Jobs go up 58k in April

[Topaz]

Recent report says jobs are up 58,000 but Ontario, Manitoba and Nova Scotia are still low and the Governor may think more seriously of raising rates but I think it would be a mistake to do so because it would hit provinces like the three above to more hardship. Also, can the federal government take credit for increase in jobs, if the provinces are responsible for them? Isn't their area the federal civil workers and the military? Right now, jobs are being loss there. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/economy-adds-58-200-jobs-labour-force-rise-124525373.html

[Boges]

I can renew my mortgage next month. After that I hope the interest rates go up a bit so I can get a bit more return on my savings.

58,000 is pretty good no?

[Boges]

Actually this is terrific news if you consider this.

http://www.newstalk1010.com/News/localnews/blogentry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10382405

In fact, the number of employees rose by 66,600 and the private sector added 85,800 as government jobs fell by 19,200.

The last two months has seen a reversal in the jobs picture between Canada and the United States, with the labour market strengthening north of the border but softening in the U.S.

Over the past year, Canada has added 214,000 new jobs.

By industry, Statistics Canada said construction added the most workers, 24,600, followed by manufacturing, 23,800, welcome news in an export-dependent sector that has been struggling due to weak foreign markets and the high Canadian dollar.

[mentalfloss]

Canadian employers have churned out more than 140,000 jobs in the past two months, a welcome change after half a year of little job creation. The key question is whether the hiring burst will last.

April's 58,200 jobs gain show demand is picking up on the goods side of the economy as the construction, manufacturing, natural resources and agriculture industries add to headcount.

The big employment increases are not even. Once again, the resource-rich areas of the country are showing sturdy gains while Ontario in particular is struggling. Public administration positions declined, reflecting reduced spending in the sector.

More people looking for work sent the country's jobless rate up a notch to 7.3 per cent from 7.2 per cent a month earlier, Statistics Canada said Friday.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/jobs/economy-posts-biggest-back-to-back-job-gains-in-30-years/article2429685/

Edited May 11, 2012 by mentalfloss

[Boges]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/jobs/economy-posts-biggest-back-to-back-job-gains-in-30-years/article2429685/

Another thread about this.

[mentalfloss]

I don't see it.. is it in another subforum?

Edit: Ah - economiez forum.

Edited May 11, 2012 by mentalfloss

[Boges]

I don't see it.. is it in another subforum?

It's a thread called "Jobs"

More talking about rumours of interest rates going up.

Anyway theses jobs numbers are really good.

Especially considering more private sector jobs were created and the overall numbers were less because 20,000 public sector jobs were lost.

[mentalfloss]

It's a thread called "Jobs"

More talking about rumours of interest rates going up.

Anyway theses jobs numbers are really good.

Especially considering more private sector jobs were created and the overall numbers were less because 20,000 public sector jobs were lost.

Losing public sector jobs is good?

[Boges]

Losing public sector jobs is good?

As a Conservative I'd say so.

I think the public sector is bloated and a major strain in the economy. With the huge federal deficit some austerity is needed.

[mentalfloss]

As a Conservative I'd say so.

I think the public sector is bloated and a major strain in the economy. With the huge federal deficit some austerity is needed.

Yea, but it depends on what jobs and who got laid off.

I wouldn't just pronounce that as some sort of victory.

[Signals.Cpl]

Losing public sector jobs is good?

Public sector is not welfare, if the jobs are not required then they should be removed.

[mentalfloss]

Public sector is not welfare, if the jobs are not required then they should be removed.

Sorry, maybe I haven't made myself clear.

Just because jobs are lost, doesn't mean they weren't required. Where is it shown that these jobs are not required?

[Boges]

Where is it shown that these jobs are not required?

Where was it shown they were?

Public Sector Unions are going to make it look like every CUPE job is sacrosanct.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Boges

[CPCFTW]

Of course losing 20k public sector jobs is good in the context of these numbers. It means 78k private sector jobs were created. 78k more jobs contributing to the public purse (or reducing costs to the public purse), instead of 20k jobs suckling on the teat of private sector taxpayers.

[mentalfloss]

Where was it shown they were?

Without any evidence to show whether or not these jobs were reasonable and necessary, I wouldn't make any assumption about whether or not this is good news.

[Signals.Cpl]

Sorry, maybe I haven't made myself clear.

Just because jobs are lost, doesn't mean they weren't required. Where is it shown that these jobs are not required?

Where does it say they were required in the first place? The federal governments job is to provide services in the most efficient way possible.

[mentalfloss]

Where does it say they were required in the first place? The federal governments job is to provide services in the most efficient way possible.

Right. So how does an arbitrary number of jobs lost prove that?

[Signals.Cpl]

Right. So how does an arbitrary number of jobs lost prove that?

How do you know its just an arbitrary number? Im assuming someone somewhere sat down and determined which jobs are required and which are not.You are assuming they are required and thats in arbitrary number.

[mentalfloss]

How do you know its just an arbitrary number? Im assuming someone somewhere sat down and determined which jobs are required and which are not.You are assuming they are required and thats in arbitrary number.

No, I said there was no evidence to show either way. Which is why one cannot assume whether or not the loss of jobs would be good news.

[Signals.Cpl]

No, I said there was no evidence to show either way. Which is why one cannot assume whether or not the loss of jobs would be good news.

Well I am making an assumption. I am assuming that someone decided the jobs were non essential to the governments ability to provide services and it was not someone who picked jobs to be eliminated out of a hat.

[Shakeyhands]

Great news, however it also said unemployment nudged up a tiny bit...?

[mentalfloss]

Well I am making an assumption. I am assuming that someone decided the jobs were non essential to the governments ability to provide services and it was not someone who picked jobs to be eliminated out of a hat.

I don't think those jobs were picked randomly either.

[Boges]

Great news, however it also said unemployment nudged up a tiny bit...?

Because more people started looking for work. Employment figures seem so unreliable because when it goes down people say it's because people stopped looking for work.

There should be an index measuring employed people.

[Signals.Cpl]

I don't think those jobs were picked randomly either.

Then you agree there must be a reason to eliminate those jobs, thus someone decided we get the same or better level of service from less people. Could eliminate a whole level of unnecessary bureaucracy in some departments.

[Boges]

More to the point about the public sector job losses. The figure this month is 58k but it's closer to 80k private sector jobs created and 20k public sector jobs lost.

That's a good thing.