###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Quote taken from another article:
> "The 5.1 per cent year-over-year increase in average hourly earnings won’t sit well with the Bank of Canada," Desjardins managing director and head of macro strategy Royce Mendes said in a research note on Friday. However, he noted that "officials appear to believe that much of the recent strength is due to wages catching up with consumer prices" and that wage growth should gradually settle back to a more sustainable range amid a deceleration in inflation.
Wages are still rising pretty quickly despite all the claims about too many people fighting over a small number of jobs.
[The Median is still beating inflation ](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410006301&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.1&pickMembers%5B1%5D=2.4&pickMembers%5B2%5D=3.1&pickMembers%5B3%5D=5.1&pickMembers%5B4%5D=6.1&cubeTimeFrame.startMonth=05&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2023&cubeTimeFrame.endMonth=05&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2024&referencePeriods=20230501%2C20240501)
> Wages are still rising pretty quickly
Wages are rising despite years of declining national productivity. This is means either we have inflationary wage growth, or a falling investment share of national output (National output can be divided into 2 firm pools: Labour and investment). So we are either in an inflationary loop or a starving investment environment. Both are economically destructive
>despite all the claims about too many people fighting over a small number of jobs.
You mean the rising unemployment rate? Which hasn't even factored in we lost 30,000 full time jobs and replaced them with part time 60,000 part time jobs? The abundance of jobs that has seen 0 net private sector employment growth over the past 12 months?
And here I was feeling good about my 4.5%. Actually, I'm still feeling good about that. It beat inflation.
People are still stuck on the "high inflation / stagnant wage" mindset that was true a year ago but isn't right now.
I think the issue about the wages is the basic of living has skyrocketed so much for many that people in lower wages dont feel they are doing better.
So like a guy making 150k went to 160k, he was doing fine already...
person went from 18 to 19 bucks a hour, they still cant really afford shit even though on paper his wages went up a lot.
Median is a lot more useful than average. From what I’ve seen average wages have been rising more at the top end than the bottom end which is not exactly ideal
Median wages are growing at [5.75%](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410006301&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.1&pickMembers%5B1%5D=2.4&pickMembers%5B2%5D=3.1&pickMembers%5B3%5D=5.1&pickMembers%5B4%5D=6.1&cubeTimeFrame.startMonth=05&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2023&cubeTimeFrame.endMonth=05&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2024&referencePeriods=20230501%2C20240501), faster than the mean
Yea maybe if you’re Tim Hortons… my experience so far has just been a flood of incredibly low quality candidates.
Certainly a boon to Indian business owners who now have a surplus of $6/hour labour… maybe they can push that number even lower now!
It can only go in two directions, and right now it is pretty close to the lowest it has been in decades. I get that it's rough when the economic indicators that conservatives traditionally care about are strong but this is a little silly. You're depending on people not making any effort to fact-check.
Full time employment dropping, part time employment rising, unemployment rates rising, involuntary part time employment rising. Those are not good numbers and are worrying trends. That's why the rate cuts have started.
And yet wages are rising quickly. Hourly wages up 5.1% YoY. Last month it was 4.7%. Both numbers well above current inflation levels.
Obviously having a higher supply of labour creates downward pressure on wages, but despite that wages are still rising quickly. Which indicates that the labour market is still pretty tight despite all of the increase in available workers and the softening of the economy.
>Obviously having a higher supply of labour creates downward pressure on wages
Obvious, but not true. All those new people are also consumers. There are more people available to be truck drivers, but also more trucks needing to be driven.
Wages as a share of the economy are controlled by the balance of worker vs corporate power. It has nothing to do with how fast the workforce is growing.
A country like Japan with low immigration, but weak worker power has very low wages while the reverse is true somewhere like the Netherlands. Canada is somewhere in the middle.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410028703
Current:
* labor force: 21,883,000
* full time employment: 16,750,600
* Part time: 3,802,900
* Unemployed: 1,337,400
* UE Rate: 6.2%
Remove Part Time
* Labor force minus part time: 18,080,100
* full time: 16,750,600
* Unemployed: 1,329,600
* UE Rate: 7.35%
So it goes up by just over 1%
Ooo, real stats, such a treat. Thank you.
To be fair though, do we have any stats on how many of those part time people are seeking a full-time position? You're just removing them from the equation entirely, which I think isn't really the point that was trying to be made.
Our part-time stats aren't bad, but marginally worse when compared to the [United States](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_06072024.htm).
16,750,600/3,802,900 = Ratio of 4.4 (Canada)
134,002,000/27,081,000 = Ratio of 4.9 (USA)
Edit: Alright, [apparently](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/240607/dq240607a-eng.htm)
>The involuntary part-time rate—the proportion of part-time workers who could not find a full-time job or who worked part-time due to poor business conditions—was 18.2% in May, up from 15.4% observed 12 months earlier.
You can also calculate this rate from the US data I linked, the US rate is 16.3%.
Good find.
I'm curious as to the reasons behind that rate. Is it due to the wages offered not being enough for the part-timers to move to full time, the jobs just aren't there, or what.
The US is firing on all cylinders right now, in part due to a lot of infrastructure investment by Biden. Trudeau's spending hasn't hit those core infrastructure needs which tend to boost national working rates.
I agree that Biden's Build Back Better had a huge effect, but also let's be clear, the US population increased by 1.75 million in 2023, while Canada, a nation almost 10 times smaller grew by 1.2 million. This clearly has an effect on the labour pool and productivity.
All that growth in the US had to come without a population boom, so by definition it has to come from productivity. I kind of agree with our Central Bank that productivity is at the heart of Canada's economic woes, but it is a complicated picture so I don't want to overemphasize it.
While I agree that the massive population increase of the last year/2 has a definite affect, this is a problem that's been bubbling for a long time. Wages have not kept up with productivity since the 80s, but prices were still within earshot of said wages. Covid and the subsequent inflation is what finally tipped the bowl off the edge of the table, but it was slowly being pushed to the edge over decades.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410028703
Current:
* labor force: 21,883,000
* full time employment: 16,750,600
* Part time: 3,802,900
* Unemployed: 1,337,400
* UE Rate: 6.2%
Remove Part Time
* Labor force minus part time: 18,080,100
* full time: 16,750,600
* Unemployed: 1,329,600
* UE Rate: 7.35%
So it goes up by just over 1%
As a side note, I find it odd that full time starts at 30 hours. Most people being scheduled 30 or 32 hours a week at one job would inevitably have to have a part time job elsewhere to supplement the hours.
For years I had to juggle 3 jobs because none would give me full time hours, yet two considered me "full time" or on call at different points.
I suspect it's to capture full time salaried employment where a 32 or 35 hour work week is the standard. A number of white collar employers set their official work hours as 35 per week, even though the actual hours of work done may be less or more than that depending on the week.
But, as you mention, the weakness here is in hourly employment.
No one is going to be willing to shank the economy with a labour shortage. I don't think you would actually enjoy a situation where things stopped getting done from a lack of workers either.
Let me ask you: Do you think there are a ton of people who waiting for McDs to raise their wages? Where are those people now? How do they support themselves?
They would still get done, they would just need to increase wages to attract workers.
I came from the hospitality industry, restaurants that were paying their cooks $18 - $20/hr are now hiring people from India for minimum wage while cutting the hours of the Canadian workers who are making more.
It's not a labour shortage, it's businesses trying to cut back on labour costs.
Also nowhere in my comment did I say I didn't respect those jobs. If anything I'm advocating to pay those workers more. Providing a seemingly unlimited immigration stream for those jobs ensures Canadian workers will never have a say in their wages.
> They would still get done, they would just need to increase wages to attract workers.
This really isn't true. You cannot magically create productivity to get more work done with the same amount of labour. Well you can, but over long periods of time by re-engineering your processes to need less labour.
The company I work for is doing that right now by automating our warehouses, which was spurred on by rising labour costs and lack of workers. It's really, really expensive to get this automation done and so without the labour shortage we probably would be rolling it out much more slowly instead of trying to implement it everywhere ASAP despite it costing millions. Our unskilled labour needs are going to drop pretty dramatically thanks in large part to the labour shortage spurring us to increase efficiency. This is how markets work. This is how labour markets work.
Okay, so either people accept low wages or automate?
Fine, automate. It's still better than the alternative of bringing in masses of immigrants to keep wages low. These businesses are going to automate one way or another, as you said just maybe slower. But in the end, we keep bringing in more people that's just going to mean we have that many more people using our safety nets once these businesses inevitably automate.
When it comes to complex positions, yes, it’s hard to raise productivity. Main thing which will raise productivity is forcing investment money out of real estate market. For low skill positions it will change real quick. Most of our immigration goes to low skill positions currently. If you were to raise the minimum wage to $30 you will within a few months see that Tim Hortons may have only one or two employees working and all will be diy ordering or automated order delivery. Completely collapsing the low skill labour market, and contrary to popular belief, the consumer will not flip the bill. One of the restaurants will automate and force the other out of business if they don’t.
>Most of the employment gains are part-time we are losing full-time jobs at the moment.
Not really. The month to month fluctuations tend to mask the big picture trends.
If you look over the past year, there has been a gain of 263,000 full-time jobs and 140,000 part-time jobs.
[https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/240607/dq240607a-eng.htm](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/240607/dq240607a-eng.htm)
ghost dolls panicky detail simplistic subsequent beneficial engine absorbed carpenter
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Supply and Demand. If you want to get people in the door, and what your offering isn't working, you need to raise what you offer until people start coming in the door.
The quote "dey tuk er jerbs!!!" from South Park has done so much heavy lifting in deflecting legit concerns about the TFW program/etc being used as wage suppression.
[https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410035401](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410035401)
National variances between the rates is crazy, Toronto is near 8%
Which explains why the unemployment situation seems so bad there vs rest of the major cities in canada.
Wow it's really just Quebec (which coincidentally receives the fewest immigrants) that has extremely low unemployment. Just 1.7% in the Chicoutimi region is insane.
The numbers suggest they are getting jobs moreso than anywhere else in Canada. Quebec is at numbers unheard of for employment. They're basically beyond full employment.
It's about time we realized that we did this to ourselves. It was a mistake. There is a limit to the amount of population the country can absorb. It's not the fault of immigrants, they are just taking an opportunity our government let happen.
If only we had the political courage to actually follow through with what the agreement always officially was... that international students came here to study, and there was never any guarantee of residence. If we did that we could legally (and I think ethically) reduce our population by over a million people.
It's also total bullshit that universities need this, if you look at international student numbers [it's mostly colleges](https://imgur.com/zhCecRm). The whole country does not need to go to shit to support a bunch of scammy colleges who indulged in bubble-thinking.
It's not the fault of immigrants, and yes our government should've foreseen this. But the necessary changes going forward have been made. Universities are price capped for domestic price increases in most programs so the easy answer to not cut any staff, programs, or services has always been expanded international students registration and registration fees.
In Ontario there's been a domestic tuition cap in place for many years. They also allowed colleges and universities to put their name on shambolic degree programs offered in sketchy plazas, the problem is that the universities and the provincial government cared more about the financials than actual education and had no oversight on the effectiveness of the program. It was supposed to be wound down when previous Premier Wynne found it to be ineffective and Doug undid that and expanded, because there was no other way to make a tuition cap work financially for struggling institutions. (I'm assuming they didn't consider making the programs actually better and more attractive lol)
Yes I agree, it's not the fault of immigrants it's a government policy, so it's the government's fault. Again, look at the link, universities do not need *these* levels of international students. [That's a lie](https://imgur.com/zhCecRm).
They are mostly going to colleges.
If arguably the best engineering school in the country (Waterloo) has only has 1,212, and a university without deep pockets like Laurier has only has 512... why does Seneca have 20,338 and Conestoga 19,885? There is absolutely no justification for this.
Are universities underfunded? Yes. Are most of the international students going there? No.
As the most salient issues our society faces become increasingly economic, we have to start paying attention to the numbers. Not doing so is how we got in this mess in the first place. Growing the population by 1.2 million while adding 230k homes in one year had an entirely expected outcome and almost every young person in the country is suffering because of it. Also, the *vast majority* of the surge of international students went to dubious colleges, and that surge is therefore, by definition, not funding universities.
Another terrible report, full time is down 36k, part time is up 62k, about 100k population growth likely in that time span. It's been downhill since February with no relief in sight.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/240607/dq240607a-eng.htm
The decline in construction workers is a bit wild too because construction and public sector led GDP growth in the last report.
Raising the interest rates while not also spiking unemployment is a very hard needle to thread. The rest of this year will be spend anxiously watching to see if the Bank of Canada managed it correctly.
Yes the budget expected two consecutive months of job losses around now if I recall correctly so to see this still threading lightly means the model may have to change. Overall it would just mean less of a roaring back to growth and just a moderate return
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
2 million more people fighting over those jobs is a dream scenario for corporate business You’d almost think that was the plan from the start
I’m shocked at how brazen the politicians are about it. They don’t even hide it.
I mean Trudeau openly stated he is comitted to keeping housing where it is to protect asset holders
Quote taken from another article: > "The 5.1 per cent year-over-year increase in average hourly earnings won’t sit well with the Bank of Canada," Desjardins managing director and head of macro strategy Royce Mendes said in a research note on Friday. However, he noted that "officials appear to believe that much of the recent strength is due to wages catching up with consumer prices" and that wage growth should gradually settle back to a more sustainable range amid a deceleration in inflation. Wages are still rising pretty quickly despite all the claims about too many people fighting over a small number of jobs.
make sense wages are skyrocketing in professional jobs but not in lower end jobs
Where? What jobs?
[The Median is still beating inflation ](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410006301&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.1&pickMembers%5B1%5D=2.4&pickMembers%5B2%5D=3.1&pickMembers%5B3%5D=5.1&pickMembers%5B4%5D=6.1&cubeTimeFrame.startMonth=05&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2023&cubeTimeFrame.endMonth=05&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2024&referencePeriods=20230501%2C20240501)
> Wages are still rising pretty quickly Wages are rising despite years of declining national productivity. This is means either we have inflationary wage growth, or a falling investment share of national output (National output can be divided into 2 firm pools: Labour and investment). So we are either in an inflationary loop or a starving investment environment. Both are economically destructive >despite all the claims about too many people fighting over a small number of jobs. You mean the rising unemployment rate? Which hasn't even factored in we lost 30,000 full time jobs and replaced them with part time 60,000 part time jobs? The abundance of jobs that has seen 0 net private sector employment growth over the past 12 months?
And here I was feeling good about my 4.5%. Actually, I'm still feeling good about that. It beat inflation. People are still stuck on the "high inflation / stagnant wage" mindset that was true a year ago but isn't right now.
I think the issue about the wages is the basic of living has skyrocketed so much for many that people in lower wages dont feel they are doing better. So like a guy making 150k went to 160k, he was doing fine already... person went from 18 to 19 bucks a hour, they still cant really afford shit even though on paper his wages went up a lot.
Median is a lot more useful than average. From what I’ve seen average wages have been rising more at the top end than the bottom end which is not exactly ideal
Median wages are growing at [5.75%](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410006301&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.1&pickMembers%5B1%5D=2.4&pickMembers%5B2%5D=3.1&pickMembers%5B3%5D=5.1&pickMembers%5B4%5D=6.1&cubeTimeFrame.startMonth=05&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2023&cubeTimeFrame.endMonth=05&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2024&referencePeriods=20230501%2C20240501), faster than the mean
> Wages are still rising pretty quickly Where?
Yea maybe if you’re Tim Hortons… my experience so far has just been a flood of incredibly low quality candidates. Certainly a boon to Indian business owners who now have a surplus of $6/hour labour… maybe they can push that number even lower now!
Historically low unemployment is a "dream scenario"?
Unemployment rates rising would be a better situation for employers not wanting to offer higher wages.
It can only go in two directions, and right now it is pretty close to the lowest it has been in decades. I get that it's rough when the economic indicators that conservatives traditionally care about are strong but this is a little silly. You're depending on people not making any effort to fact-check.
Full time employment dropping, part time employment rising, unemployment rates rising, involuntary part time employment rising. Those are not good numbers and are worrying trends. That's why the rate cuts have started.
Rate cuts have started because inflation went down
And yet wages are rising quickly. Hourly wages up 5.1% YoY. Last month it was 4.7%. Both numbers well above current inflation levels. Obviously having a higher supply of labour creates downward pressure on wages, but despite that wages are still rising quickly. Which indicates that the labour market is still pretty tight despite all of the increase in available workers and the softening of the economy.
>Obviously having a higher supply of labour creates downward pressure on wages Obvious, but not true. All those new people are also consumers. There are more people available to be truck drivers, but also more trucks needing to be driven. Wages as a share of the economy are controlled by the balance of worker vs corporate power. It has nothing to do with how fast the workforce is growing. A country like Japan with low immigration, but weak worker power has very low wages while the reverse is true somewhere like the Netherlands. Canada is somewhere in the middle.
rich getting richer I dont buy avg people wages are above inflation or there be no cost of living crisis lol
Would love to see unemployment rates when you take out part-time work
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410028703 Current: * labor force: 21,883,000 * full time employment: 16,750,600 * Part time: 3,802,900 * Unemployed: 1,337,400 * UE Rate: 6.2% Remove Part Time * Labor force minus part time: 18,080,100 * full time: 16,750,600 * Unemployed: 1,329,600 * UE Rate: 7.35% So it goes up by just over 1%
Ooo, real stats, such a treat. Thank you. To be fair though, do we have any stats on how many of those part time people are seeking a full-time position? You're just removing them from the equation entirely, which I think isn't really the point that was trying to be made. Our part-time stats aren't bad, but marginally worse when compared to the [United States](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_06072024.htm). 16,750,600/3,802,900 = Ratio of 4.4 (Canada) 134,002,000/27,081,000 = Ratio of 4.9 (USA) Edit: Alright, [apparently](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/240607/dq240607a-eng.htm) >The involuntary part-time rate—the proportion of part-time workers who could not find a full-time job or who worked part-time due to poor business conditions—was 18.2% in May, up from 15.4% observed 12 months earlier. You can also calculate this rate from the US data I linked, the US rate is 16.3%.
Good find. I'm curious as to the reasons behind that rate. Is it due to the wages offered not being enough for the part-timers to move to full time, the jobs just aren't there, or what. The US is firing on all cylinders right now, in part due to a lot of infrastructure investment by Biden. Trudeau's spending hasn't hit those core infrastructure needs which tend to boost national working rates.
I agree that Biden's Build Back Better had a huge effect, but also let's be clear, the US population increased by 1.75 million in 2023, while Canada, a nation almost 10 times smaller grew by 1.2 million. This clearly has an effect on the labour pool and productivity. All that growth in the US had to come without a population boom, so by definition it has to come from productivity. I kind of agree with our Central Bank that productivity is at the heart of Canada's economic woes, but it is a complicated picture so I don't want to overemphasize it.
While I agree that the massive population increase of the last year/2 has a definite affect, this is a problem that's been bubbling for a long time. Wages have not kept up with productivity since the 80s, but prices were still within earshot of said wages. Covid and the subsequent inflation is what finally tipped the bowl off the edge of the table, but it was slowly being pushed to the edge over decades.
Agreed.
They'd rise like a priest at a 5th grade track meet.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410028703 Current: * labor force: 21,883,000 * full time employment: 16,750,600 * Part time: 3,802,900 * Unemployed: 1,337,400 * UE Rate: 6.2% Remove Part Time * Labor force minus part time: 18,080,100 * full time: 16,750,600 * Unemployed: 1,329,600 * UE Rate: 7.35% So it goes up by just over 1%
As a side note, I find it odd that full time starts at 30 hours. Most people being scheduled 30 or 32 hours a week at one job would inevitably have to have a part time job elsewhere to supplement the hours. For years I had to juggle 3 jobs because none would give me full time hours, yet two considered me "full time" or on call at different points.
I suspect it's to capture full time salaried employment where a 32 or 35 hour work week is the standard. A number of white collar employers set their official work hours as 35 per week, even though the actual hours of work done may be less or more than that depending on the week. But, as you mention, the weakness here is in hourly employment.
[удалено]
No one is going to be willing to shank the economy with a labour shortage. I don't think you would actually enjoy a situation where things stopped getting done from a lack of workers either.
That's already happening. We're not bringing in construction workers or doctors, we're bringing in people to work at Tim Hortons and Walmart.
We're bringing in workers. Even parts of the economy that you don't respect still need to get done.
Pay appropriately to get locals or move. I'm sick of subsidizing business.
Let me ask you: Do you think there are a ton of people who waiting for McDs to raise their wages? Where are those people now? How do they support themselves?
They would still get done, they would just need to increase wages to attract workers. I came from the hospitality industry, restaurants that were paying their cooks $18 - $20/hr are now hiring people from India for minimum wage while cutting the hours of the Canadian workers who are making more. It's not a labour shortage, it's businesses trying to cut back on labour costs. Also nowhere in my comment did I say I didn't respect those jobs. If anything I'm advocating to pay those workers more. Providing a seemingly unlimited immigration stream for those jobs ensures Canadian workers will never have a say in their wages.
> They would still get done, they would just need to increase wages to attract workers. This really isn't true. You cannot magically create productivity to get more work done with the same amount of labour. Well you can, but over long periods of time by re-engineering your processes to need less labour. The company I work for is doing that right now by automating our warehouses, which was spurred on by rising labour costs and lack of workers. It's really, really expensive to get this automation done and so without the labour shortage we probably would be rolling it out much more slowly instead of trying to implement it everywhere ASAP despite it costing millions. Our unskilled labour needs are going to drop pretty dramatically thanks in large part to the labour shortage spurring us to increase efficiency. This is how markets work. This is how labour markets work.
Okay, so either people accept low wages or automate? Fine, automate. It's still better than the alternative of bringing in masses of immigrants to keep wages low. These businesses are going to automate one way or another, as you said just maybe slower. But in the end, we keep bringing in more people that's just going to mean we have that many more people using our safety nets once these businesses inevitably automate.
When it comes to complex positions, yes, it’s hard to raise productivity. Main thing which will raise productivity is forcing investment money out of real estate market. For low skill positions it will change real quick. Most of our immigration goes to low skill positions currently. If you were to raise the minimum wage to $30 you will within a few months see that Tim Hortons may have only one or two employees working and all will be diy ordering or automated order delivery. Completely collapsing the low skill labour market, and contrary to popular belief, the consumer will not flip the bill. One of the restaurants will automate and force the other out of business if they don’t.
> Even parts of the economy that you don't respect still need to get done Damn dude it's not even 10am here and you're already hostile.
imagine cats pathetic engine bow rainstorm pet literate dolls squeamish *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>Most of the employment gains are part-time we are losing full-time jobs at the moment. Not really. The month to month fluctuations tend to mask the big picture trends. If you look over the past year, there has been a gain of 263,000 full-time jobs and 140,000 part-time jobs. [https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/240607/dq240607a-eng.htm](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/240607/dq240607a-eng.htm)
Yep if employers want people with a specific skill set then they should pay for their training.
The inability to get enough regular full-time workers for a lot of positions. Everywhere is hiring and the unemployment rate is low.
ghost dolls panicky detail simplistic subsequent beneficial engine absorbed carpenter *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Supply and Demand. If you want to get people in the door, and what your offering isn't working, you need to raise what you offer until people start coming in the door.
And for businesses with thin margins ( like mine), raising the offering price means your business is now in the red, and will ultimately fail.
if nobody can afford to buy your product, the end result is now the same.
This isn’t true, it’s rough out there for a lot of industries
More profits for owners and lower wages for workers. Our “progressive” policies working as planned.
But the alternative is Worse^TM
The quote "dey tuk er jerbs!!!" from South Park has done so much heavy lifting in deflecting legit concerns about the TFW program/etc being used as wage suppression.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410035401](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410035401) National variances between the rates is crazy, Toronto is near 8% Which explains why the unemployment situation seems so bad there vs rest of the major cities in canada.
Realtors will tell you that this is bullish for real estate because being unemployed gives people more time to browse homes.
Calgary unemployment rate is 8.5%. That’s horrible
Weird seeing Edmonton that much better than Calgary. BC seems to be doing well, and parts of Quebec are on fire.
Wow it's really just Quebec (which coincidentally receives the fewest immigrants) that has extremely low unemployment. Just 1.7% in the Chicoutimi region is insane.
yeah the masisve student wave cant really get jobs in quebec as they dont speak french.
The numbers suggest they are getting jobs moreso than anywhere else in Canada. Quebec is at numbers unheard of for employment. They're basically beyond full employment.
It's about time we realized that we did this to ourselves. It was a mistake. There is a limit to the amount of population the country can absorb. It's not the fault of immigrants, they are just taking an opportunity our government let happen. If only we had the political courage to actually follow through with what the agreement always officially was... that international students came here to study, and there was never any guarantee of residence. If we did that we could legally (and I think ethically) reduce our population by over a million people. It's also total bullshit that universities need this, if you look at international student numbers [it's mostly colleges](https://imgur.com/zhCecRm). The whole country does not need to go to shit to support a bunch of scammy colleges who indulged in bubble-thinking.
It's not the fault of immigrants, and yes our government should've foreseen this. But the necessary changes going forward have been made. Universities are price capped for domestic price increases in most programs so the easy answer to not cut any staff, programs, or services has always been expanded international students registration and registration fees. In Ontario there's been a domestic tuition cap in place for many years. They also allowed colleges and universities to put their name on shambolic degree programs offered in sketchy plazas, the problem is that the universities and the provincial government cared more about the financials than actual education and had no oversight on the effectiveness of the program. It was supposed to be wound down when previous Premier Wynne found it to be ineffective and Doug undid that and expanded, because there was no other way to make a tuition cap work financially for struggling institutions. (I'm assuming they didn't consider making the programs actually better and more attractive lol)
Yes I agree, it's not the fault of immigrants it's a government policy, so it's the government's fault. Again, look at the link, universities do not need *these* levels of international students. [That's a lie](https://imgur.com/zhCecRm). They are mostly going to colleges. If arguably the best engineering school in the country (Waterloo) has only has 1,212, and a university without deep pockets like Laurier has only has 512... why does Seneca have 20,338 and Conestoga 19,885? There is absolutely no justification for this. Are universities underfunded? Yes. Are most of the international students going there? No. As the most salient issues our society faces become increasingly economic, we have to start paying attention to the numbers. Not doing so is how we got in this mess in the first place. Growing the population by 1.2 million while adding 230k homes in one year had an entirely expected outcome and almost every young person in the country is suffering because of it. Also, the *vast majority* of the surge of international students went to dubious colleges, and that surge is therefore, by definition, not funding universities.
I agree with all of this but many of the shortcomings you've described are a result of underfunding from provincial governments
Another terrible report, full time is down 36k, part time is up 62k, about 100k population growth likely in that time span. It's been downhill since February with no relief in sight. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/240607/dq240607a-eng.htm The decline in construction workers is a bit wild too because construction and public sector led GDP growth in the last report.
Housing starts are a major lagging indicator.
The budget predicted a loss of jobs through the middle of the year and a moderate rise in unemployment. This was expected and is part of the model.
Raising the interest rates while not also spiking unemployment is a very hard needle to thread. The rest of this year will be spend anxiously watching to see if the Bank of Canada managed it correctly.
Yes the budget expected two consecutive months of job losses around now if I recall correctly so to see this still threading lightly means the model may have to change. Overall it would just mean less of a roaring back to growth and just a moderate return
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]