Canada may yet be spared from the worst of a US recession

[CrONoS]

* December's employment data were revised upwards from a loss of 18,700 jobs to one of 2,900
* Employment increased by 46,400 in January
* The employment rate increased to 63.8%, yet another new record.
* Full-time employment went up; part-time employment went down
* The private sector was the source of employment growth, reversing the last few months' worrying trend in which jobs were mainly being created in the public sector.

I wonder if the GST tax cut didn't help us?

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080208/d080208a.htm

[http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthw...anadian_initi/]

[Asher]

I hate that graph for being misleading, and you for posting it.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Asher
I hate that graph for being misleading

, and you for posting it.

Wiglaf

[Zkribbler]

I like the idea of using the employment-to-population ratio.

The U.S. "unemployment" numbers are so misleading because they omit persons who've given up looking, persons in prison, etc. But this graph clearly shows that 35% of Americans don't work.

[Whoha]

participation rate is a better measure then we currently use.

[Kontiki]

Re: Canada may yet be spared from the worst of a US recession

Originally posted by CrONoS
I wonder if the GST tax cut didn't help us?

Most likely not. That's not the kind of move that effects employment.

[Barnabas]

The world economic crisis is still unnoticeable in South America, and there are articles in the press about how Brazil and msot other countries will not be affected at all.

I dont know what to believe.

[Ecthy]

Well Barnabas you need to have an actual economy to be affected by an economic crisis

[Barnabas]

Hey, it is only Bolivia, Paraguay and the Guayanas who dont have real economies!

[Ecthy]

Aren't you from Bolivia? or was it Colombia? anyway, people from S America speak with a funny accent.

[Ben Kenobi]

This is very misleading.

I don't think participation rates are a very helpful indicator.

You shouldn't be counting people who don't need to work as if that were a bad thing, but only the people who are looking for work.

[Ecthy]

Now for the economic illiterates to copy: what's the difference between "employment rate" and "employment-population ratio"?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Aren't you from Bolivia? or was it Colombia? anyway, people from S America speak with a funny accent.

IIRC he's from Bolivia and lives in Argentina.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Now for the economic illiterates to copy: what's the difference between "employment rate" and "employment-population ratio"?

I was referring to the U.S.'s unemployment rate, which is broadly defined as the percentage of people looking for work. But, if a person has given up looking, he's not counted. And in the past few years, IIRC, an unemployed person is only counted for "x" many weeks after losing his job. Prisioners are not counted, which is an important statistic in the U.S., because we have the highest rate of incarceration in the world.

The employment-population ratio (as I see it) is a more useful statistic. It shows the percentage of the population which is gainfully employed, i.e. the percentage of the population which is doing the "economic lifting." It will omit the unemployed, the chronically sick, the prisoners, the children, the stay-at-home moms & dads, and the retirees,

[Ecthy]

I was referring to the chart which uses both terms as I used them.