USA outperforming Canada

[CdnRepublican]

Canada has a lower standard of living and lower wages than the US and most nettlesome - a far higher structural unemployment rate that deeply burdens the country.

If you want pay for your social programs and increase pay and living standards - you need to grow the economy faster and have higher productivity.

The US is growing @ circa 4 % per year and its productivity is exploding at about the same level. Canada's economy was stagnant last year and will grow at a little less than 3 % this year. Not bad, but not high enough to close the gap with the US.

Now the latest US job reports are better then expected and their unemployment rate is the lowest in 20 yrs - lower than when CNN and ABC assured everyone in the late 90s that Clinton's economy was so great.

The Labor Department's numbers surprised Wall Street. The average forecast of economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires and CNBC had called for a 192,000 increase in payrolls and a 5.4% unemployment rate. The strong job creation suggested the Federal Reserve will continue its campaign of interest-rate increases, raising the key federal funds rate by a quarter percentage point to 2% when its policy makers meet next week.

In fact household surveys indicate since 9-11 a 1.1 million job increase, not the 1.1mn job loss that Kerry purposefully and mistakenly cited in the debates.

Canada has many economic rigidities that need to be destroyed or is status quo good enough for everyone ?

[Newfie Canadian]

I'm not an economics expert, jobs guru or unemployment/employment aficionado.

However it seems to me that despite punitive, retaliatory and, according to the WTO and NAFTA panels, unnecessary and illegal duties on Canadian lumber imposed by our biggest trading partner + the refusal to allow live Canadian cattle into the US which is costing the Canadian economy billions of dollars and, I don't think we're doing as bad as it could be.

I may be incorrect, like I said, I'm not an expert.

[CdnRepublican]

NC, Bush and his Agricultural Secretary both wanted to repeal the Beef ban - but Daschle who is now gone and some Democrats opposed it. I bet it will now pass.

On the other trade issues some ideas;

-Lumber is illegally subsidised in Canada - about $4 billion per annum. The lumber systems are quite different, one could argue that the US system is not really market price driven as well.

-Agriculture - Canada after Japan and Switzerland has the higher per farmer subsidies in the world. The US is a subsidy pig as well. Canada should unilaterally abolish its agro subsidies. The Americans would then have no reason to punish Cdn exports.

-Military and Security - no military, no real commitment to North American security, a bad immigration system and porous borders means that the Americans will unilaterally decide to manage the border. Canada is no longer an ally and does not pull its weight.

Therefore trade and alliance patterns are intertwined.

Canada could do much better. With the current political system; current set of parties and politicians and current media bias , nothing will change.

[Newfie Canadian]

Bush and his Agricultural Secretary both wanted to repeal the Beef ban - but Daschle who is now gone and some Democrats opposed it. I bet it will now pass.

We'll see.

Lumber is illegally subsidised in Canada

Like I said, I'm not an expert, but I do know that in the last decade or so numerous challenges have been brought against the lumber and wheat industries, and everytime the WTO and NAFTA dispute panels shoot them down. That's all I'm going by in this area.

Canada should unilaterally abolish its agro subsidies

It will never unilaterally happen. The only chance of something like that happening is through the WTO, as we saw in August.

In regards to the military, you're preaching to the choir here. It has been seriously underfunded for well over a decade.

The imigration system is still weird, but the percentage of refugee admittance for the US and Canada are within a few points of each other, as of 2003.

Security is a better issue in that we've done more in the last couple of years, but like all western democracies, we have a way to go.

[CdnRepublican]

Well the WTO rulings on lumber and agro are mixed. In the case of lumber they state that the duty applied by the US contravenes NAFTA - not that the duty concept in general is incorrect.

Unilateral agro subsidy reduction would be much preferable but politically no one will do it. Subsidizing farmers through marketing boards, quota's, price supports and tariffs is insane.

It would stimulate 3rd world trade as well, and set a good example for all to follow.

I would never argue that the US is a capitalist market - far from it. Big Government, over taxation, over regulation and general interference is rife. However, Canada, without a strong military, real security at our borders and without working with the US at an adult-partnership level, will never create the environment needed to ensure that trade is soundly protected.

Trade and alliance patterns are very much intertwined. Canada has been free riding off the US military for far too long.

[Guest eureka]

I don't know where you get your information but some is not correct and some you twist.

The USA does not have a long term growth rate in GDP of 4%. The last twent five years has been far below that as has Canada's. This year's forecasts indicate that Canada will outperform the US as it did last year.

Nobody ever claimed that the US lost those jobs. It did, however, not create the number of jobs reauired for the population increase. That led to higher une,ployment and under-employment.

Canada does not illegally subsidize its lumber industry. We have won that argument already.

Bush increased agricultural subsidies by $300 billion dollars while Europe was working on decreased subsidization of a similar amount. Canada has not increased subsidies in the same period in spite of pressures to do so. The US is the worst disrupter of agricultural production and need and is responsible for much of the third world's poverty through this. Millions starve because of American agricultural policies.

[August1991]

Canada GDP per capita (at purchasing power parity) $29,800 (2003 est.)

CIA Factbook

USA GDP per capita (at purchasing power parity) $37,800 (2003 est.)

CIA Factbook

The data in both cases is in US dollars. (The Canadian dollars of Canada's GDP were translated into US dollars at an exchange rate that approximated what money will buy. The CIA got its data from Statistics Canada.)

I would like to see median income data and comparisons for the two countries in 1970 and 2000.

Incidentally, the data above implies that Americans have on average incomes about 25% higher than us. Bear in mind that they use some of that extra income to spend more on health care and to buy cruise missiles.

[Big Blue Machine]

America is a bigger country than Canada, and they have alot more companies based there, so of course they will do better than us.

[Guest eureka]

How does GDP compare now with the substantially changed rates of exchange? GNP might give a better comparison.

I would think that a comparison of median incomes would show Canada in a worse light now than in the 1970's. I am fairly sure of that and have seen figures but I do not recall them.

However, I know that Canadaoan incomes declined throughout the 1980's and did not begin to recover until sometime in the 90's I have read recently that the average income in the US declined by, I think the amount was $1500 during the Bush years.

[caesar]

well when they have to start paying up for all the money they are spending in Iraq; how much will they have left.

Their national debt for that fiasco will not be showing up in the CIA Fact book for a year or so.

[August1991]

BBM, eureka, caesar - your points are mistaken. That is, the stats quoted take your points into account.

Canada may be a better country than the US but not for the reasons you offer.

Please understand all of this better. Don't give up. Be original.

[Guest eureka]

Which points?

[caesar]

BBM, eureka, caesar - your points are mistaken. That is, the stats quoted take your points into account.

??????? How can they; that was in 2003; things have escalated and changed. Those figures probably cover even earlier.

[caesar]

That is an American publication; does not make it up tp date or correct. Although it claims to be updated nov 2004; under USA disputes Iraq is not even mentioned

[takeanumber]

"Canadian Republican" is an oxymoron.

So, the United States is outperforming Canada?

Who cares?

Our social policies create deadweight loss.

Equal healthcare, a canadian value: that creates a deadweight loss.

Equal opportunity through education, (low) tuition...that creates a deadweight loss.

EI? CPP? You wanna believe those cause deadweight losses.

The economic optimum is: surprise surprise: Dickens.

If we wanted Dickens, we would all move to the United States.

Alas, since we have made choices based on Canadian values, we have chosen deadweight loss.

Nobody asked you to come Canada. If you don't like our values, leave.

[caesar]

UNITED NATIONS Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands ranked as the best five countries to live in but Africa’s quality of life plummeted because of AIDS, said a U.N. report released on Thursday.

.

The United States was ranked in eighth place, a drop of one position from 2003 in the report that rates not only per-capita income but also educational levels, health care and life expectancy in measuring a nation’s well-being.

Hmmmm seems we always come out above the Americans as the best place to live

[CdnRepublican]

UNO surveys ? The highest living standard is in the US. The average European lives on less square footage than the average poor American. A swedish thinktank completed a study - all the EU nations would be in the bottom of economic and social rankings if they were apart of the US - the exceptions were Ireland and Luxembourg. 40 % of Swedes live on less than $25000 US per annum - the comparable US rate is 15 %. Socialism makes a better society ? Doubtful. When 40 % of your population is living in small apartments on less than U$25 K per annum something is deranged in your society.

If Canada is such a wonderful place to live why do 40.000 Cdns go South each year vs. 5.000 who head North ? UNO and post modern institutions can collaborate and 'manage' their surveys and then propagandize their so-called findings, which conform to their whims of a one world socialist state, in which all people live in equal misery or at least have long line ups at the hospital and in the rationed health care market. The UN will of course applaud socialist nations as exemplars. So what. People will read these insipid reports, just shrug and move to where the jobs and money are.

[And contrary to what Eureka states i have already posted that wage gains were 9. 3% 2000-2004 under Bush. This was confirmed by Forbes, Factcheck.org, and other groups. There has been no wage loss in the last 4 years.]

[takeanumber]

People leave Canada for the US because they're selfish.

If they don't like our values, then good, leave.

That's the wonderful thing about Canada: if you don't like Canadian values, you have the freedom to leave.

[caesar]

me thinks CDN Republican is an American masquerading as Canadian. Sure got her hackles up to come below us on best country to live. Netherlands got number one this year.

[Cartman]

If Canada is such a wonderful place to live why do 40.000 Cdns go South each year vs. 5.000 who head North ?

1. Because Canada is often perceived as a "stepping stone" to the US. We review every immigration application whereas the US has a lottery system (just to be reviewed, not accepted). Some go through Canada b/c of our fair laws.

2. Because there are more Americans than Canadians (actually, based on this alone, I would have thought that more CDNs would have moved to the US, so I think you have argued against your own point).

3. To experience more of the world. I choose to live in many countries and to work at the same time though Canada is still home.

In this day and age, people from wealthy countries generally move around for experience, not to escape their own nation. With all of the challenges associated with moving, do you really think that people move to obtain slight tax advantages, especially when you must pay out of pocket for every possible advantage you may reap? Nothing is free.

When 40 % of your population is living in small apartments on less than U$25 K per annum something is deranged in your society.

Won't argue with you there. I like my space, but space is relative.

[RB]

Now the latest US job reports are better then expected and their unemployment rate is the lowest in 20 yrs - lower than when CNN and ABC assured everyone in the late 90s that Clinton's economy was so great.

well the rates of unemployment had better look darn good now because all those millions of jobs loss and of folks that were unemployed >2 years ago and are not collecting insurance, and didn't find work today are not counted in the US statistics

Eh? in canada if you were unemployed and looking for work at least you are counted as an unemployed number

[RB]

Canada has many economic rigidities that need to be destroyed or is status quo good enough for everyone ?

economic rigidities huh? well only recently canada started to use fishers model to capture "true" economic data, well as true as to be in sync with US worshipers

status quo? who uses this, or is this some excuse to deflect those rigidities and actually implement it

my thoughts though for unemployment and those who are economically inactive. it is a burden on the tax payer over what workers and employers are actually suppose to pay to continue supporting these unemployed folks.

so think of setting up some "benefit culture" for the return to work

1) that to get those economically inactive working and to get those collecting EI out of the EI system, there must be an incentive to return to work and that the incentive is greater that the EI rate, so even low skilled jobs require better than 9$/hr or perhaps some add on benefit incentive

look people tend to relate to potential gains

2) reduced payroll taxes, EI, CPP burden on employers for low level opportunity so encourages a demand for labor

[caesar]

This could explain why suddenly the USA has such low unemployment rates eh

The devil of this argument is in the details of why the unemployment rate is where it is today. The unemployment rate can go down for two reasons; either people become employed or those without jobs get frustrated and stop looking for work altogether. The first is good news for our economy; the second a sign of weakness. What we have seen over the past three years is that as job growth has faltered, many workers have gotten fed up and left the labor market, keeping the unemployment rate artificially low.

In August alone 150,000 workers left the labor force. They no longer tell surveyors that they are seeking work. They have given up the job hunt to help out at home, take classes or simply wait until a job hunt is more likely to produce results. When Bush took office, the labor force participation rate – which measures the fraction of the civilian population over 16 that is either working or looking for work – was 67.2 percent. Today that percentage has dropped to 66.0 percent. If the same share of the population had remained in the work force it would be 2.7 million workers larger than it is today. That would push the unemployment rate up to 7.1 percent.

[CdnRepublican]

I think it is hard to argue that the US economy is doing badly. None of the major stats bear this out. The Kerry campaign tried to convince Americans that Bush was Hoover and that the 2004 world mirrored the Great Depression. It was done for political reasons but his data was faulty and most people knew it.

-Economic growth in the US has been far stronger than anyone after 9-11 would dared have predicted.

-Since 2001 GDP growth has exceeded the historical mean average - no mean feat considering 9-11 and the Clinton Bubble

-Productivity is exploding which means higher future profits and better living standards and the US prod. rate far exceeds the Cdn.

[www.heritage.org

Past. Present! Future? Economic Growth in America

by Tim Kane, Ph.D., and Rea Hederman

WebMemo #601]

The American economy has grown much faster in recent years than many economists thought possible, especially in the wake of the terror attacks of 9/11. A vigorous public policy response turned the 2001 recession into one of the mildest downturns in modern history dating back to 1947, the year comprehensive official statistics were first recorded by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).

Since 1970, GDP growth has averaged 3.16 percent per year, after inflation. During President Bush’s first year in office in 2001, the economy slipped into and pulled out of a recession and yet overall output managed to grow slightly. Since 2001, real output has grown at an average annual rate of 3.47 percent. This rapid expansion has been concentrated in the five quarters following the 2003 Bush tax cuts. Since the third quarter of 2003, growth has averaged 4.62 percent.

As i posted earlier the Employment rate now under Bush is the highest in US history and the 5.4 % unemployment rate is below the historical mean average of the past 50 years [which is about 5.7 %].

The Media are culpable for their knee jerk pro-liberalism - a media study concluded that:

....the media have consistently criticized the Bush record, including 13 straight months of positive job creation, more than 1.5 million new jobs in 2004 and an unemployment rate that dropped from 6.3 percent to 5.4 percent.

But eight years ago, the media regularly hailed the Clinton record of seven straight months of positive job creation, more than 2 million jobs in 1996 and an unemployment rate that dropped from 5.8 percent to 5.2 percent.

...Stories about jobs under Clinton were positive 85 percent of the time, more than four times as often as they were for Bush despite similar economic data. When the Clinton unemployment rate hit 5.6 percent, reporters perceived it as "low," but they ignored an even better 5.4 percent rate under Bush.

Canada is doing well in some areas;

-Net Foreign Debt is down to 17 % of GDP

-Federal Surpluses are consistently in the 1% of GDP range [though i would argue over taxation and Alta and Ontario's growing economies account for this]

-Unemployment rate is slowly coming down but is still far higher than the US rate

There is much reform needed in Canada to keep pace with the US, especially since Bush will cut taxes further.

[caesar]

Bush can cut taxes all he wants; the USA deficit is growing rapidly; someone will have to pay, someday; your children or grandchildren? Or perhaps O bin laden will win and bankrupt the USA which is one of his stated plans. Just as he bankrupted the USSR,