Canada Has A Labour Skills Shortage – Maybe

[Argus]

No, you're a convenient exception to the rule. I'm guessing the distortion of market forces and economic dissonance this program causes is more than you can stand.

That's part of my objection, but I also believe this program unfairly depresses wages for Canadians, leads to the wages these foreigners are paid going overseas with them, and leads to higher unemployment. It's is ludicrous for us to be flying in foreign workers while hundreds of thousands of Canadians sit around unmployed.

[eyeball]

Yep.

Maybe if we could fly in some temporary foreign executives to help us close the income gap.

[Big Guy]

That's part of my objection, but I also believe this program unfairly depresses wages for Canadians, leads to the wages these foreigners are paid going overseas with them, and leads to higher unemployment. It's is ludicrous for us to be flying in foreign workers while hundreds of thousands of Canadians sit around unmployed.

I live in Southern Ontario. Thousands of offshore workers from Jamaica and Mexico just made their annual arrival to the area. They are essential to the tobacco, fruit, ginseng, vegetable industry etc. By the end of the season they will have purchased $hundreds of thousands in small appliances, clothes and other materials to take back home with them. They bring back their purchases not their cheques. Many local small business would not survive without them.

The farmers claim that North Americans will not work for the wages that are being offered and if they had to increase wages then they would lose markets to Quebec and other areas where agriculture is subsidized.

[Peter F]

The farmers claim that North Americans will not work for the wages that are being offered

I was going to say something but then....ooo! Dejavu!

[cybercoma]

Like I said before, there's some situations where TFWs work. When you need a large labour force, which they would have a difficult time filling, for a short period of time (i.e., seasonal work), then it's appropriate. One of those instances is agriculture. When TFWs are taking permanent full-time work away from people because companies want to pay less and don't want to train local employees, then it's being abused.

[Argus]

I live in Southern Ontario. Thousands of offshore workers from Jamaica and Mexico just made their annual arrival to the area. They are essential to the tobacco, fruit, ginseng, vegetable industry etc. By the end of the season they will have purchased $hundreds of thousands in small appliances, clothes and other materials to take back home with them. They bring back their purchases not their cheques. Many local small business would not survive without them.

The farmers claim that North Americans will not work for the wages that are being offered and if they had to increase wages then they would lose markets to Quebec and other areas where agriculture is subsidized.

The agricultural workers program has been around a long time and I don't really question it. It's quite different from what the temporary foreign workers program has morphed into.

[guyser]

The agricultural workers program has been around a long time and I don't really question it. It's quite different from what the temporary foreign workers program has morphed into.

thankfully they gutted the proviso available to fast food workers.

Guess the Tims lineup will lengthen...but dont let them say its because of a shortage of ;abour, CD Howe has debunked that shite

[Argus]

thankfully they gutted the proviso available to fast food workers.

Guess the Tims lineup will lengthen...but dont let them say its because of a shortage of ;abour, CD Howe has debunked that shite

Fast food restaurants will simply have to raise wages to attract more people. Or go out of business. I don't particularly care which. The market will ensure there enough around to meet demand.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm trying to get my head around what jobs we want to protect and what we don't... and why.

Protect:
Some farming
Lawyers
Doctors
Teachers
Media Industry
Banking and Insurance Industries
Fast food (NEW)

Don't Protect:
IT
Manufacturing
Some farming
Fishing

And... as to why... the answer is... it's just random.

[Argus]

I'm trying to get my head around what jobs we want to protect and what we don't... and why.

Protect:

Some farming

Lawyers

Doctors

Teachers

Media Industry

Banking and Insurance Industries

Fast food (NEW)

Don't Protect:

IT

Manufacturing

Some farming

Fishing

And... as to why... the answer is... it's just random.

I think you're thoroughly confused. The jobs that should generally be 'protected' are those which are either integral to an economy, or needed for some security reason (like agriculture). This has NOTHING to do with job protection. The jobs exist, and no one is suggesting a subsidy either for those jobs or the employers. However, we also don't feel the need to deliberately lower wages across the board by bringing in cheaper foreign workers to do those jobs here. That's not good for the economy, it's not good for unemployment, and it allows for stupid and lazy employers to continue to prosper even while being protected from any need to adapt or increase efficiencies. There is no economic reason to bring in foreign labour for restaurant and hotel jobs which makes any sense.

[Michael Hardner]

I think you're thoroughly confused. The jobs that should generally be 'protected' are those which are either integral to an economy, or needed for some security reason (like agriculture).

"integral" = subjective, value judgement

Even "needed for security" is open to interpretation and can be stretched, as you have done by labeling cow milkers and apple pickers part of homeland security. But ok.

However, we also don't feel the need to deliberately lower wages across the board by bringing in cheaper foreign workers to do those jobs here.

Who is "we" ? Clearly somebody does feel the need. And thus the job is... uh... protected.

That's not good for the economy,

Lower labour costs, better ROI for owners... all good for the economy, so this is another subjective statement.

By the way, I'm not arguing any viewpoint here on whether these things are "good" or "bad". My point is that there are good/bad aspects to it, and that's why it's contentious.

[guyser]

By the way, I'm not arguing any viewpoint here on whether these things are "good" or "bad". My point is that there are good/bad aspects to it, and that's why it's contentious.

As respects the fast food industry it is all pretty much bad.

CD Howe institute showed that CDN born workers were being denied access to the jobs, the fast food joints were lying when they would confirm they had advertised all over for workers.

Then add the simple truth that these establishment owners had no worries about the hours, pay, stat holidays etc could and were screwed with since they knew the FW would not complain.

And thus we have fast food exempt from the programme.

[Michael Hardner]

It's political - they are doing it reluctantly. Just like the RBC example, it will quietly drop from the headlines.

[cybercoma]

"integral" = subjective, value judgement

Even "needed for security" is open to interpretation and can be stretched, as you have done by labeling cow milkers and apple pickers part of homeland security. But ok.

What are you TimG all of a sudden? Everything is open to interpretation and subjective. This kind of argument isn't helpful at all.

[Michael Hardner]

Everything is open to interpretation and subjective. This kind of argument isn't helpful at all.

Sure, that helps the argument that this is political.

[cybercoma]

Sure, that helps the argument that this is political.

Everything is political then. It's a meaningless platitude.

[Michael Hardner]

Everything is political then. It's a meaningless platitude.

"Everything is political" - Bob Marley

No, it's not meaningless when I'm confronted by Guyser and Argus who use absolutes in these economic arguments:

"As respects the fast food industry it is all pretty much bad." Guyser

"That's not good for the economy" Argus

The fact is that lowering costs is good for the economy in some ways. I'm not arguing that it's "good" or "bad" or anything a basic as that. I'm saying there are trade-offs and things to be weighed, and if we are to discuss these things we need to start by identifying those aspects and weighing them.

In short, I'm talking about the discussion here. So, please nobody come back and argue with me assuming that I think that this program is a great idea. I would much prefer talking about the programs' economic benefits and costs, and perhaps the politics of how governments (plural because we're talking Liberal and Conservative here) have become so enamoured of them.

[Argus]

"integral" = subjective, value judgement

Uhm, no it's not a value judgement. It's a judgement based on knowledge of the economy.

Even "needed for security" is open to interpretation and can be stretched, as you have done by labeling cow milkers and apple pickers part of homeland security. But ok.

And again no it's not. Being able to produce ones own food in a pinch has often been cited as something absolutely vital to a nation's security needs. It's one of the reasons Japan and numerous other countires heavily subsidize their farmers even though it would be far cheaper to just import food from places like Canada and the US.

Who is "we" ? Clearly somebody does feel the need. And thus the job is... uh... protected.

Not allowing foreigners to come here and take jobs from Canadians doesn't fall into the same category of job protection as you are using. Job protection is generally done by tarrifs and taxes in order to protect a local industry. This has nothing to do with protecting the service industry which, in any event, faces no threat from outside Canada's borders.

Lower labour costs, better ROI for owners... all good for the economy, so this is another subjective statement.

I think you need to go look at a dictionary because you don't appear to understand what the term means. What is good for the economy is not really a subjective thing at all. ROI might be good for an individual owner but that means nothing. If the foreign workers take the place of Canadian workers who then are unemployed, that can't be seen as a good thing, especially since a big chunk of the money those foreign workers are paid is going to go overease.

By the way, I'm not arguing any viewpoint here on whether these things are "good" or "bad". My point is that there are good/bad aspects to it, and that's why it's contentious.

Ther are no good aspects to this except on an individual basis. I.e, good for a particular owner or a particular foreign worker, but bad for the local economy and Canada as a whole.

[Argus]

The fact is that lowering costs is good for the economy in some ways.

No, it's actually not. It would be good for industries which are exporters. It would be good for industries that have to compete with foreign imports. Neither of these is the case for the service industry, particularly the lower level of 'fast food' like MacDonalds and Tims. This is basically a non-productive industry which sucks up disposable income. If it disapeared tomorrow, people would spend that money on something else and the economy wouldn't even notice. The only thing they do which has any value to society is they provide a lot of jobs for people with low skills. Take that away by importing foreign workers and what good is this industry?

I'm not arguing that it's "good" or "bad" or anything a basic as that. I'm saying there are trade-offs and things to be weighed,

But you haven't come up with anything 'pro' to counter the 'con's about foreign workers doing service jobs.

[Michael Hardner]

Uhm, no it's not a value judgement. It's a judgement based on knowledge of the economy.

You're putting a weighting on certain aspects of the economy over others, though.

Being able to produce ones own food in a pinch has often been cited as something absolutely vital to a nation's security needs.

"Has been cited", yes. I started hearing the term "food security" after 9/11 and the security craze, and my assessment is that somebody has figured out how to protect their interests by tying it to security.

When has Canada been able to provide its own food ?

It's one of the reasons Japan and numerous other countires heavily subsidize their farmers even though it would be far cheaper to just import food from places like Canada and the US.

Politics is another reason.

Not allowing foreigners to come here and take jobs from Canadians doesn't fall into the same category of job protection as you are using.

Well, perhaps in the past it was difference but programs like TFW are making it obvious that labour is now going to be brought onshore to reduce domestic labour costs.

I think you need to go look at a dictionary because you don't appear to understand what the term means. What is good for the economy is not really a subjective thing at all. ROI might be good for an individual owner but that means nothing.

? So improving cost efficiencies for an industry means nothing ? Really.

As for the rest of your post - how is it that different from allowing manufacturing jobs to go to "foreigners"

Ther are no good aspects to this except on an individual basis. I.e, good for a particular owner or a particular foreign worker, but bad for the local economy and Canada as a whole.

Good for a particular owner, aggregated over many particular owners... and therefore good for the sector ? What am I missing now ?

[Michael Hardner]

This is basically a non-productive industry which sucks up disposable income.

So how is it different from other services ?

The only thing they do which has any value to society is they provide a lot of jobs for people with low skills.

What about the investors and the support industries ?

But you haven't come up with anything 'pro' to counter the 'con's about foreign workers doing service jobs.

I don't have any 'pro' arguments, per se, nor am I in favour of the TFW program. As someone who has been displaced by globalization, I have a different perspective on the changes that are redesigning on our society; I recognize that abject resistance to these changes is more of a pose than a response.

My point is mainly that while I'm by no means knowledgable about the economy, I'm not so naive as to see these arguments in absolutes. There are competing interests, trade-offs which I expect to see in balanced arguments. As I read about these issues, and as I learn, I look for such balance in these posts.

[Argus]

You're putting a weighting on certain aspects of the economy over others, though.

No, I'm saying there is NO aspect of the economy improved by bringing in foreign service workers. Nor have you or anyone else been able to suggest otherwise.

"Has been cited", yes. I started hearing the term "food security" after 9/11 and the security craze

You might have only heard it then but it's been around a very long time.

Well, perhaps in the past it was difference but programs like TFW are making it obvious that labour is now going to be brought onshore to reduce domestic labour costs.

I don't know how long this program will last at this size. Opposition to it seems nearly unanimous across the political spectrum. The Conservative government might be thrilled at the thought of keeping wages down and helping their industry friends but damn few of their base likes this.

? So improving cost efficiencies for an industry means nothing ? Really.

For this industry. That's right. As I said, it's merely a discretionary service industry.

As for the rest of your post - how is it that different from allowing manufacturing jobs to go to "foreigners"

There are limited economic excuses for bringing in foreign workers in any industry. Generally, in very technical, hard to find skill areas, you can bring in foreign workers while you train up local workers. Unfortunately, even in this case that's not what's happening. The TFW program is simply being used as a panache to hire people with needed skills while doing absolutely nothing to encourage local people to enter those fields. The companies involved are, by and large, not bothering to try to recruit or train local people, but are content to keep the foreign workers permanently, simply replacing them with other foreign workers when their time is up.

Good for a particular owner, aggregated over many particular owners... and therefore good for the sector ? What am I missing now ?

Once again, that this is a descretionary service sector which, barring its employment of Canadians, produces virtually nothing of value in terms of the economy.

[Argus]

So how is it different from other services ?

If it disapeared tomorrow, all of it, the economy would not care (barring the temporary dislocation of its work force). It does nothing which needs to be done. The same can't be said of laundromats or hotels. These need to exist. The fast food restaurant industry does not. And as the money directed into the fast food instustry is discretionary it will be spent on something else.

What about the investors and the support industries ?

When your Tim stock starts going down sell it and buy something else. I did.

Most of what goes into the fast food industry is ... food, unsurprisingly. People will not eat less food, they'll simply eat it at home or in regular restaurants.

I don't have any 'pro' arguments, per se, nor am I in favour of the TFW program. As someone who has been displaced by globalization, I have a different perspective on the changes that are redesigning on our society; I recognize that abject resistance to these changes is more of a pose than a response.

Being displaced by globalization, ie. by the fact someone else in the world can do the work cheaper, is a far cry from being displaced by bringing over foreign workers. According to capitalist theory, if another nation has an ability to make something cheaper then they ought to be doing it. That leads to efficiency, to us reallocating workers to what WE do better. Bringing in foreign workers on a temporary basis to displace local workers only works if those displaced workers wind up doing more economically efficient jobs which contribute more to the economy. However, since those workers are, by and large, unskilled, and we have appallingly, horrifically nearly totally incompetent training programs in this country, that isn't the case. They go on unemployment or welfare. And, as I said, a big chunk of the pay which goes to these foreign workers gets sent offshore.

My point is mainly that while I'm by no means knowledgable about the economy, I'm not so naive as to see these arguments in absolutes. There are competing interests, trade-offs which I expect to see in balanced arguments. As I read about these issues, and as I learn, I look for such balance in these posts.

You assume every discussion has to have balance? You assume there is two sides to every issue? Sometimes a bad idea is just a bad idea. Sometimes it's just about impossible to find a legitimate argument in favour of it.

[kimmy]

First the government told us that the TFW program was only an emergency stop-gap of last resort for businesses, but now we're hearing from the restauranteurs that it's a pillar that's supporting their whole industry. Well, those can't both be true.

I agree with what Argus is saying: this is a gift by government to business to allow them to game the labor market to keep wages low.

The program was allegedly supposed to assist businesses in obtaining workers whose skill-sets are rare, but clearly in the fast-food restaurant business, the only skill being sought is the ability to work cheap.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

No, I'm saying there is NO aspect of the economy improved by bringing in foreign service workers. Nor have you or anyone else been able to suggest otherwise.

I suggested reducing labour costs for Canadian investors, I think.

The Conservative government might be thrilled at the thought of keeping wages down and helping their industry friends but damn few of their base likes this.

It seems that you're making this into cronyism and back-dealing but Harper is an economist too. I'd rather just assume the best and debate the ideas, not the people.

There are limited economic excuses for bringing in foreign workers in any industry.

So you're in favour of keeping wages up in all industries then - is that fair ?

Once again, that this is a descretionary service sector which, barring its employment of Canadians, produces virtually nothing of value in terms of the economy.

I don't see how it differs from so many other discretionary services that continue to grow in our economy nor why it deserves to be treated differently from every other job that faces competition.

I noted the personal stake I have in this discussion, may I ask if you work in a protected industry or not ? It's just curiosity on my part, but it seems to me those that rail the most against such forces are the most protected and therefore who gain the most from these changes in the end.