mentalfloss Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 (edited) 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. No, that would be an assumption. It could be that they were cut simply to save money, but there is no evidence to show that there is any redundancy or unnecessary level of service before those jobs were cut. Edited May 11, 2012 by mentalfloss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 but there is no evidence to show that there is any redundancy or unnecessary level of service before those jobs were cut. Really? None? Every government job is completely necessary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mentalfloss Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 (edited) Really? None? Every government job is completely necessary? Not at all. That's why we need more information on which jobs were cut, the reasons for it, the cost-savings from cutting and the repercussions to levels of service coming from those layoffs. I thought these criteria should be obvious by now in order for us to determine the appropriate jobs to cut. Just look at what's happening in Newfoundland, where people who need medical advise are routed to Italians who can't speak English. All because we decided to cut jobs without a proper assessment of occupational requirements prior to the layoff. Edited May 11, 2012 by mentalfloss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Not at all. That's why we need more information on which jobs were cut, the reasons for it, the cost-savings from cutting and the repercussions to levels of service coming from those layoffs. I thought these criteria should be obvious by now in order for us to determine the appropriate jobs to cut. Just look at what's happening in Newfoundland, where people who need medical advise are routed to Italians who can't speak English. All because we decided to cut jobs that were actually necessary. So you want to know if every single one of those 20,000 jobs was necessary or unnecessary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted May 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Construction, its the time when construction starts up again and most of these jobs are probably going to be out West in Alberta and Saskatchewan. So how does this help the thousands of people out of work in the rest of the country? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 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. Yes people seem to be missing the point. You weren't saying that public sector jobs are bad (although I would argue that the marginal 20k jobs being cut would be bad were it not for unionization), but that private sector jobs are more desirable to an economy. That is not debatable, it is a fact that public sector jobs could not even exist without private taxpayers funding them, and that more private sector and less public sector jobs improves the prospects for balancing the budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Is it really surprising that manitoba, ns, and on lost jobs? Two ndp governments and Dalton? Is it really surprising that sask, ab gained jobs? Two conservative party governments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Good news is good news and I will take it. Although I do not think this can be attributed to anything other then good news in America. Our tide rises and falls with theirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Good news is good news and I will take it. Although I do not think this can be attributed to anything other then good news in America. Our tide rises and falls with theirs. Really? That explains a lot! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Good news is good news and I will take it. Although I do not think this can be attributed to anything other then good news in America. Our tide rises and falls with theirs. That isn't completely true. Canada has a very large domestic market as well, and the fact that we've managed to capitalize on the US market to the degree we have really has nothing to do with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 That isn't completely true. Canada has a very large domestic market as well, and the fact that we've managed to capitalize on the US market to the degree we have really has nothing to do with them. That might be the case, or it could be their economy is being saved right now and because of that our economy is being saved as well. Thank you left wing America for saving right wing Canada. I think us gaining jobs is great. Period end of story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 .... and the fact that we've managed to capitalize on the US market to the degree we have really has nothing to do with them. Gee, I wonder why it is called GM Canada? Or Ford Canada? Or Wal-Mart Canada? Or..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 That isn't completely true. Canada has a very large domestic market as well, and the fact that we've managed to capitalize on the US market to the degree we have really has nothing to do with them. And if the US economy collapses tomorrow our domestic market can support us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 And if the US economy collapses tomorrow our domestic market can support us? Nope we go down the tubes. Which is my point. The US is starting to make real gains providing real demand to us. Our government has very little to do with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 And if the US economy collapses tomorrow our domestic market can support us? Not to the level that we live now, no, but since the US market is worth about $600B to us, and out economy is in the range of $1.7T...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Not to the level that we live now, no, but since the US market is worth about $600B to us, and out economy is in the range of $1.7T...... You are counting dollars once here when most of them you need to count around 1.5 times. 600 billion into our economy then we spend much of the money a second time. The US market is worth around 70% of our economy which is down from the 80 percent it was 10 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Not to the level that we live now, no, but since the US market is worth about $600B to us, and out economy is in the range of $1.7T...... A lot of the imports support the domestic economy, the second the exports dry up we won't be able to support the imports needed to support the economy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 You are counting dollars once here when most of them you need to count around 1.5 times. 600 billion into our economy then we spend much of the money a second time. The US market is worth around 70% of our economy which is down from the 80 percent it was 10 years ago. No, you're confusing numbers. The US is about 70% of our export market, not our eveonomy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 A lot of the imports support the domestic economy, the second the exports dry up we won't be able to support the imports needed to support the economy And so we'd find new markets. Canada would continue to exist without the US...just not to the standard that it currently does. Like I said though, it's because of our good work that we've managed to capitalize on that market so well. We're not their only neighbour, after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mentalfloss Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 (edited) So you want to know if every single one of those 20,000 jobs was necessary or unnecessary? Considering we're all shareholders, yes. Edited May 11, 2012 by mentalfloss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 And so we'd find new markets. Canada would continue to exist without the US...just not to the standard that it currently does. Like I said though, it's because of our good work that we've managed to capitalize on that market so well. We're not their only neighbour, after all. Thats a big IF. The government already tried to spread in to other markets and discovered that its better to stick with the Americans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 (edited) Thats a big IF. The government already tried to spread in to other markets and discovered that its better to stick with the Americans. Governments don't spread to other markets, businesses do. Because of logistical reasons, the US market is the most convenient. That said, the trend over the last decade has been a smaller reliance on the US market. It's still somewhere between 60 - 70%, but it isn't the 75 - 90% that it once was. Edited May 11, 2012 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Governments don't spread to other markets, businesses do. Because of logistical reasons, the US market is the most convenient. That said, the trend over the last decade has been a smaller reliance on the US market. It's still somewhere between 60 - 70%, but it isn't the 75 - 90% that it once was. They spread in to other markets if they pave the way for the business community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 They spread in to other markets if they pave the way for the business community. It can happen either way. Governments don't create business. They can facilitate it, but often, real agreements and interest don't come on the part of government until there's already a great deal of two way economic activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Good news is good news and I will take it. Although I do not think this can be attributed to anything other then good news in America. Our tide rises and falls with theirs. US jobs numbers were far below expectations last month. They barely created twice as many jobs as Canada in an economy that is ten times larger and has yet to recover to pre-recession levels of employment. Nice try Debbie Downer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.