Why the decline of workforce? Retirement? Moving?

Why does this report say that unemployment rate remains unchanged when another report says British Columbia shed 15,000 jobs in March and saw the biggest spike in unemployment in the country?

BC Liberals – Strong on jobs.

I love these useless statistics without sufficient explanation.

“there were 49 thousand people in the workforce in P.G. last month compared to 53,000 in March of 2012.”

So, can we have an educated analysis of that, please.

1. Still “live” here but have jobs elsewhere?

2. Retired?

3. Unemployed, living here, not retired, no longer looking?

4. Moved out of the region?

5. Back to school to get trained for all the wonderful future jobs?

6. Any other reason?

good reports are hard to find.

“Provincially, the unemployment rate remains unchanged at 7.%” from the above.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/04/05/bc-unemployment-stats-can.html?cmp=rss

“However, B.C.’s employment figures are virtually the same as they were a year ago, and the unemployment rate overall is slightly lower than the national average.

The report is from CBC …. shows what a left leaning news agency reports.

The rate jump is from last month to this month.

Here is waht a right leaning news report would give as the reason for the high loss of jobs in BC.

Companies are moving part or all their operations in BC to other parts of Canada, especially the three other western provinces based on the expectation that the NDP will form government.

;-)

Spin, spin, spin … lovin’ the spin we’re in …..

3 out of 4 people fill out 75% of surveys. How much did that survey cost lol.

Your just to smart for our staticians, Gus’
.
cheers

Nothing. They used volunteer labour to create an online survey with a free survey program on a free site.

;-)

Plant an idea, feed it, and it will grow automatically by leaps and bounds.

All sides can play the game.

I still “live” in Prince George, but I work in Winnipeg, where I easily can find work. This could be a potential source for people to obtain jobs, leaving the north, or in my case half way across the country.

It means that the population of those employed shrank by 7.5% I.e. (53-49)/53. Those paying taxes shrank by 7.5% and the economy shrank compared to last year.

In worst case scenario the real unemployment is somewhere between the official 7.4% (plus this 7.5% shrinkage). In best case scenario it is the reported 5.7%.

So somewhere between 5.7%-14.9% depending on how you want to spin it. But I find the number of employed a far better measure.

I believe that most households with 2 or more adults have 2 or more people in the workforce. They could include some or all of the following domiciled in PG.

1. “Spouse #1” who has a job here.

2. “Spouse #2” who has taken a job outside of the statistic region and commutes such as weekly, monthly.

3. “Child#1” who is over 16 attending HS and has a part time job on weekends, summer, etc.

4. “Child#2” who is 19 attending UNBC and works 20hrs or so/week at Starbucks.

They are all paying income tax to the feds, no matter where they work.
Those working in BC would be paying BC income tax, including a person who lives outside the statistical region but in the province. I am not sure about those working in other provinces or overseas. That depends in part what they do and how long they may be doing it, I suspect.

If they own the house, they still p[ay City property taxes, SD57 taxes, Regional Health taxes, Regional District taxes.

In fact, the person working outside the region and more so outside the province could be considered similar to those Chinese workers who send all their money home ….. ;-)

It seems that we will have more of that kind of mixed “family” situation in the future as jobs become less and less secure and workers and their families have to make some decisions about how they will adjust.

There are many ways to accommodate such changes.

I think what we have is an old indicator system which was designed to measure relatively stable categories.

That indicator measure is in bad need of revamping because what is coming out is mainly garbage.

“I still “live” in Prince George, but I work in Winnipeg”

It would be interesting to find out how many more people these days do not live where they work as compared to say 20, 40, 60 years ago.

Some examples:

1.A member of my family is a merchant marine office working at sea for something like 3 months at a time, then back home for a stint with the family in a city on the eastern seaboard.
2.Another family member used to work out of his home town, but travelled extensively often for several weeks to inspect facilities across the country.
3.Another family member was a transport driver bringing goods between Alaska and the Eastern USA.
4.In fact, take someone like a forestry worker employed by a forestry company. That company may have its head office in any city in BC and employ workers living in many different cities across the province and even outside the province. That company could get contracts in various regions of BC, Alberta, Ontario, Chile, etc. Workers would be assigned based on best fit of required skills, least travel and temporary accommodation costs, availability, etc.
Then there are those people who live in the northern part of Washington State and commute to work in the GVRD daily.
And how about those who work in Abbotsford and live in White Rock as well as those who work in White Rock and live in Abbotsford?
It seems moving people around is as cheap these days as moving goods around the world.

Or is it? That is the question. Are people subsidizing industry by being too accommodating? What is it costing us socially, economically, and environmentally? I doubt too many are interested in it. And many more do not even understand it.

“Just tell me where I can find a job!!”

Gus, up until February, I was in that position. Living in Port Moody and driving to Abbotsford every day for work. Absolutely no options for transit. I left the job because the wage and the cost of getting to work didn’t make economic sense. I was spending $6000/year of my net income just to get to work. That’s gas, tolls, extra insurance due to distance, and wear & tear on the vehicle.

That doesn’t include the stress of driving with a bunch of nutjobs in the pissing rain half the year. I swear they give out drivers licences in boxes of Cap’t Crunch.

I do travel for a living, moving commodities all over the place. Right now I am in Wyoming headed for Calgary coming from Tulsa Oklahoma carrying gas and electric stoves. The only reason I work in Winnipeg is that is where I found a company I would work for

I do travel for a living, moving commodities all over the place. Right now I am in Wyoming headed for Calgary coming from Tulsa Oklahoma carrying gas and electric stoves. The only reason I work in Winnipeg is that is where I found a company I would work for

People are leaving PG??? Where would they go??

Don’t fool yourselves. 4000 less people are working in PG means more families will be leaving PG or they have already left PG.

PG is a city with high turn over of the middle income earners, and low civic participation towards a better city of the future from the high income earners. The bottom half is stagnant economically, but not going anywhere and growing demographically.

If the total jobs are down, then it could be the leading indicator that middle income earners are choosing not to live in PG… maybe work at a mine but choose to move to another city to call home.

If the participation in the job market rates are down, then in all likelihood its because EI claims have become exhausted and so those potential workers are no longer counted as in the labor market.

IMHO

If its so bad out there, why cant companies find people to hire?

I myself know nobody, that is not one person, who is unemployed with the exception of some housewives who do not want to work.

steelie: “People are leaving PG??? Where would they go?? “

If they wanted to work, they’d go north to Ft. St. John or Ft. Nelson to work in the oil/gas industry or possibly Alberta.