Jobs Lost During the Recession Have Not Returned

[WWWTT]

All I am saying people can make choices not to work and that you cannot make assumptions about why people are not in the job market. OTOH, you are assuming that all people who are not working are discouraged job seekers. That is a huge assumption that is completely unjustified given the complete lack of data.

Sure people can make choices. I'm sure it happens all the time.

But a huge shift in the demographics?????

I seriously doubt that your proposition has any merit.

WWWTT

[TimG]

But a huge shift in the demographics?????

This is a question of choices - not demographics. When the economy slows more people choose to stay in school rather than take a job - a choice that keeps them out of the market for years after that choice. Some for people choosing to retire early or choosing to stay at home with kids.

What would be most interesting is the long term data. I can't find the exact dataset used but similar data I have found suggests that these fluctuations are normal parts of the business cycle.

Lastly: The numbers are exactly the same for the US with Obama and his out of control big government train so if you want to suggest that these numbers are somehow connected to government policy choices then the data from the US says that typical left wing solutions would only make the "problem" worse.

My position is no conclusions can be drawn from the numbers due to lack of information.

Edited May 11, 2014 by TimG

[WWWTT]

This is a question of choices - not demographics. When the economy slows more people choose to stay in school rather than take a job - a choice that keeps them out of the market for years after that choice. Some for people choosing to retire early or choosing to stay at home with kids.

What would be most interesting is the long term data. I can't find the exact dataset used but similar data I have found suggests that these fluctuations are normal parts of the business cycle.

Lastly: The numbers are exactly the same for the US with Obama and his out of control big government train so if you want to suggest that these numbers are somehow connected to government policy choices then the data from the US says that typical left wing solutions would only make the "problem" worse.

My position is no conclusions can be drawn from the numbers due to lack of information.

Thanks for supporting the point I was trying to get at! All you had to do was eventually convince yourself!

WWWTT

[Keepitsimple]

Here's an interesting website that uses StatsCan data to show unemployment in Canada going all the way back to 1946. It shows it by month and a graph for the full year. I'm not sure what conclusion that we can draw other than it seems that we are seeing significantly lower rates that we had in most of the 90's. In any event, it's an interesting little site:

http://www.davemanuel.com/historical-unemployment-rates-in-canada.php

[Argus]

In actual fact, the US economy is booming. It's just the people of the middle class and lower who are having problems. But if the Obama regime is replaced with a Republican regime then the economy will most certainly do even better. The key is in widening the record breaking income inequality they have established.

It was a Republican regime which was largely responsible for the great recession. I don't know that another one is going to make things all better. I also don't know what you're referring to in saying widening the income inequality is 'the key'.

[TimG]

Thanks for supporting the point I was trying to get at! All you had to do was eventually convince yourself!

Well - if that is what you wanted to say then you then you should not explicitly contradict yourself in your arguments (i.e. trying to blame conservative policies for the drop).

[Argus]

The jobs numbers today are bad. Canada has lost 29000 jobs in April, while the unemployment rate remained the same as people give up hope and drop out of the labour market. The broader issue, however, is that we have not recovered from the 2008 economic crisis when it comes to employment. The percentage of working age population that have jobs fell dramatically after 2011 and has been trending downward for the last year, shown here:

Part of the problem is that the working age population is increasing, but there's not enough jobs for those people. Coupled with the issue of Temporary Foreign Workers and the skills shortage, it seems unfathomable that there are jobs without people and people without jobs.

So what do we do? How does Canada get the ball rolling again? Conservative policies don't appear to be working. So what's next?

Where is your chart from? It's clearly designed, btw, to make a small change look bigger, with a "huge" gap downward from its origin point of 63% all the way down to just under 61.5%...

Generally, I agree the TFW program has not helped employment, but there's also been a sea change in how the corporate world handles jobs, preferring to outsource wherever possible, not just here but down south, and to sit on billions and billions in cash rather than use it to expand. I don't think corporations have been sitting on so much unused cash ever before in history. It's like they're afraid to spend it lest there be another financial crisis which prevents them from getting operating loans from banks.

Edited May 11, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

Hillary will only do what's politically correct for her interests. That's the way it works in that country now. I

Isn't that basically the same for all politicians everywhere?

[Argus]

You didn't account for the change in population over time, which was mentioned in the article. One of the reasons the number of employed people as a percentage of the working-age population has gone down is that the WAP population has increased.

Most of that increase would be due to immigration. Immigrant groups have a smaller labour force participation rate given many wives don't work.

[Argus]

Regardless, it proves that the conservatives are bad custodians of the economy.

Actually it doesn't prove that at all.

[Argus]

A majority of Canadians wanted President Obama re-elected, complete with protectionist policies and KXL obstruction.

Yes, because he was better than the alternative. I still think he's better than the alternative.

Most of the governance issues in the US are the result of your two parties being unable to work together. And that's mostly due to the number of wackos in the Republican party.

[WWWTT]

Well - if that is what you wanted to say then you then you should not explicitly contradict yourself in your arguments (i.e. trying to blame conservative policies for the drop).

Nope sorry, but I have no intention of trying to convince you that a change in the demographics will have dire consequences on our economy!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Actually it doesn't prove that at all.

To die hard conservative supporters, there is absolutely not a single thing that will!

So from your perspective I will have to agree with you!

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, because he was better than the alternative. I still think he's better than the alternative.

Really didn't matter...not Canada's choice. But it sure looks silly to whine about the better alternative's policies.

Most of the governance issues in the US are the result of your two parties being unable to work together. And that's mostly due to the number of wackos in the Republican party.

They're not suppose to work together, just like the "opposition" in Canada, where parties fight in two official languages, over jobs, energy, transportation, health care, EI, senate reform, and lots of other issues.

Edited May 11, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[ironstone]

The jobs numbers today are bad. Canada has lost 29000 jobs in April, while the unemployment rate remained the same as people give up hope and drop out of the labour market. The broader issue, however, is that we have not recovered from the 2008 economic crisis when it comes to employment. The percentage of working age population that have jobs fell dramatically after 2011 and has been trending downward for the last year, shown here:

Part of the problem is that the working age population is increasing, but there's not enough jobs for those people. Coupled with the issue of Temporary Foreign Workers and the skills shortage, it seems unfathomable that there are jobs without people and people without jobs.

So what do we do? How does Canada get the ball rolling again? Conservative policies don't appear to be working. So what's next?

Canada by most accounts has weathered the recent bad economic times better than just about every other country.How are the Liberal policies working in Ontario?I believe Justin Trudeau would copy McGuinty/Wynne if he becomes Prime Minister.

[PIK]

How many of these jobs were in ONT. Ilove how certain people like to blame harper for the job losses when in ONT they are losing jobs everyday, because of failed liberal policies.

[Boges]

The US have made the same claim under Obama. Are those claims equally as spurious?

[Mighty AC]

Keystone isn't at all mortgaging out future. That's complete hyperbole. But it's typical from the anti-growth alarmist side of the debate.

Yeah, running a leaky pipeline through the world's largest source of groundwater is just hyperbole. You know? The one that provides drinking and irrigation water for the central US. I'm sure you're right though. I'm sure we absolutely have to route leaky pipes full of low quality, toxic sludge through massive sources of fresh water. I'm sure we have to sell the world's dirtiest oil faster than we already are through the existing pipelines already carrying the stuff. I'm sure we have to waste more fresh water and flood more an more of northern Alberta with toxic waste water, to get this stuff out. I'm sure you that you must be correct, but I just can't remember why.

Was it money? Is that the reason we can't demand higher pipeline standards or build around essential aquifers? This project will bring in pipelines full of cash, but if I understand correctly, not quite enough to avoid the cutting of corners. Is that right? Please remind me. If Albertans are flooding their own land with toxic waste do they at least get to benefit from all the new processing jobs as well?

If it is acceptable to harm people, animals or the environment to sell more oil, are you also in favour of legalizing the sale and/or use of cocaine, heroine, thalidomide, steroids, asbestos, designer gene therapy, human organs, children, all pesticides, all weapons, etc? Think of the jobs and money available...

[cybercoma]

The Bank of Canada now has new findings about the job creation record since the recession.

http://news.ca.msn.com/money/jobs-data-not-as-impressive-as-believed-boc

"The central bank says in a new research paper that the unemployment rate, although the most quoted measure of labour market health, has over-estimated the jobs recovery in Canada and particularly in the U.S."

Edited May 13, 2014 by cybercoma

[CPCFTW]

The Bank of Canada now has new findings about the job creation record since the recession.

http://news.ca.msn.com/money/jobs-data-not-as-impressive-as-believed-boc

"The central bank says in a new research paper that the unemployment rate, although the most quoted measure of labour market health, has over-estimated the jobs recovery in Canada and particularly in the U.S."

Yes we've been saying this for years to lefties espousing Obama's job creation record (which is truly abysmal). I don't have the numbers handy because I'm on my phone but last I checked, the participation rate in the US is 5-10% lower than Canada's and they don't include 15 yr olds in their labour force.

[PIK]

Yeah, running a leaky pipeline through the world's largest source of groundwater is just hyperbole. You know? The one that provides drinking and irrigation water for the central US. I'm sure you're right though. I'm sure we absolutely have to route leaky pipes full of low quality, toxic sludge through massive sources of fresh water. I'm sure we have to sell the world's dirtiest oil faster than we already are through the existing pipelines already carrying the stuff. I'm sure we have to waste more fresh water and flood more an more of northern Alberta with toxic waste water, to get this stuff out. I'm sure you that you must be correct, but I just can't remember why.

Was it money? Is that the reason we can't demand higher pipeline standards or build around essential aquifers? This project will bring in pipelines full of cash, but if I understand correctly, not quite enough to avoid the cutting of corners. Is that right? Please remind me. If Albertans are flooding their own land with toxic waste do they at least get to benefit from all the new processing jobs as well?

If it is acceptable to harm people, animals or the environment to sell more oil, are you also in favour of legalizing the sale and/or use of cocaine, heroine, thalidomide, steroids, asbestos, designer gene therapy, human organs, children, all pesticides, all weapons, etc? Think of the jobs and money available...

Yup it is hyperbole, just like you posted here, totaly hyper bole. What about the other million miles of pipeline ruinning thru the same type places. The pipeline is wanted by the people and it is going to cost him dearly.

[Keepitsimple]

The Bank of Canada now has new findings about the job creation record since the recession.

http://news.ca.msn.com/money/jobs-data-not-as-impressive-as-believed-boc

Good little article for people to read - short and concise. Here's an important statement - one that emphasizes what other countries and investment banks think of Canada's economy and economic management:

In other research papers issued Tuesday, the bank notes that the loonie has gained in prominence as a global reserve currency since the recession, and now accounts for about 1.8 per cent of the total with world reserve holdings valued at about US$200 billion.

Edited May 13, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[TimG]

"The central bank says in a new research paper that the unemployment rate, although the most quoted measure of labour market health, has over-estimated the jobs recovery in Canada and particularly in the U.S."

Note that this measure has nothing to do with the deceptive graph that you originally posted and, more importantly, it notes that the lefty policies of the Obama administration produced even worse results which suggests that a structural shift is going on and there is not much any government can do about it.

[Mighty AC]

What about the other million miles of pipeline ruinning thru the same type places. The pipeline is wanted by the people and it is going to cost him dearly.

Over time we learn and improve. We used to allow the unrestricted spewing of sulfur dioxide from coal plants but learned of the harm and demanded restrictions and now we're even moving away from coal entirely. We used to allow the use of asbestos insulation. We used to use, now illegal drugs like cocaine and opium for treatment of minor conditions.

We have made mistakes and building inevitably leaky pipelines through important ecosystems is one. Now that we have learned from our mistakes we are being asked to repeat them by building another pipeline right through the middle of the most important fresh water source in an already dry region of the country. At what point do we have to take responsibility for our actions?

I get that there are billions of dollars at stake for a handful of people and a handful of jobs at stake for regular people. However, that same argument can be made for legalized prostitution and drug sales and con/repub types would scoff at it. If there are billions to be made then the money should be available to do the project correctly. If that truly isn't feasible then the project should wait until the price of oil makes it so.

[cybercoma]

The economic incompetence from Canada's so-called party of fiscal responsibility continues to rear its ugly head. Goar explains how the Conservative myth of a skills shortage was systematically dismantled over the last 9 months.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/05/13/how_the_myth_of_a_canadian_skill_shortage_was_shattered_goar.html

How can we trust the Conservatives with policy decisions when they don't even understand the labour markets?