I’ve said it before… If you are unemployed in PG right now you had better take a long look in the mirror

Provincially, the unemployment rate edged up to 6.7 per cent last month from 6.5 per cent in October, as it lost about 8,000 jobs, mostly full-time positions.

Nationally there was 21,600 new jobs, but mostly in part-time and self-employed sectors.

I wonder how many of those “new jobs” are from BMO, who dropped nearly 1000 people over the last quarter. They found it was too many and are now hiring again.

I hate it when I see my poor grammar after I click “post”.

Any country that needs 100% of its workforce employed to provide 100% of its material needs is a hopelessly inefficient country.

Instead of thirsting endlessly for ‘full employment’ we should take a lot closer look at the components of ‘costs’ which end up in ‘prices’.

If, as is increasingly the case, an ever greater number of those ‘costs’ are for allocated charges in respect of PAST ‘Capital’ spending, (depreciation charges, for example), then there is no way having ‘full employment’ can ever produce a unity between the overall flow of prices being made as goods and services continually come on the market, and the flow of incomes being continually distributed to consumers through employment. Incomes that have to fully liquidate those prices, if the economy is to ‘carry on’.

Right now an ever larger amount of the difference is made up of debt which cannot, in its totality, ever be repaid. When it grows too large, again, the boom becomes a bust.

When any ‘man’ is replaced by a ‘machine’, the cost of that ‘machine’ has to be recovered from future prices. If the ‘man’ replaced finds another job, the ‘cost’ of his income in that NEW job forms part of the price of whatever he is NOW producing or providing.

Leaving a disparity between charges for the ‘machine’that replaced him and consumer(worker) incomes that are needed to liquidate those charges.

We don’t pay a wage or a salary to a ‘machine’, and all the additional ‘costs’ associated with it for whatever it consumes have to be carried forward into prices. The idea of “full employment” as the great cure-all for any modern economy is a complete fallacy.

My guess is that socredible may be enjoying the long term benefits of the welfare system and free money (which the employed are “gladly” contributing towards). As for anyone not working in PG and NOT have a good reason, SHAME ON YOU (especially if you are not volunteering and sitting in front of an electronic device for many hours per day)!!!

Here is the Stats Canada definition of “Unemployed”

Unemployed persons include those who during the reference period:

Were without work but had looked for work in the past four weeks ending with the reference period and were available for work;
Were on temporary layoff due to business conditions and were available for work; or
Were without work, had a job to start within four weeks of the reference period and were available for work.
——————————————-
Socredible says “Instead of thirsting endlessly for ‘full employment’ ….
——————————————-
Full employment is a calculation of those available and looking for work versus those who have employment … It does not include those NOT looking for and willing to work (i.e. The sick and ill, the disabled, the retired, independently wealthy, attending school, unwilling and uninterested, etc.

So, IMHO, close to full employment is desirable … that means to me that those willing and available to work are employed.

Pylot .. I agree … I want an edit button … I meant to say “It does not include those NOT looking for and NOT willing to work

Kids are taught from a very early age – Go to school, get an education, get a job. Instead they should be being taught how to be more self reliant and maybe we will get a little bit of R & D and manufacturing back in this country. The 9-5 attitude that is driven into kids in school is a recipe for a stagnant society. This country has no imagination anymore or desire to create. We just rehash what has already been done. That attitude starts from a very early age, especially when it is nurtured the way it is in schools. I have grandkids and I see the attitude all the time.

Your guess is wrong, DPJ. I’ve never been unemployed long enough in my entire adult life to collect even one EI cheque. Never been on welfare, either.

Did get some of that so-called ‘free money’ a couple of times when injured on the job and WCB paid me compensation while I couldn’t work.

But since I was what you might call “self-employed” by that time, as the owner of my own business, they subsequently collected all that back in increased premiums. Ones that came out of the same pocket any benefits paid me went into. And then some.

And I don’t anymore “gladly” contribute to those who want to make a career out of being a bum on my dollar than anyone else who works for their living does. Though as an employer I wouldn’t want such people ‘working’ for me either. I’ve had that, and it’s completely counter-productive ~ you’ll worker harder trying to get them to work than you would if you did what you hired them to do yourself.

That doesn’t change any of the FACTS that I mentioned above.

I just don’t get it… if the unemployment rate is so low, where is the “Boom”? Every time I go downtown I see all these empty and vacant office buildings and retail space!

I just don’t get it… why are the housing starts not up significantly? Why has school enrolment only recently just levelled off and not increased?… where is the BOOM?

People #1 says I just don’t get it

Try it this way … the unemployed percentage plus the employed percentage equals the total available workforce (100%)

There is no direct mathematical connection between the low unemployed number and the local resident population number.

For example, when there is an exodus of available workers to other more positive opportunities, the total available workforce will be reduced resulting in more opportunities for those remaining to secure jobs.

The exodus scenario is further compounded by the reduced new entrants to the local workforce as demonstrated by reduced enrollments at UNBC, CNC and historically SD#57.

There appears to fewer people interested or available for work in the PG area. If this continues, we could have a strange combination of high employment with a reducing local resident population. That situation has not occurred in PG’s recent history but then again, this is a new economy.