment. Enjoy your fleeting vain lives.

In case I never have a chance to tell each and every person good bye and good ridance I do so, now.

[tango]

Yes it can be because the money goes directly into the General Revenues of the Government

I don't care what we call it, but going into gen revs really p's me off!

It's meant to support people on EI, not raise money for the government.

[punked]

I don't care what we call it, but going into gen revs really p's me off!

It's meant to support people on EI, not raise money for the government.

That is what I will be telling people at the door when campaigning this month. Thank you Liberals for bringing up an issue you started, and giving us all the fodder we need against you and the Conservatives.

[Cato]

I see it as a deduction from my paycheck, which is the same thing as a tax, to me anyway.

CPP contribution too will be deducted from your paycheck; that is not a tax either. What about the union due?

Yes it can be because the money goes directly into the General Revenues of the Government

That means nothing. The general revenue is made up of income from many sources, like:

- income taxes from corporations and individuals

- property taxes

- consumption taxes

- custom duties

- health insurance contributions

- licences (natural resource usage, motor vehicles)

- fees (their list is endless)

- sale of goods and services (crown corporations)

- investment income

The point with the EI contribution is, that it is connected to specific obligations of the government. This is in contrast to for example the federal fuel tax, which was declared to go towards road and bridge repair and construction, but this declaration is not in the actual law. Accordingly, the government decided to spend that income on everything but road and bridge repair/construction.

It happened just a few years ago, when Martin was in BC before the election (which he lost, luckily) and representants of the BC municipalities were asking for at least part of that money, because the federal government did not fulfill its obligations (this was part of the sham of the Liberal "debt reduction"). Martin's answer was sorry, but that is a tax, i.e. the government has no obligation to spend it a certain way.

On the other hand, I concede that this is rather a semantic issue. One could say the EI is a tax in good times (when the unemployment is low) and a burden in bad times.