A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.
I'm not sure what you're really trying to say.
# of Public Sector employees vs # of Public Sector Employees in 2 countries is an apples to apples comparison
Are you asking about military?
Total Government Employment Since 1962
Add them in.
You're still at just over 10% of your population in public sector jobs
The US is at significantly under 10% unless I'm missing something.
Last edited by SlevinKelevra; 02-06-15 at 02:35 PM.
Is Canada’s Labour Force Participation Rate at its Lowest Level in Over a Decade, and Should We Worry About it?," LCERPA Commentary, August 15, 2014:
[F]iguring out who wants a job can be a little tricky. Generally, we don’t really want to count someone as unemployed if they say they want a job, but want it so little that they are not interested in making any efforts to find a job.1
1In Canada, this can be as little as searching the job postings in a newspaper or online. The standard US definition of unemployment requires a job searcher to contact an employer about a position. As a result, Canada’s reported unemployment rate and labour force participation rate would be higher than those reported in the US under the same labour market conditions.
This article notes that analyses of LFPR levels should perhaps be focused more working-age populations: "Debunking The Biggest Myth About The Labour Force Participation Rate," Business In Canada, March 10, 2014
"And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."
".....There’s a reoccurring meme that springs up in discussions about the nation’s labour market in general and the participation rate in particular, mainly from the left side of the political spectrum: that we should take the decline in the unemployment rate with a grain of salt because people are giving up their search for work and, as such, are no longer part of the labour force...."
Touting changes in the labor participation rate (and/or Not in the Work Force number) is a ruse perpetrated as an argument by the side that has NOTHING.
Anyhow, jobs are created in the sectors that have the most demand. That's the natural result of the free market, would you prefer the government decide what industries do the hiring or how much they pay?
Obviously there is lot's of demand in the retail trade. Not all of those jobs are low paying, many managers make darned good money, the manager of a big box store can make six figures.
Decline in the Labor Force Participation Rate: Mostly Demographics and Long Term Trends," Calculated Risk, Dec 7, 2014.
I quickly lost interest in this discussion of that analysis, but there may be something useful in it.
Here's an excerpt from an earlier post:
LFP has been edging downward since the turn of the century, except for a couple of years at the height of the housing bubble.
How did the economy do in the period 1948-1968 when LFP never went above 60%? GDP nearly quadrupled, and fell in only one year, 1949. We sure wouldn't want another strong, stable expansion like that.
The decline is explained by a number of factors.
"The labor force participation rate of women, which peaked in 1999, has been on a declining trend. In addition, instead of entering the labor force, baby boomers are retiring in large numbers and exiting the workforce. Once again, the baby-boom generation has become a generator of change, this time in its retirement. Moreover, the jobless recovery of the 2001 recession, coupled with the severe economic impact of the 2007–2009 recession, caused disruptions in the labor market." — Labor force projections to 2022: the labor force participation rate continues to fall
"The economic recovery from the 2007-09 recession has been slow, which may have propelled people to go back to school, stay at home with their kids, or give up on a search altogether when they could not find jobs in their field."
"The trick is to determine how much of the drop represents the impact of a lagging economy, which is worrisome, and how much is due to non-worrisome factors, such as the aging of the adult population," said Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, in a 2013 PolitiFact interview. — PolitiFact, January 26, 2014
A recent Business Insider article argues that:
[T]he data suggest that the vast majority of the decline in labor force participation in recent years can be accounted for by the retirement of the "baby boomer" generation of American workers. — The Fed's Obsession Over Labor Force Participation Could Be A Big Mistake
The author points to a recent study by Shigeru Fujita, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, titled "On the Causes of Declines in the Labor Force Participation Rate."
"Fujita demonstrates that 'discouraged workers' only made up about a quarter of those leaving the labor force between 2007 and 2011, while the decline in the participation rate since the first quarter of 2012 is entirely accounted for by increases in non-participation due to retirement."