# Unemployment in Canada



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I'm listening to CBC radio news (just now, Friday 6:13 pm eastern) and there were some interesting points about unemployment raised.

One was a claim that long-term unemployment is now around double what it was before 2008.

Another important one was that a survey among the jobless shows that a significant portion (1 in 4) had entirely given up looking for work.

This is just from what I recall of the audio. Did anyone also catch this news item, or know the source of the information for this? I strongly suspect the unemployment situation is much worse than it looks from the government figures ("unemployment rate")


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Didn't listen to the program, but from the sound of it Canada's situation mirrors that of the U.S.


----------



## Cdnwife (Sep 10, 2013)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/39-of-unemployed-have-given-up-job-search-poll-suggests-1.2652239


----------



## Canadian (Sep 19, 2013)

The "unemployment rate" excludes a lot of people who would otherwise be considered unemployed - i.e., students seeking work, discouraged workers, and so on. The true unemployment rate is much higher than what is reported by Stats Canada. I'm surprised economists and analysts refer to the unemployment rate when refering to the economic condition/mood because anyone with basic to intermediate knowledge in macroeconomics knows the manipulation in deriving this number.


----------



## Rysto (Nov 22, 2010)

Canadian said:


> The "unemployment rate" excludes a lot of people who would otherwise be considered unemployed - i.e., students seeking work, discouraged workers, and so on. The true unemployment rate is much higher than what is reported by Stats Canada. I'm surprised economists and analysts refer to the unemployment rate when refering to the economic condition/mood because anyone with basic to intermediate knowledge in macroeconomics knows the manipulation in deriving this number.


Economists refer to the unemployment rate because it is the value that has been tracked the longest, so it's the most useful number for historical comparisons.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Rysto said:


> Economists refer to the unemployment rate because it is the value that has been tracked the longest, so it's the most useful number for historical comparisons.


And the fact that, (in both Canada and the U.S.), it's BS, is immaterial. :wink:


----------



## Canadian (Sep 19, 2013)

Rysto said:


> it's the most useful number for historical comparisons.


If it neglects temporary, part-time, and discouraged workers, which it does, I hardly consider it useful. The unemployment rate leaves out more than it tells us, so it's hard to grasp a sense of true employment conditions year over year.


----------



## gt_23 (Jan 18, 2014)

Canadian said:


> If it neglects temporary, part-time, and discouraged workers, which it does, I hardly consider it useful. The unemployment rate leaves out more than it tells us, so it's hard to grasp a sense of true employment conditions year over year.


That's why the participation rate is used in conjugation with the unemployment rate by economists....UE rate is not useless at all. Canada has lower participation rate (which is projected to fall even further in coming decades) thanks to its generous social benefits, which is why UE appears artificially lower than what you all consider to be unemployment.


----------



## Canadian (Sep 19, 2013)

The problem is that a lot of the economists/analysts that you see on BNN and similar news cite the unemployment rate in isolation. I agree it's a useful tool when other factors - i.e., participation rate - are used in conjunction. The unemployment rate itself doesn't mean much in _isolation_.


----------



## gt_23 (Jan 18, 2014)

Canadian said:


> The problem is that a lot of the economists/analysts that you see on BNN and similar news cite the unemployment rate in isolation. I agree it's a useful tool when other factors - i.e., participation rate - are used in conjunction. The unemployment rate itself doesn't mean much in _isolation_.


Agree...but the problem is most laypeople don't understand the proper meaning of all these metrics. Economists think about the UE rate as gauge of, the extent to which the economy is providing a supply of jobs those willing and able to work, which is indicative of economic health. It is not, however, a measure of total employment, as the name might suggest.

If UE rates were adjusted for participation and many other factors, they would lose their comparative value (state to state, country to country) as all of these have different structural differences in the labor markets due to demographics and policy differences, etc.


----------



## gt_23 (Jan 18, 2014)

Nemo2 said:


> Didn't listen to the program, but from the sound of it Canada's situation mirrors that of the U.S.


I think U.S. labor market is in better shape than Canada's (and lower UE rate). Manufacturing jobs are coming back to U.S. with higher oil prices. In Canada 20% and 60% work in Govt, or services (increasing share y/y), respectively, and manufacturing is now less than 10% (construction the last 10%) and declining.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

My experience in a recent job hunt was that many entry-level and low paid job levels were available. For instance I think that new college grads or people with basic diplomas can easily get jobs. Similarly there is temporary work and other non-full time, non-permanent jobs available.

Many times an employer would be interested in me, but when we talked further they would back away saying... you would be bored here, you have too much experience for what you'll need here. (That's code for: we're not willing to pay for more experience and really only need an entry-level worker).

My experience jives with the report I heard on CBC. That is, older and more experienced workers (say in their 40s) are getting laid off and having trouble finding a replacement job. I think that companies are looking for the cheapest labour they can get. Because fundamental economic growth is so weak, there's no reason to hire (or keep) experienced, advanced workers.


----------



## gt_23 (Jan 18, 2014)

james4beach said:


> My experience in a recent job hunt was that many entry-level and low paid job levels were available. For instance I think that new college grads or people with basic diplomas can easily get jobs. Similarly there is temporary work and other non-full time, non-permanent jobs available.
> 
> Many times an employer would be interested in me, but when we talked further they would back away saying... you would be bored here, you have too much experience for what you'll need here. (That's code for: we're not willing to pay for more experience and really only need an entry-level worker).
> 
> My experience jives with the report I heard on CBC. That is, older and more experienced workers (say in their 40s) are getting laid off and having trouble finding a replacement job. I think that companies are looking for the cheapest labour they can get. Because fundamental economic growth is so weak, there's no reason to hire (or keep) experienced, advanced workers.


Yeah I tend to agree with you. The org that I work for is cutting a lot of older workers, but still hiring in at the bottom. I think there's an interesting new phenomenon building in Canada, which is the further separation of the middle class into the lower-middle and upper-middle, or as I like to refer to it, the working- and governing-classes. The working (or lower-middle) generally earn $40-65k and may or may not have retirement benefits. The governing, such as police, firefighters, teachers, transit workers, beaurocrats, etc. earn $70-150k and generally have good retirement benefits. The issue is that there needs to be many more of the former to support the latter, and as the governing class grows in size/share, it puts pressure on jobs/wages/benefits in the working class, where it is much easier to make change (no bargaining power).


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

gt_23 said:


> Yeah I tend to agree with you. The org that I work for is cutting a lot of older workers, but still hiring in at the bottom. I think there's an interesting new phenomenon building in Canada, which is the further separation of the middle class into the lower-middle and upper-middle, or as I like to refer to it, the working- and governing-classes. The working (or lower-middle) generally earn $40-65k and may or may not have retirement benefits. The governing, such as police, firefighters, teachers, transit workers, beaurocrats, etc. earn $70-150k and generally have good retirement benefits. The issue is that there needs to be many more of the former to support the latter, and as the governing class grows in size/share, it puts pressure on jobs/wages/benefits in the working class, where it is much easier to make change (no bargaining power).


Yes I agree with you, including the numbers. Most of my friends who earn over 75k (with very few exceptions) work in government or crown corps. I've seen very few exceptions. I also work in the government space.

Have you also noticed that the second 'class' in your list all are protected by unions? The working/lower-middle class has got to step up their unionization if they have any hope of escaping poverty.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Unions are a large reason manufacturing has declined. Their usefulness has disappeared a long time ago.


----------



## gt_23 (Jan 18, 2014)

Eder said:


> Unions are a large reason manufacturing has declined. Their usefulness has disappeared a long time ago.


Yes via driving up the cost of labor....although I think this is becoming less a factor as technological improvements have removed a lot of labor from manufacturing over the years. I think energy costs are actually becoming a huge problem for producers, particularly those in consumer goods and industrials that use a lot of energy to power their equipment and robots.


----------



## gt_23 (Jan 18, 2014)

james4beach said:


> Have you also noticed that the second 'class' in your list all are protected by unions? The working/lower-middle class has got to step up their unionization if they have any hope of escaping poverty.


Yes definitely...I'm not really sure why anyone making $100k+ needs a union, but I guess that's a topic for another day


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

Unions are not just about wages and benefits-though that often appears to be the case. 

Unions are also about minor items such as job safety, job security. You only have to look at the recent mine disaster in Turkey to understand why unions became so prevalent in manufacturing and mining industries. There is little doubt that even in Canada some workers without unions would be forced to work in physically unsafe environments. Any employee who brought this to the attention of the authorities or the public would be summarily dismissed.

The vast majority of my working career was spent in management. My comments do not come from someone who is steeped in the union tradition. Just as an unbiased observer.


----------



## gt_23 (Jan 18, 2014)

fraser said:


> Unions are not just about wages and benefits-though that often appears to be the case.
> 
> Unions are also about minor items such as job safety, job security. You only have to look at the recent mine disaster in Turkey to understand why unions became so prevalent in manufacturing and mining industries. There is little doubt that even in Canada some workers without unions would be forced to work in physically unsafe environments. Any employee who brought this to the attention of the authorities or the public would be summarily dismissed.
> 
> The vast majority of my working career was spent in management. My comments do not come from someone who is steeped in the union tradition. Just as an unbiased observer.


That's supposed to be why we have the expensive beaurocracy known as the WSIB....fines can be huge for non-compliance and even jail time can result for managers who are negligent.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

They are only as good as their last inspection.

Cannot recall that I have ever seen either huge fines (relative to the business) or even jail time for managers/principals. About the worst that seems to happen is a job site can be closed for a day or so or the firms workers compensation rates increase. 

This is not just about someone getting injured. It can also be about the emotional costs, the long term health care costs that are often incurred, and in many situations the cost of ongoing government assistance, and of course productivity in general. These are just of few of the costs of operating an unsafe work environment.


----------



## gt_23 (Jan 18, 2014)

fraser said:


> Cannot recall that I have ever seen either huge fines (relative to the business) or even jail time for managers/principals. About the worst that seems to happen is a job site can be closed for a day or so or the firms workers compensation rates increase.


There was recently an industrial accident at a work site in Mississauga (CPL was general) where a young father was killed. The supervisor is looking at charges according to a relative who works there. Fines will undoubtedly be steep against CPL and lawsuits will result. This is only one publicized recent example - I'm sure there are many more. My grandparents operated a business employing roughly 100 people until about 2010. They are still dealing with litigation issues relating to WSIB on a couple of incidents that happened in the 1990s.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

There was more than enough safety regulations by the year 2000. These days every accident that was caused by worker stupidity results in a new regulation that does little to increase worker safety but will definitely add expense. 
Oil companies are making money so it is not a problem for them, but when Ontario is trying to save manufacturing jobs additional expenses that are a waste of money just makes them less competitive.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

A lot of industrial accidents happen from failure on the workers part(in some cases)and the brunt of it should not rest on the employers head imo
As a society we want to have someone to blame(i am talking about true accidents)Example:safety gear is supplied,work place procedures are taught,seminars are taught and what have you and sometimes it takes a split second(a worker takes off his hard hat for example,and know better,but is making that choice!)and gets struck in the head......in some cases accidents just happen at work(unintended) I have very mixed view on blame in some cases.
**** HAPPENS in life(not just in work)I will use the example of having kids over at home with a swimming pool(and its supervised)but say a child is having a contest of holding his breath or something....is it the parents to blame that own swimming pool?how about a child that is driving with a friend and is being supervised by adults and child unsnapped the seat bealt,again is it the parents fault?
I have had a serious accident on a jobsite(not going to get into it)but there is a lot of grey areas(esp when a worker is a adult and makes certain decisions)and couple that with a dangerous environment(mining say,miners know it is dangerous)You can't have a complete working world where a supervisor follows someone(many)around all day(it is just not reality!)a lot of people are quick to put blame on someone/something(human nature)but sometimes things happen!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Industrial accidents don't "just happen". There is always a cause for the accident.

It may be that protective equipment didn't work, or that an employee ignored safety practices, but there is always a reason the accident happened.

What regulations provide is a minimum set of safety standards for a particular industry.

But, we all know there is never an employer who would ignore safety to increase profit...............right?

The job of the regulations and the inspections isn't to investigate and punish offenders.

It is to prevent the accident from happening in the first place.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Eder said:


> Unions are a large reason manufacturing has declined. Their usefulness has disappeared a long time ago.


Under your hypothesis..........since unions have been in decline for some time.......manufacturing should be expanding.

I don't see that happening.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Damage has been done, it will take serious change to undo the exodus.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

sags said:


> Under your hypothesis..........since unions have been in decline for some time.......manufacturing should be expanding.
> 
> I don't see that happening.


No need for manufacturing to expand, or any other industry for that matter..... Governments everywhere are filling the void with even better paying jobs and benefits.

In my province 25% of people are employed by government. Taxpayers can afford it. 

Removes tongue from cheek.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

RBull said:


> No need for manufacturing to expand, or any other industry for that matter..... Governments everywhere are filling the void with even better paying jobs and benefits.
> In my province 25% of people are employed by government. Taxpayers can afford it.


It would be funny if it weren't true.
Sadly, it is true.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

HaroldCrump said:


> It would be funny if it weren't true.
> Sadly, it is true.


I know......


----------



## gt_23 (Jan 18, 2014)

sags said:


> Under your hypothesis..........since unions have been in decline for some time.......manufacturing should be expanding.
> 
> I don't see that happening.


You beat me to it....the trouble is the damage that unions inflicted is already done. Manufacturing is capital-intensive and it takes a very long to turn the ship around. If a firm closes its Canadian plant and buids one in the US or Mexico, it would need a pretty good reason to abandon it's multi-million dollar transition and investment.


----------



## gt_23 (Jan 18, 2014)

RBull said:


> No need for manufacturing to expand, or any other industry for that matter..... Governments everywhere are filling the void with even better paying jobs and benefits.
> 
> In my province 25% of people are employed by government. Taxpayers can afford it.
> 
> Removes tongue from cheek.


And the bad news is that at that level they form a huge voting bloc and the positive feedback loop continues to further expand its size.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

The underground economy is alive and well from what I see.


----------

