250 News - Your News, Your Views, Now

October 27, 2017 3:36 pm

Unemployment Slips in Prince George

Friday, September 8, 2017 @ 6:44 AM

Prince George, B.C.   August saw a decline in the unemployment rate in Prince George.

Last month, the rate was 5.9%, compared to 6.6% in August of last year.   There were 49,200 people working in Prince George in August, compared to  48,000 a year  ago.   The increase is  “not statistically significant”  says Statistics Canada  Analyst Vincent Ferrao.

In the Cariboo region,  which includes Prince George,  the unemployment rate slipped to 6.5%  from the 7.7 recorded in August of 2016.  There were 82,800  people in the region  working last month,   with gains sin  the healthcare and  social services sector  accounting for most of   the  3,000  employment gains recorded over the same month a year ago.

Provincially,  the unemployment rate  was 5.1% last month,  compared to 5.5%  in August of last year. The number of people working last month  was up by 3.9%

Nationally the rate dropped by nearly a full percentage point to 6.2%  compared to  the  7%  reported in  the same month a year ago.



Most places in the country the participation rate is about 62-65%. So that would put the population of PG at about 76-80,000? Plus or minus 2000 on any given year so maybe 78,000?

So most of the new jobs are in the public sector? I’m not really seeing the positive there.

    When the NDP was elected in Alberta, it didn’t take long for the public sector to grow by something in the neighbourhood of 40,000 new public sector employees.

    Prior to the NDP being elected, the province seemed able to function reasonably well with the public sector that was already in place.

    So, why the need for something in the order of 40,000 new government employees? Will we see that here in BC, now that the NDP are running the show?

Correct you are! 35% last year 36% this year!

Pity we don’t look at this backwards. Do we really NEED 100% of the workforce working to provide us with 100% of all the goods and services we need or desire? If we do, we must be one horribly inefficient country! Barely clinging to existence by the skin of our eyelids!

If this is so, how then do we explain that the greater problem we face today is NOT one of ‘scarcity’, for the overwhelmingly most part of the production of all our material needs and desires, but one of GLUT! And how to get rid of it at a price that comes anywhere close to covering the costs of its production. Are we going to solve this problem by having everyone working, and producing still MORE of a GLUT than we already are making? Don’t think so.

    So how is having a greater number of unemployed (and having a paycheque) going to assist you in reducing the glut? Puzzled.

    100% employment would mean that 100% of the people looking for work will have found work, it does not mean that everyone is working, there are a lot of people who do not work and who do not want to work.

So how is having a greater number of unemployed (and not having a paycheque) going to assist you in reducing the glut? Puzzled.

If you have to have people employed to justify them having a paycheque, those people are going to all be ‘producing’ something, are they not?

If that’s so, then assuming you had 100% full employment, would all the incomes paid out in any given fiscal period add up to the total amount of costs flowing through into prices in that SAME given fiscal period? In other words, could we collectively buy and totally pay FOR all the stuff we’ve just made FROM the incomes paid us, in total, in making it?

Now if you have already got a glut with only, say, 94% of the workforce actually producing something, doesn’t this indicate that we really don’t need any MORE production. For if you had the other 6% working, they may certainly be receiving a paycheque, but ALL paycheques taken together still won’t be enough to liquidate the costs of a glut that’s just been increased.

As long as there are lazy bums that can work not working, the ones that want to work can find jobs easier.

Comments for this article are closed.