just wonderin how accurate these numbers are?

I just wonder how the Federal & Provincial governments are going to blame the previous guys?

Doesn't tell us much unless we have some comparables to look at. What was the rate in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005 and 2004 for the same period? What was the rate during the same period the last time the forestry industry was in the tank?

That would make for a more useful analysis.

these numbers are useless!! they only talk about the people that are collecting unemployment benefits!! and I am sure we all know that there are way more unemployed people than that out there!!

I always like that when the economy is doing good all the politicians line up and tell us how great they are and therefore that is why the economy is doing so well. When it has tanked it is always blamed on some far away event that of course is out of the control of the politicians. Truth be known, they have no control over anything and should get credit for nothing related to the provincial economic conditions.

recent historic rates for BC...
May 2009 - 7.8% unadjusted
May 2008 - 4.6%
2007 - 4.2%
2007 - 4.8%
2005 - 5.9%
2004 - 7.2%
2003 - 8.0%
2002 - 8.5%
2001 - 7.7%
2000 - 7.1%
1999 - 8.3%

Looks like we have been there not that long ago.

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/pubs/lfs/lfsdata.pdf

BTW, that link shows the regional unemployment was at 12.7% in 2002/2003.

On the upside, it looks like 92% up to 95% are employed. The glass isn't half full or half empty. It's dirty.

Thanks for that link gus. Interesting to look at the numbers. The trend that jumps out to me is that the lowest rate from 1999 to 2004 was 9.1%. Every other year during that period was basically 10% or higher. This is for our area (which I assume is Cariboo and not North Coast & Nechako).

From 2005 to 2008, we see a significantly lower rate which certainly may be linked to the increase in Pine Beetle harvesting activities and the somewhat artificial "boom" attached to it.

The average rate of unemployment from 99 to 04 was 10.68%. Compare that to the current rate of 12.9% and it's not really THAT far off. Now of course, by the end of the year it could be much worse, but like Harbinger said, the numbers also suggest that a pile of people are still working. The question then becomes, where are they working?

The anecdotal evidence on sites like Opinion 250 would certainly suggest that the unemployment rate in the forestry industry is much higher than the 12.9% indicated in the article. If that holds true, then logic would dictate there has to be other industries and sectors picking up the slack (or at least remaining more stable), otherwise than 12.9% would be WAY higher.

So what gives? Perhaps we do have more of a diversified job base in PG in 2009 than we did at the start of the decade? Perhaps like Anastasia said, the numbers are somewhat flawed? Maybe a little of both?

Obviously we know that many people are unemployed right now but what hasn't received very much attention is the topic of how many people are employed and an examination of where they are still working. Is there a worthwhile story there?

there are lots of people not working but it seem that they just fudge the numbers

Well folks, where are all those "green jobs" hiding? All the left leaning tree hugging environmental global warming/climate change ninnies espoused all the new jobs that were just waiting to be created. Well? Where are those jobs? Service station attendant at a hydrogen fill up station on the Hydrogen Highway? What to do until then? What? Ya gotta go to Ottawa with wheelbarrows to get money to start creating these jobs? They should be sustainable until the money printing presses wear out. What a crock.