61,000 new jobs in September

[NAB]

Here they are... Obviously many of those who whine about how hard done by they are today (or how bad the '90's were) weren't around in the BC labour force trying to survive here through the 1980's LOL. But at least Alberta had the backs of those from BC willing to move there, much as they do today.

Year................BC Unemployment Rate %............Canada unemployment rate %


1980.......................6.7........................................... 7.8
1981..........................6.8 ........................................... 7.6
1982 ............................ 12.1.......................... 11.0
1983 - 13.9- 12.0
1984- 15.0- 11.3
1985 - 14.3 - 10.5
1986 - 12.7 - 9.6 (Bill Bennett left, and the BC Socreds tried to recover
1987 - 12.1 - 8.8 under VanderZalm and eventually Rita Johnston, but
1988 - 10.3 - 7.8 enough was enough! The damage was done)
1989 - 9.1 - 7.5
1990 - 8.4 - 8.1
1991 - 9.9 - 10.3
1992 - 10.1 - 11.2 Enter the NDP under Mike Harcourt
1993 - 9.7 - 11.4
1994 - 9.1 - 10.4
1995 - 8.5 - 9.5
1996 - 8.7 - 9.6 Enter the NDP under Glen Clark
1997 - 8.5 - 9.1
1998 - 8.8 - 8.3
1999 - 8.3 - 7.6
2000 - 7.2 - 6.8 Enter the NDP under Ujjal Dosanjh
2001 - 7.7 - 7.2 Enter the Socred/Liberal coalition under Gordon Campbell
2002 - 8.5 - 7.7
2003 - 8.0 - 7.6
2004 - 7.2 - 7.2
2005- 5.8 - 6.8
2006 - 4.8 - 6.3
2007 - 4.3 - 6.0
2008 - 4.6 - 6.1
2009 - 7.7 - 8.3
2010 - 7.6 - 8.0

2011 Gordon Campbell quits and is replaced as Socred/Liberal coalition leader by Christy Clark... And here we are LOL.

Nab

[Urbane]

Now you're back to percentages which you dissed earlier. It's hard to follow the bouncing ball with you Nab but since you're willing to discuss percentages I'll gently mention that we're at 6.7% unemployment at the moment and that appears to be lower than most times in the past. And that's a good thing. (To me it's a good thing).

[NAB]

Now you're back to percentages which you dissed earlier. It's hard to follow the bouncing ball with you Nab but since you're willing to discuss percentages I'll gently mention that we're at 6.7% unemployment at the moment and that appears to be lower than most times in the past. And that's a good thing. (To me it's a good thing).

Just trying to humour you and keep you smiling Urbane. But you still manage to evade the issues raised and return to your logjam anyway.

By the way, whether you mention the 6.7% current unemployment number gently or not, to me it is meaningless and will remain so until we see the annualized BC and national figures for 2011 next year and compare them to previous years. Then perhaps we can get a handle on what the unemployment trend in BC really is.

Nab

[Urbane]

Now you're back to percentages which you dissed earlier. It's hard to follow the bouncing ball with you Nab but since you're willing to discuss percentages I'll gently mention that we're at 6.7% unemployment at the moment and that appears to be lower than most times in the past. And that's a good thing. (To me it's a good thing).



Just trying to humour you and keep you smiling Urbane. But you still manage to evade the issues raised and return to your logjam anyway.

Nab

You're definitely succeeding in making me smile Nab. That's for sure! My take on the relatively low unemployment is that the Liberal government has been something of a disaster from a public relations standpoint but has done a solid job where it counts, i.e. with the economy. Those oft-maligned corporate tax cuts have probably helped the employment situation and perhaps a rebound effect from the 2010 Olympics (tourism etc) has made a difference?? Maybe. Anyway, it's nice to be discussing good news, isn't it? Saying anything remotely positive about the current government seems to illicit strong reactions from many posters on here but I do think the government deserves some credit.

[Mr. Personality]

Credit for what exactly? The figures released say nothing of the real world situation.

[Urbane]

Credit for what exactly? The figures released say nothing of the real world situation.

The unemployment rate is part of the real world situation, an important part. What if the rate were at 9% unemployment? Would people be blaming the government?

[NAB]

Now you're back to percentages which you dissed earlier. It's hard to follow the bouncing ball with you Nab but since you're willing to discuss percentages I'll gently mention that we're at 6.7% unemployment at the moment and that appears to be lower than most times in the past. And that's a good thing. (To me it's a good thing).



Just trying to humour you and keep you smiling Urbane. But you still manage to evade the issues raised and return to your logjam anyway.

Nab

You're definitely succeeding in making me smile Nab. That's for sure! My take on the relatively low unemployment is that the Liberal government has been something of a disaster from a public relations standpoint but has done a solid job where it counts, i.e. with the economy. Those oft-maligned corporate tax cuts have probably helped the employment situation and perhaps a rebound effect from the 2010 Olympics (tourism etc) has made a difference?? Maybe. Anyway, it's nice to be discussing good news, isn't it? Saying anything remotely positive about the current government seems to illicit strong reactions from many posters on here but I do think the government deserves some credit.

Well, at the expense of being repetitive, you have to look at the detail behind that September number, and where jobs were gained and where they were lost, and why. I won't repeat it here however as it has already been posted in this thread. Suffice for me to say that jobs growth in government and increasing taxation is not my idea of a positive economic or employment trend at the moment. But I have little doubt that those employed in the public sector or reliant on it for their well being might feel otherwise.

Nab

[NAB]

Credit for what exactly? The figures released say nothing of the real world situation.

The unemployment rate is part of the real world situation, an important part. What if the rate were at 9% unemployment? Would people be blaming the government?

On the flip side of that question, when the rate dropped to under 5% (2005 - 2008/9), should we be crediting this government? And if so, credit them for what? Buying short term "good" jobs improvement numbers through taxing, borrowing, and spending massive taxpayer dollars lining the pockets of the private sector corporations and driving us into deficit and runaway increasing debt? That to me is what happened 2005 - 2008, and caused me to write this government off as a very bad deal.

Nab

[Urbane]

Well Nab, here is the flip-side to your flip-side:

THE RECENT GLOBAL RECESSION HIT BRITISH COLUMBIA HARD, wreaking havoc across the economy, including the provincial treasury. Taxation rev- enues declined sharply while demand for social assistance and other social services increased, resulting in a substantial budget deficit in 2009 after five consecutive years of surpluses. Although the provincial government recognized that deficits were needed to weather the economic storm, it also used the budget challenges as an opportunity to attack the public sector.
Both the February 2009 BC Budget and the September 2009 Budget Update imposed significant “savings in administrative and other discre- tionary spending” in order to reduce the size of the deficit. These so-called savings, many of which were not specified at budget time, have so far included two rounds of provincial government layoffs (announced in September 2009 and January 2010, respectively), reducing the BC public service by 436 positions. These types of belt-tightening exercises are based on the notion that there is waste to trim from provincial programs and administration.
But is this really the case?
It is a little known fact that BC’s public sector has been shrinking both in terms of employees per capita and expenditures relative to GDP (or the size of the economy) since the early 1990s. This is because our public ser- vice already went through several comprehensive reviews in recent years that looked for ways to cut costs. Simply put, BC entered the recession with one of the leanest public sectors in the country and there was little room for cuts without compromising much-needed public services. The recent round of cuts has made it even more difficult for the province to deliver important programs and services.
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/ ... sector.pdf

Edit to add (from the same source as above):

Compared to the rest of Canada, BC has the lowest level of public sector employment relative to population. In 2008, there were 89.7 public sector employees per 1,000 people in BC, slightly less than Alberta’s 90.4 and Ontario’s 99.6. Saskatchewan and Manitoba had the highest public sector employment rates — close to 140 public sector workers for every 1,000 citizens. More than one quarter of all employees in these two provinces worked in the public sector — 27 per cent in Saskatchewan and 28 per cent in Manitoba—compared to only 17 per cent in BC (the Canadian average is 20 per cent).

[NAB]

Seems to me you are just dodging the questions posed once more Urbane. No one is arguing we got caught up in a global meltdown. We are (or at least I am) talking right now about employment, jobs numbers, and related government spending and increased debt creation before that became obvious. Specifically the 2005 - 2008 period, ....or this government's second term in power.


Edit: Plus, when talking about government employee levels compared to other jurisdictions, it would seem to me necessary to define what constitutes a "government employee", and differences as to how various jurisdictions might not count employees in arms length situations such as government owned and controlled crown corporations or contracted out to the private sector situations rather than delivering a service directly.

Nab

[Urbane]

Seems to me you are just dodging the questions posed once more Urbane. No one is arguing we got caught up in a global meltdown. We are (or at least I am) talking right now about employment, jobs numbers, and related government spending and increased debt creation before that became obvious. Specifically the 2005 - 2008 period, ....or this government's second term in power.


Edit: Plus, when talking about government employee levels compared to other jurisdictions, it would seem to me necessary to define what constitutes a "government employee", and differences as to how various jurisdictions might not count employees in arms length situations such as government owned and controlled crown corporations or contracted out to the private sector situations rather than delivering a service directly.

Nab

As I understand it, Nab, the comparison was done across the board with consistency. It wasn't up to each province to make up its own rules on how to count public service employees. You're upset about the number of public service jobs in BC (or is it the %?? heh heh) and I provide some alternate info that shows you might not be exactly right and you accuse me of dodging? I think not Nab. I'm honestly trying to be objective and see what the situation really is. I'm interested to know if BC really does have a lean public service or if, as you suggest, it's bloated. I'm all for lean, as are you, but maybe we're not as bloated as you think.

Edit to add - StatsCanada compiled data we're discussing:

According to data from Statistics Canada, BC’s public sector provided 393,016 jobs in 2008, or 17 per cent of all jobs in the province.1 This figure includes employees of all three levels of government—federal, provincial and local—as well as members of the RCMP and the Canadian Armed Forces, workers at government-owned business enterprises such as BC Hydro or ICBC, and employees providing government-funded education, health and social services.
Just over half of all public sector workers in BC are employed at the provincial govern- ment level, with the majority delivering education, health care and social services. Statistics Canada counts 100 per cent of these jobs as “public sector” even though privatization and contracting-out of public services have put working conditions, pay and benefits for many of these workers into the hands of private-sector employers.

[NAB]

Seems to me you are just dodging the questions posed once more Urbane. No one is arguing we got caught up in a global meltdown. We are (or at least I am) talking right now about employment, jobs numbers, and related government spending and increased debt creation before that became obvious. Specifically the 2005 - 2008 period, ....or this government's second term in power.


Edit: Plus, when talking about government employee levels compared to other jurisdictions, it would seem to me necessary to define what constitutes a "government employee", and differences as to how various jurisdictions might not count employees in arms length situations such as government owned and controlled crown corporations or contracted out to the private sector situations rather than delivering a service directly.

Nab

As I understand it, Nab, the comparison was done across the board with consistency. It wasn't up to each province to make up its own rules on how to count public service employees. You're upset about the number of public service jobs in BC (or is it the %?? heh heh) and I provide some alternate info that shows you might not be exactly right and you accuse me of dodging? I think not Nab. I'm honestly trying to be objective and see what the situation really is. I'm interested to know if BC really does have a lean public service or if, as you suggest, it's bloated. I'm all for lean, as are you, but maybe we're not as bloated as you think.

I'm not upset about the number of public service jobs Urbane. I never even mentioned it. We were talking about historical and September unemployment and jobs growth or decline numbers and where and how they were produced, a large part being growth in the public sector or return of people in the educational sector as school returned. Jumping to a completely different subject is just another attempt to dodge the issue and derail the thread on your part IMO.

Edit to add.. why don't you just go back in the thread and read the related detail behind those September numbers as posted and discussed by several here. In the meantime I'll go mow the lawn and wait for you to catch up ; -)

Nab

[NAB]

Hint, you will find it on page one of the thread starting with a link....

...and where in that article you will hopefully read and absorb the following excerpts..

Beyond the eye-popping headline number, the employment details "were much softer and more mixed in the report than the headline suggests on multiple counts," Scotiabank economist Derek Holt noted.

Many of the jobs came from public sector job growth, while the private sector lost almost 15,000 jobs.

Self-employment rose by 38,900, "and we always treat this category with skepticism," Holt said.

"Many self-employed jobs are vital contributions to a small-business based economy, but the volatility in this component and its tendency to report a pickup in self-reporting during soft spots in the economy make us doubtful that such a heavy role in lifting the headline is with substance."

And despite the job growth, the actual number of hours worked declined by 0.3 per cent. That's a troubling sign for GDP, since it's calculated based on the number of hours worked times the productivity of the labour force, Holt noted.

Economists had expected employment to be positive last month mostly due to a seasonal hiring spree in the education sector as schools returned to session. About 38,000 education employees were hired. (Edit: Perhaps that should read "re-hired"?)
Holt said the start to the school season always distorts the numbers.

"It's not like there was a sudden rush to hire teachers and related workers," he wrote.

Then of course we have this one...

"Employment fell by 35,000 in the finance, insurance, real estate and leasing sector, while manufacturing employment slipped by 24,000 for the month."

[Urbane]

I'm not upset about the number of public service jobs Urbane. I never even mentioned it. We were talking about historical and September unemployment and jobs growth or decline numbers and where and how they were produced, a large part being growth in the public sector or return of people in the educational sector as school returned. Jumping to a completely different subject is just another attempt to dodge the issue and derail the thread on your part IMO.

Edit to add.. why don't you just go back in the thread and read the related detail behind those September numbers as posted and discussed by several here. In the meantime I'll go mow the lawn and wait for you to catch up ; -)

Nab

No, I'll take a pass on that. I've already read through the thread. " . . . historical September unemployment and jobs growth or decline numbers and where and how they were produced . . ." just tells me that we're in the same place we were when you were telling me for months, ad nauseum, that the HST was here to stay and when I suggested otherwise you said I just didn't understand how things worked. And now I'm a dodger and a derailer. Just the same level of discourse. And you say:

I'm not upset about the number of public service jobs Urbane. I never even mentioned it.

But earlier in the thread you said:

Well, at the expense of being repetitive, you have to look at the detail behind that September number, and where jobs were gained and where they were lost, and why. I won't repeat it here however as it has already been posted in this thread. Suffice for me to say that jobs growth in government and increasing taxation is not my idea of a positive economic or employment trend at the moment. But I have little doubt that those employed in the public sector or reliant on it for their well being might feel otherwise.

Dont't bother with a long reply Nab. I'll get my "dodging" and "derailing" out of your way and you can "discuss" the issue with others.

[NAB]

I'm not upset about the number of public service jobs Urbane. I never even mentioned it. We were talking about historical and September unemployment and jobs growth or decline numbers and where and how they were produced, a large part being growth in the public sector or return of people in the educational sector as school returned. Jumping to a completely different subject is just another attempt to dodge the issue and derail the thread on your part IMO.

Edit to add.. why don't you just go back in the thread and read the related detail behind those September numbers as posted and discussed by several here. In the meantime I'll go mow the lawn and wait for you to catch up ; -)

Nab

No, I'll take a pass on that. I've already read through the thread. " . . . historical September unemployment and jobs growth or decline numbers and where and how they were produced . . ." just tells me that we're in the same place we were when you were telling me for months, ad nauseum, that the HST was here to stay and when I suggested otherwise you said I just didn't understand how things worked. And now I'm a dodger and a derailer. You say:

I'm not upset about the number of public service jobs Urbane. I never even mentioned it.

But earlier in the thread you said:

Well, at the expense of being repetitive, you have to look at the detail behind that September number, and where jobs were gained and where they were lost, and why. I won't repeat it here however as it has already been posted in this thread. Suffice for me to say that jobs growth in government and increasing taxation is not my idea of a positive economic or employment trend at the moment. But I have little doubt that those employed in the public sector or reliant on it for their well being might feel otherwise.

Dont't bother with a long reply Nab. I'll get my "dodging" and "derailing" out of your way and you can "discuss" the issue with others.

OK, I'll keep it short as I want to get the lawn mowed anyway..

You must be developing a reading or comprehension problem if out of my comment (about september job growth numbers)...

"Suffice for me to say that jobs growth in government and increasing taxation is not my idea of a positive economic or employment trend at the moment"

....is somehow interpreted by you as saying I'm upset with the current level of government staffing and want to enter into a discussion about what the current level is and how it compares to that of other jurisdictions (we could build a whole thread round that item LOL).

See ya