BC adds almost 20,000 new jobs in February

[logicalview]

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... .htm#88493

Let the NDP Spin-doctors go to work now. This is just awful. 20,000 new jobs. The Liberals must go!

[grammafreddy]

So who actually believes these "stats"? They aren't based on reality.

[goatboy]

So who actually believes these "stats"? They aren't based on reality.

So just the stats that support your view are legitimate?

[Corneliousrooster]

How can they add 20,000 new jobs, yet the unemployment rate remains unchanged???? Something doesn't add up (they must be using "the new math")

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/ec ... story.html
Statistics Canada says employment rose 0.9 per cent last month, adding 19,800 jobs, most of them full-time positions. The unemployment rate, however, remained unchanged at 6.3 per cent.

[danmartin]

So who actually believes these "stats"? They aren't based on reality.

I was thinking the same thing! There are too many questions as to how they come up with these numbers. How many full or part time jobs were lost in the same time period for example? I may be a skeptic but I've seen how stats can be manipulated to make any point wanted.

[Veovis]

That scenario could arise if the people taking the jobs weren't considered as part of the workforce and collecting EI benefits.

This can happen to many self employed individuals such as realtors, plumbers, carpenters etc.

The 19,800 doesn't really take people off EI but does take them from being unemployed.

Also I don't put a ton of faith in these numbers each month, I've seen some surveys stats can puts out (even had to fill some out) and the data collected just doesn't seem like it would produce great results, never mind how many people just don't bother to report their survey.

[grammafreddy]

So who actually believes these "stats"? They aren't based on reality.

So just the stats that support your view are legitimate?

Noooooooooooooooooo .... they use EI figures to come up with the stats. Just because a person is not on EI or if they used up their EI and haven't yet found a job, the stats call them "found a job" when in reality, it is not true. You could also be on welfare and looking for work but you are not counted as unemployed. If you get a job and come off welfare, you are not counted as employed now because only EI counts. Seasonal workers are treated differently, too - and the rates are "seasonally adjusted" so a seasonal worker could be looking for work but not being accounted for in the stats of unemployed or employed.

They also don't account for the number of people added to the EI rolls, just the number who have come off EI. If 20,000 people came off EI and 30,000 people started EI claims, the stats don't reflect the 30,000 new unemployed, only the 20,000 who are no longer collecting EI. It has nothing to do with actual jobs - just EI numbers fluctuating.

So, this goverspeak of "20,000 new jobs" could be 10,000 new jobs and 10,000 who used up their EI benefits and who are now on welfare.

If they have truly created 20,000 "new jobs" I'd like to know in what sectors and in what communities these 20,000 workers found employment.

Edited to add:

The "stats" also reflect people who are on EI for maternity leave (classified as unemployed) and then when they go back to their old jobs the stats call them "new jobs" because they come off the EI numbers, when in fact they were NOT unemployed and there was no "new job" created.

[goatboy]

Noooooooooooooooooo .... they use EI figures to come up with the stats. Just because a person is not on EI or if they used up their EI and haven't yet found a job, the stats call them "found a job" when in reality, it is not true. You could also be on welfare and looking for work but you are not counted as unemployed. If you get a job and come off welfare, you are not counted as employed now because only EI counts. Seasonal workers are treated differently, too - and the rates are "seasonally adjusted" so a seasonal worker could be looking for work but not being accounted for in the stats of unemployed or employed.

They also don't account for the number of people added to the EI rolls, just the number who have come off EI. If 20,000 people came off EI and 30,000 people started EI claims, the stats don't reflect the 30,000 new unemployed, only the 20,000 who are no longer collecting EI. It has nothing to do with actual jobs - just EI numbers fluctuating.

So, this goverspeak of "20,000 new jobs" could be 10,000 new jobs and 10,000 who used up their EI benefits and who are now on welfare.

If they have truly created 20,000 "new jobs" I'd like to know in what sectors and in what communities these 20,000 workers found employment.

Edited to add:

The "stats" also reflect people who are on EI for maternity leave (classified as unemployed) and then when they go back to their old jobs the stats call them "new jobs" because they come off the EI numbers, when in fact they were NOT unemployed and there was no "new job" created.

This is just not true. While they do you use some unemployment numbers, that is only part of it. You should educate yourself on how these figures are compiled. This how the Labour Force Survey numbers are arrived at.

http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=3701&Item_Id=103716&lang=en

[Urbane]

It's great to see almost 20,000 new jobs created in February. While BC was second to Ontario in job-creation on a per capita basis BC was #1. People need to focus on what's really important and jobs certainly are in the "really important" category.

[Al Czervic]

It’s always good to see unemployment rates in decline and overall BC has a relatively low unemployment rate and is doing well. Monthly job stats are somewhat like a yo-yo and always go up and down. It’s entertaining to watch Government crow one month and the Opposition the next. I note the NDP is very quiet with this month’s good news and you can bet they would be howling if things had gone the other way.

[flamingfingers]

In January BC lost 16,000 jobs. So we are 4,000 jobs to the good over 2+ months.

[Urbane]

Good news is good news. As Al noted it's funny to watch each political party (and their operatives on here I would add) try to spin the numbers. It's hard to spin the adding of almost 20,000 new jobs as not good, particularly when British Columbia did better per capita than any other province and was second only to Ontario in job creation, but some will still try to do so.

[grammafreddy]

In January BC lost 16,000 jobs. So we are 4,000 jobs to the good over 2+ months.

That's probably a bit more realistic.

[steven lloyd]

In January BC lost 16,000 jobs.

In January we lost 16,000 jobs due to the impending NDP government
but last month we added 20,000 due to the good work of the Liberals

We need to start a thread on blind partisanship

[Urbane]

In January we lost 16,000 jobs due to the impending NDP government
but last month we added 20,000 due to the good work of the Liberals
We need to start a thread on blind partisanship

If you were to spend time going through all of the posts (I don't recommend it) I believe you'll find that many who don't want the NDP elected still find fault, much fault, with the Liberals. Alas, the same is not true for the partisan NDP'ers on here. The fact is that last month the sky was falling and the government's job plan was a total failure. So we were told over and over. Now this month BC has more than made up for the losses and actually attained a net increase in jobs. Better than any other province but Ontario and per capita we were far and away the best. Any way you slice it that's good news. Except for the extreme NDP partisans who just hate the Liberals so much that they won't even acknowledge anything positive. Sad. But carry on.