[ASLplease]

furthermore, if we take that same list of occupations into rural canada, and deliberately find an area that has minimum numbers of imigrants, what does the same list of occupations make?

[Bruce_the_vii]

Quote:

But you say that unemployment at its peak is maybe 19%, what has it been at its minimum? is the sudden surge in unemployment strongly correlated to a sudden surge of imigrants?

Also, you talk about an under $12 per hour crowd, what is this crowd making in Calgary?

Thank you for the considered responce.

Toronto may have 19% unemployment relative to Calgary pre-recession. That's like 4.5% unemployment.

I paid $500 to Statistics Canada to run the tapes on Calgary and Toronto and Calgary has half the under $12 hr employment.

So immigration to Toronton impacts these.

Regards, Bruce.

[ASLplease]

In 2002, I did some demographically research on Calgary, the gov published stats told me that imigrants were about 25% of the city's population, with some areas like the NE part of Calgary closer to 42% imigrants. The ethnicity in the SW was mostly European, an invisible minority. And in the NE, the visible minority combined with the imigrants brought the numbers closer to 60-70%......anyways, I am not familiar with the percentages for Toronto or Vancouver, however, I would want to point out that Calgary is actively becoming the home of many imigrants, too.

[ASLplease]

Bruce, when we mention 19% and 4.5% are you using the same source and the same criteria for those numbers?

The reason I'm asking is many people object to the UIC quoted unemployment figures, so often we have to at least clarify the numbers by pointing out which source you are using.

I have a hard time beleiving that Toronto's unemployment stats have a 19% disparity when quoting from a gov sourc like EI canada.

[Brenda]

ASLplease wrote:

furthermore, if we take that same list of occupations into rural canada, and deliberately find an area that has minimum numbers of imigrants, what does the same list of occupations make?

I live in rural BC. No visible minorities here. I can give you some numbers of what is paid here.
Administrative assistant: $9-12/hr
Receptionist: $8-11/hr ($8 is in a motel working shifts, $11 is in an office)
Taxi dispatcher in nightshift: $8/hr
Shelfstocker: $8.50/hr
Check out girl: $8.50-10/hr
Retail department manager: $11-13/hr
Retail associate: $9-11/hr
Legal assistant: $13/hr
Administrative assistant in a unionised company: $20-30/hr
Automechanic: $15-25/hr


So there is really a difference between rural BC and for instance Calgary, where the salaries are higher (as is the cost of living, although rent for a 2 br appartment starts at $650 here.)
You can't raise a family of 4 from $10/hr, when childcare (IF available) costs $8/hr. Childcare here closes during school holidays.

[PostFactum]

Brenda wrote:

ASLplease wrote:

No visible minorities here.

After that post I hope they will come))

[ASLplease]

PostFactum wrote:

Brenda wrote:

ASLplease wrote:

No visible minorities here.

After that post I hope they will come))

You have that misquoted. I didn't write that.

[Brenda]

No I did.

[PostFactum]

Sorry guys, I don't know how to quote in normal way))

[ASLplease]

Thanks, Brenda. i'd say its about the same in Calgary. To clarify, I believe the wages here are higher, but I'll bet the cost of housing and cost of living eats up the differences.

I think one problem we have today is the new generation of people want their moderate paying job, and their fancy toys and house. They don't realise that their parents had to wait and save for some of those items. For example, how many people do you know these days actually save for 5-10 years before buying a house? they want everything now, and they whine and complain when the cash flow is too tight. Too many taxi cab drivers and shelf stockers that won't build their own garden sheds and fences. How many actaully do their own vehicle maintenance? many 25 year old kids dont even have the correct hand tools to fix a broken washing machine.

But the have time to sit on their playstation for 4.235 hours per day. They out to realize that there is a price that comes with that.

[Lemmy]

ASLplease wrote:

Bruce, when we mention 19% and 4.5% are you using the same source and the same criteria for those numbers?

The reason I'm asking is many people object to the UIC quoted unemployment figures, so often we have to at least clarify the numbers by pointing out which source you are using.

I have a hard time beleiving that Toronto's unemployment stats have a 19% disparity when quoting from a gov sourc like EI canada.

Bruce has his own methodology. He dismisses the calculations made by StatsCan on the grounds that StatsCan's very definition of "unemployment" and, therefore, the ensuing statistical calculation is likewise flawed. He's cooked up his own methodology. His numbers and theories are interesting, but not at all consistent with generally accepted practise among labour economists. This is why I, as a professional labour economist, tend to steer clear of Bruce's rantings, except to chime in when he crosses the line into genuine silliness.

[Bruce_the_vii]

ASLplease wrote:

Bruce, when we mention 19% and 4.5% are you using the same source and the same criteria for those numbers?

The reason I'm asking is many people object to the UIC quoted unemployment figures, so often we have to at least clarify the numbers by pointing out which source you are using.

I have a hard time beleiving that Toronto's unemployment stats have a 19% disparity when quoting from a gov sourc like EI canada.

It's true that I'm using my own methodolgy. I noticed long ago that the labour force level is depressed in the regions with high unemployment which implies the official unemployment doesn't catch the people that drop out of the labour force. So I use the best performances as a reference point to come up with the 19% unemployment in Toronto. The best performers in Canada are that far ahead of Toronto. I have excellent supporting data for my methodolgy. I have support for my ideas in all parties in Parliament and currently have my ideas being reviewed by the Liberal Election Platform Committee. It's true Lemmy's an expert but I'm much closer to affecting the nation's direction than him.

The 4.5% and 19% are oranges to oranges.


And thanks for the thoughtful question. If I ever have to answer for my ideas in Parliament or Media I'll have to be practiced at questions such as these.

[Lemmy]

You're a loveable kook, Bruce, but I think you're quite mad.

[Proculation]

If I remember well, after 6 months on welfare (or EI ?) you are considered non-active so you are not included in the "unemployement" statistics.

So, yes, 4.5% is not the actual number. 4.5% is the number for ACTIVE persons (ie. people looking for jobs).

[Proculation]

Proculation wrote:

If I remember well, after 6 months on welfare (or EI ?) you are considered non-active so you are not included in the "unemployement" statistics.

So, yes, 4.5% is not the actual number. 4.5% is the number for ACTIVE persons (ie. people looking for jobs).

In french, we say "chômage" when you are active and not working. So, when you loose your job, your are "en chômage" (ie. EI). Since since years ago, "assurance-emploi" (EI) was called "assurance chômage". After a certain period without a job you go to welfare if you didn't find a job. So it seems to be more clear in french since "unemployement" (chômage) doesn't mean "without a job" but the period when you are active but not working. Like weekends, holidays (paid), etc.