• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jobs Report: U.S. Adds 257,000 Jobs; Unemployment Ticks Up to 5.7%

Mr. Invisible said:
My point isn't necessarily focusing on that one report, but rather the fact that many of the jobs being created not just then in November 2014 but more generally are low-paying. It isn't about people shopping, but rather that people are getting these low-paying retail jobs that is problematic.
Click to expand...

People getting jobs is problematic. I see. I suppose you are right, our economy would be much better off if they drew unemployment.

If we all try hard enough to downtalk our economy, who knows, we might be successful in creating another recession before the end of this presidential term. That would ensure a republican victory wouldn't it.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Just another note - the labor force participation rate in Canada is 65.7% as opposed to the US rate this month of 62.9%. Canada's unemployment rate, as a result, is 6.6%. Why do you think the participation rate is less in America?
Click to expand...

Could it be that the US is more prosperous, with a higher net wealth and higher after tax incomes which allow for fewer people to have a need for work? Or maybe the Canadian people just like to work more. I dunno.
 
iguanaman said:
More jobs shoveling snow?
Click to expand...

I heard that those have been increasing in the north east USA as of the past week or so. Maybe we will catch up.
 
imagep said:
How ironic that cons are taking up an issue that is usually reserved for liberals, and ones that they often claim they don't care about.
Click to expand...

Its actually healthy. The Cons and Libs can begin to both agree that it is an issue. That is progress. Then we get to have a good fight about the solution.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
Far fewer public sector jobs ?
(on a % basis)
Click to expand...

There are about 525,000 federal employees in Canada in all categories, including Crown Corporations, like Canada Post, the RCMP, etc.

In the US, there are about 21 million federal employees in all categories.

As a percentage of population, that would make the US about 4 times more top heavy with federal employees than Canada. And which country is supposedly the socialist mecca of North America?
 
DA60 said:
Looks like a great report, except the unemployment rate rose.
Click to expand...

That could be a positive if it is because higher wages are pulling former job-seekers off the couch.
 
imagep said:
Could it be that the US is more prosperous, with a higher net wealth and higher after tax incomes which allow for fewer people to have a need for work? Or maybe the Canadian people just like to work more. I dunno.
Click to expand...

Part of it has to do with the fact that the US had obscenely generous unemployment insurance benefits over four of the past 5 years in comparison to Canada as well as the fact that Canada no longer has mandatory retirement at 65 legislation so a lot of seniors are choosing to remain in the workforce to supplement their retirement incomes.
 
CanadaJohn said:
There are about 525,000 federal employees in Canada in all categories, including Crown Corporations, like Canada Post, the RCMP, etc.

In the US, there are about 21 million federal employees in all categories.

As a percentage of population, that would make the US about 4 times more top heavy with federal employees than Canada. And which country is supposedly the socialist mecca of North America?
Click to expand...



Public sector employment, wages and salaries, by province and territory (Newfoundland and Labrador)

Canada has 3.5 Million public sector employees

The US does not have 21 million FEDERAL employees.
Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail

It has 21 million public sector employees though.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
Public sector employment, wages and salaries, by province and territory (Newfoundland and Labrador)

Canada has 3.5 Million public sector employees

The US does not have 21 million FEDERAL employees.
Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail

It has 21 million public sector employees though.
Click to expand...

If you're going to include Canada's Provincial civil servants in numbers attributed to the federal government, which is entirely dishonest, you'd better be including all US State civil servants in your numbers as well.

And I apologize for the 21 million figure, which I read wrongly, as just federal - it's all civilian government employees.

The total civilian employees at the federal level in the US is listed as about 2.8 million

http://www.numberof.net/number-of-federal-employees-2/

If you were to include non-civilian - which I did for Canada, but which I can't find for America, I'm sure the number would be significantly higher and much closer to the percentage here in Canada.
 
Last edited:
CanadaJohn said:
There are about 525,000 federal employees in Canada in all categories, including Crown Corporations, like Canada Post, the RCMP, etc.

In the US, there are about 21 million federal employees in all categories.

As a percentage of population, that would make the US about 4 times more top heavy with federal employees than Canada. And which country is supposedly the socialisst mecca of North America?
Click to expand...
The U.S. doesn't have 21 mllion federal employees, it has 21 million public sector jobs which includes teachers, police, fire, etc.
 
pbrauer said:
The U.S. doesn't have 21 mllion federal employees, it has 21 million public sector jobs which includes teachers, police, fire, etc.
Click to expand...

Thanks Pete - it was cleared up later and I apologized for the mix up on my part.
 
CanadaJohn said:
If you're going to include Canada's Provincial civil servants in numbers attributed to the federal government, which is entirely dishonest, you'd better be including all US State civil servants in your numbers as well.

And I apologize for the 21 million figure, which I read wrongly, as just federal - it's all civilian government employees.

The total civilian employees at the federal level in the US is listed as about 2.8 million

Number of Federal Employees | Number Of | How Many

If you were to include non-civilian - which I did for Canada, but which I can't find for America, I'm sure the number would be significantly higher and much closer to the percentage here in Canada.
Click to expand...


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:
CanadaJohn said:
Why do you think the participation rate is less in America?
Click to expand...

From "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.[SUP]1[/SUP]

[SUP]1[/SUP]In 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.​

CanadaJohn said:
There are more people living in snowbelt areas of the US than in Canada.
Click to expand...

I think the "percentage of population" logic you use for a public-sector employment comparison might be valid in this case as well.

upsideguy said:
… retired persons, stay-at-home moms, students and disabled. The fact these people do not have to work is a sign of strength in the economy, not weakness.
Click to expand...

Very well said. :thumbs:

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
 
SlevinKelevra said:
And my point is they are saying that retail - as a % of the workforce- will decrease (albeit by a small amount) by 2022. So in fact they are predicting that more people will be getting the "non"lowpaying jobs
Click to expand...

Actually looking at your chart, under compound annual rate of change, it seems to show that from 2012-2022, retail jobs will go up by .7 percent each year.

imagep said:
People getting jobs is problematic. I see. I suppose you are right, our economy would be much better off if they drew unemployment.

If we all try hard enough to downtalk our economy, who knows, we might be successful in creating another recession before the end of this presidential term. That would ensure a republican victory wouldn't it.
Click to expand...

I never said that people getting jobs were a bad thing. However, we do have to worry if many of the jobs being created are low-paying.
 
mmi said:
From "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.[SUP]1[/SUP]

[SUP]1[/SUP]In 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.​



I think the "percentage of population" logic you use for a public-sector employment comparison might be valid in this case as well.



Very well said. :thumbs:

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
Click to expand...

Excellent, excellent article. I have been looking for something like this that supports my assertion that changes in the labor participation rate is being touted as a bad thing, when its really rather benign (doesn't really mean anything). I found it particularly curious that once again, we have a political party arguing that falling unemployment in Canada isn't what it appears to be because the labor participation rate is falling.... what is really interesting is that this claim is being made by the opposition party (as it is here), but in Canada, the opposition part are the liberals.

".....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.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
Public sector employment, wages and salaries, by province and territory (Newfoundland and Labrador)

Canada has 3.5 Million public sector employees

The US does not have 21 million FEDERAL employees.
Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail

It has 21 million public sector employees though.
Click to expand...

If that's correct, and I have no reason to believe it's not correct, then the public sector employs about 6.67% of the total population in the US, and about 10% in Canada. If the Canadian numbers are "just about right", then the US public sector should immediately hire over ten million employees. At that point, our unemployment rate would be something approaching 0%.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
I never said that people getting jobs were a bad thing. However, we do have to worry if many of the jobs being created are low-paying.
Click to expand...

If "too many" jobs are low paying, then employers will have to start competing harder for workers, and pay rates will increase. I'm really not certain that we can have "too many" jobs in any field. The more the merrier.

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.
 
upsideguy said:
I have been looking for something like this that supports my assertion that changes in the labor participation rate is being touted as a bad thing, when its really rather benign (doesn't really mean anything).
Click to expand...

This article may interest you: "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.

LFP_1948_2014.gif


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."​
Click to expand...
 
DA60 said:
Looks like a great report, except the unemployment rate rose.
Click to expand...

Actually the unemployment number is also not so bad, considering it means the potential workforce is growing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom