Economic Action Dud: Canada loses 46,000 jobs, unemployment rate climbs to 7.2%

[Walter]

Lower unemployment rate in USA, higher in Canada. Gee, I wonder how Wally feels about that ?

How's that participation rate workin' for ya?

 

[pgs]

You are tapdancing quicker and quicker.
Rebut my claim that low dollar manufactory plants in Ontario moved into a high dollar environment in the States.
And save the smokescreen.

And I am not emotional about fiscal policies.
Nor am I emotional about political policies, I tend to vote all over the map trying to get the best possible candidates into meaningful slots.
And a bankrupt or rapidly diminishing country aint what I aim to try and pass on to my future generations.
Passing on debts to our future generations is, in my view, scummy.

Born Ruff seems to believe how a countries currency is pegged internationally is extremely simplistic.
As does Tom Mulcair and the rest of the Dip's.
If Ontario goes down the drain and Alberta does well, well heck it must be Alberta's fault.
A fool’s game.
If I invent the world’s most popular widget, build a manufacturing city the size of Tokyo in Manitoba to make the widget......well heck that must hurt Ontario and Quebec right?
Right?
It must, right?
Especially if Ontario and Quebec happen to need more money.
Right?

National currencies depend on a huge amount of variables.
How a countries commercial paper and bonds are rated and accepted internationally.
The countries fiscal standings and how it's assets are developed as viewed by the world’s investors.
National and provincial debts and how they are being dealt with by the country or provinces in question.
The policies of the national banks of country is it, buying bonds and paper, floating bonds, adopting aggressively simulative or conservative fiscal policies, printing money and internationally what is the acceptance, demand and velocity of that money.
Blah, blah, blah.
Oil in Canada is a minor but stabilizing influence.

Increased development and increased infrastructure in Canada tends to benefit Canadians.

As I explained before it is just this simple:
High taxes, unionism, high utility rates and poor local government are a death sentence as far as jobs and industry are concerned.

But of course because you didn't build that . LOL

Is it just me or does BR argue exactly like SJP?

I said that yesterday or the day before , around and around she goes .

Lower unemployment rate in USA, higher in Canada. Gee, I wonder how Wally feels about that ?

I am sure he is not happy but sure he takes comfort in the fact that those jobs aren't going to Minnesota .

 

[BornRuff]

You continue to blow smoke and tapdance around.
You have rebutted nothing I have said and continue to dodge issue after issue.
Instead of ducking and weaving why not clearly explain yourself to the forum at large.

I debate your points raised and you seem incapable of debating mine.
Are you trapped in a fixed political dogma?
If not rebut my positions.

You say you do not understand me when I say that internationally the CDN dollar peg is extremely complex and dictated by many variables, least of which is oil pricing.
Well fine, we now all know that it's beyond your understanding so please lets move on.
If not please explain how I am in error about how CDN dollar values are determined on the international stage by a huge number of variables least of which is oil pricing.

You endlessly drone on about how the high CDN dollar is driving industry out of Ontario and yet you fail to explain how Canadian industries leave low dollar Canada (.92 USD) to relocate in high dollar (1 USD) locations.
Save the smoke and leftist dogma and please explain how that can possibly happen on an ongoing basis?
And yet again I say that people that want to penalize successful regions and industries in Canada simply because of their success are both regressive and destructive to the nation.

You talk about productivity and on that note I would tend to agree with you, in Ontario and Quebec productivity sucks.
And it has nothing to do with the dollar peg because industries are leaving low dollar Canada (.93 USD) for high dollar USA (1 USD) on a pretty much non-stop basis.
Productivity is defined as the efficiency in producing a marketable product.
And a marketable product is only marketable if it can compete with similar products.
And I believe drastically higher input costs result in higher production costs.
So please, for the third time, explain how this statement: High taxes, unionism, high utility rates and poor local government are a death sentence as far as jobs and industry are concerned.
Is erroneous.

If you do not agree with my positions Instead of ducking, weaving and disseminating why not not just clearly and simply show them to be wrong?

If you can not or will not rebut my statements, please do all of us a favor and cease to quote them.

I honestly do not know how much more direct I can be. I am using the same language I used when TAing for first year econ classes, and those 18 year olds didn't seem to have any trouble with it. Have you ever studied economics in any sort of formal setting?

I know economics is a complicated subject, but you just need to make a little effort.

It is hard to respond to your posts when you completely ignore everything that I post.

I have very clearly responded to your points. Please make the effort to read what I wrote.

 

[Machjo]

How many thousands of those job losses are the fault of the NIMBYs and NOPEs that are forcing delays/cancelation of major projects? Since their goal is to destroy our economy and life as we know it one would think they would be like you and bragging about their success.

I totally agree. I'd proposed a few weeks ago that city council rezone all of the city's green spaces and cycling paths into commersial areas, and to get rid of those pesky noise bylaws or at least exempt industry from them.

Still haven't heard back from them.

Always two sides to every story.

The actual effect on jobs of a project like the pipelines is kind of dubious. Yes there will be jobs created in the short term to build the thing, but the whole point of the pipelines once they are up and running is to move more oil with less manpower.

Was it not the same for computers with the flow of information. Job losses at Canada Post all the fault of computers and the internet, so I say ban them.

And just think of how the main goal of must R&D is efficciency, which in many cases means efficiency in the use of manpower too.

Down with R&D!

AB and Sask are still shy of around 50,000 jobs.

Much of Canada's unemployment is a sheer matter of those that won't go to where the work is.

It is to the point that the gvt is providing tax relief to those companies that need to find temporary foreign workers

If they're unemployed, do they have the money to relocate?

It's like asking a homeless man with no boots to get to work!

Honestly though, I do lean more in favour of pipelines simply owing to the efficiency involved. Why would we want to create busy work? Is it not better to produce economically productive jobs within an efficient economy?

That said, environmental impact still has to be assessed, but then again, pipelines might actually use up less fuel than trucks and trains.

 

[captain morgan]

You claimed that oil only made up a small portion of the rail traffic right now. If rail is so much cheaper than pipelines, then why wouldn't they just pay a bit more and take over more of the rail system rather than spend all of these billions of dollars trying to put in the pipelines?

It isn't cheaper in the long run.. Why do you think that investment funds line-up to pour billions into these p/ls?

The single most important factor in the decline of manufacturing in Ontario is the exchange rate. It was almost entirely connected to export to the US. When McGunity took power, 1 USD was equal to $1.40 here in Canada. That allowed us to price our exports dirt cheap. Since then, our dollar climbed dramatically, so now the money that we received for our goods was worth 20-30% less over the following years.

If you are pegging your productivity to having a (relatively) weak dollar, then you are already lost.

You either compete on quality, price and supply, or you don't

I'm not saying that we should abandon the oil patch, but it is pretty annoying to hear Ottawa blame Queen's Park for the decline of our manufacturing sector when they know full well that that was an inevitable effect of their focus on developing the oil sands.

The mfg sector is in decline for a variety of reasons, chief among them is inability to compete with China/Asia

I oppose the Northern Gateway for two reasons the main being the
incompetence of the company building it and secondly we should not be selling
energy supplies to companies that would compete with our businesses.

You still have no clue about the track records of the p/l company that you support and the one you don't... You were in journalism at one point, right? Didn't they require you to do any research prior to releasing news articles?

By the way, where were you and all the moral outrage when the Chinese bought-out most of your province's land?

Your argument is that Alberta success and it's oil increased the value of the CDN dollar and thus manufacturing died in Ontario.
But Heinz and Caterpillar moved from a low dollar environment (Canada with it's dollar at .93 USD) to a high dollar environment which is the USA with its 1 dollar environment.
And thus dies your argument.

Funny how there is no mention from BR that as the mfg sector in Canada got stronger, that this influence didn't affect the par value of the CAD vs USD.

Convenient, non?

I honestly do not know how much more direct I can be. I am using the same language I used when TAing for first year econ classes, and those 18 year olds didn't seem to have any trouble with it. Have you ever studied economics in any sort of formal setting?

I know economics is a complicated subject, but you just need to make a little effort.

Herein lies the problem; you are applying a text book, theoretical analysis to the situation. Yours is an oversimplification.

... And yes, economics is a remarkably complex subject

If they're unemployed, do they have the money to relocate?

Some companies are flying-in (at company expense) folks from NFLD on a 3-4 week rotation just to get boots on the ground

That said, environmental impact still has to be assessed, but then again, pipelines might actually use up less fuel than trucks and trains.

It has been assessed. It's just that the greenie-weenies don't like the outcome of the report (read: any approvals) and piss and moan.

 

[petros]

It is simple logic. Why would a business use a more expensive option if a cheaper one was available?



I don't know how I could be more clear.

The premise is simply wrong. Canada isn't a low dollar country anymore. Canada has been hovering around parity for years now. The dollar has been slipping recently, but the choices you site were not made yesterday, and they are made based on long term outlook, not just one price from one day.

Companies operated here for decades with exchange rates in the 70 and 80 cent ranges. The long term outlook does not point to us going back to that. The cost of doing business here is higher than it used to be, so I am sure you can understand how that affects choices.

Maybe you can respond to my very clear points at the start of the last post.



It is very simple economics. Supply and demand. When foreign companies want to invest in Canada or buy things from us, that money eventually has to be converted to Canadian dollars. More demand for Canadian dollars pushes the value up. The level of supply and demand is determined by a lot of different things, but increased investment in the oil sands is undoubtedly a force pushing in the up direction.



When things change in the economy, there are always winners and loser. Higher exchange rates are good for some, and bad for others. It is a fact of life. Ignoring it doesn't change the facts.



What does that even mean? If more foreign people want to put money into the oil sands, that unambiguously pushes the value of the dollar up.

Obviously there are many factors at play, but no matter what all of the other forces are doing, the forces attributed to the oil sands push the dollar up higher than it would otherwise be.

Can you actually find even one economist that disagrees with the fact that the increased investment in the oil sands does not push the dollar up?



The real problem that Canada has faced is low productivity. That has been constant for decades, but the low dollar masked the problem. Crucifying the guys who happen to be in power when the bandaid is ripped off doesn't really yield helpful results.

The thing you mention certainly could help, but they are not enough to make up for the 30% change in prices. Ontario is going through a larger shift that is going to take a lot more than just crushing unions or a tax cut.

Where and when did I say rail was cheap?

 

[Trex]

I honestly do not know how much more direct I can be. I am using the same language I used when TAing for first year econ classes, and those 18 year olds didn't seem to have any trouble with it. Have you ever studied economics in any sort of formal setting?

I know economics is a complicated subject, but you just need to make a little effort.

It is hard to respond to your posts when you completely ignore everything that I post.

I have very clearly responded to your points. Please make the effort to read what I wrote.

]

Once again you fail to rebut or even address a single issue I have raised.
You just cannot do it can you?
Can you?

You fail to back up or defend any of your positions and so you resort to deflection and misdirection as several other forum members have previously pointed out.
I leave it up to the readers of this thread to determine whether or not your sole debating skill is ducking and weaving.

As to my education.
It was in engineering.

However earlier in my career I did run all of a multinational corporations operations in a medium sized country for a few years.
Following that I started up my own very small, but profitable international corporation and ran that as president and CEO for a decade or so.
So that would be the sum total of my economics experience.

Some people talk, some people do.

Even though I am now retired I find you boring and a waste of my time.
Go throw dust in the air somewhere else.

 

[petros]

BR has more issues than People magazine.

 

[taxslave]

BR has more issues than People magazine.

Mostly born from his lack of understanding of economics. Having been a teacher explains a lot of his problem. No practical experience.

 

[BornRuff]

It isn't cheaper in the long run.. Why do you think that investment funds line-up to pour billions into these p/ls?

I know full well that pipelines are much much cheaper to operate than rail or trucks. Petros doesn't seem to agree though.

If you are pegging your productivity to having a (relatively) weak dollar, then you are already lost.

You either compete on quality, price and supply, or you don't

Productivity is a different issue, but the exchange rate did go a very long way to helping us compete on price.

Again, I have never said that we need to go back to how things were. I am just pointing out why things changed when they did.

The mfg sector is in decline for a variety of reasons, chief among them is inability to compete with China/Asia

Off shoring certainly has had an impact too, but in this discussion we were talking about plants moving from Canada to the US. A 30% change in prices is certainly a huge change in the business conditions.

China is no stranger to using their currency to make their exports seem cheaper. They have been actively preventing their currency from appreciating to try to keep a competitive advantage(not something we should mimic)

Funny how there is no mention from BR that as the mfg sector in Canada got stronger, that this influence didn't affect the par value of the CAD vs USD.

Convenient, non?

Everything in economics is relative to whatever you are using as a comparison. The Canada/US exchange rate is implicitly a comparison between the two countries.

When Canada had a strong manufacturing base, the US had a much much bigger manufacturing base, so it wasn't doing much to appreciate our dollar relative to the US dollar.

Herein lies the problem; you are applying a text book, theoretical analysis to the situation. Yours is an oversimplification.

... And yes, economics is a remarkably complex subject

While this stuff is in textbooks, it is also evident in any study of how exchange rates move in the real world.

Again, I am not saying that nothing else effects exchange rates. I am talking about how this specific issue effects the exchange rate, and how that issue effects certain businesses.

Mostly born from his lack of understanding of economics. Having been a teacher explains a lot of his problem. No practical experience.

Lol, I was a TA in school. That certainly doesn't imply that I never did anything else when I finished school.

 

[petros]

Petros never once said rail was cheaper.

 

[BornRuff]

]

Once again you fail to rebut or even address a single issue I have raised.
You just cannot do it can you?
Can you?

You fail to back up or defend any of your positions and so you resort to deflection and misdirection as several other forum members have previously pointed out.
I leave it up to the readers of this thread to determine whether or not your sole debating skill is ducking and weaving.

As to my education.
It was in engineering.

However earlier in my career I did run all of a multinational corporations operations in a medium sized country for a few years.
Following that I started up my own very small, but profitable international corporation and ran that as president and CEO for a decade or so.
So that would be the sum total of my economics experience.

Some people talk, some people do.

Even though I am now retired I find you boring and a waste of my time.
Go throw dust in the air somewhere else.

Lol, so you are saying you don't know what economics is? Business isn't economics. Most people I know in business hate actual economics, which I guess explains our back and forth here.

I will try to present my points again extremely clearly though.

Canada is not a low dollar country. We have been hovering around parity for years, 20-30% higher than we were in the previous 3 decades or so. In your roles within businesses, if exchange rates were an issue, you would never make a long term decision based on one days rates. You would obviously consider the long term trends.

As someone who ran a business, I can't imagine that you do not appreciate the effect of a 20-30% change in the value of your receivables.

Can you really find a single economist that would argue that investment in the oil sands doesn't push the value of our dollar up? It is very simple supply and demand. More demand for Canadian dollars pushes the dollar up. I never said that that was the only thing that impacts the dollar, but clearly, no matter what else is going on, this causes the dollar to be higher than it otherwise would be.

Petros never once said rail was cheaper.

You talked at great length about how much more manpower pipelines require than rail. Man power is the most expensive part of these operations.

 

[petros]

Right. Where did you get cost from that?

I mentioned volume but where did that go other than over your head?

 

[BornRuff]

Right. Where did you get cost from that?

I mentioned volume but where did that go other than over your head?

More manpower means higher costs. How would you imagine it to work out otherwise?

Yes, you mentioned that rail couldn't handle the volume, but you also said that oil companies were only utilizing a small portion of our total rail capacity, so clearly they have not maxed out the potential volume there.

 

[wulfie68]

As far as a "potash pipeline", I have no idea. I don't know anything about that.

When it comes to the current pipelines being proposed, I don't even care that much if they are built or not. All I am arguing here is that it isn't necessarily a boon for jobs.

Pipelines are like any other resource harvesting project: the bulk of the money is spent and the labour utilized is during the construction phase. Its no different than a mine, a hydro project, a forestry product mill or even our infrastructure projects that various federal gov'ts embark on periodically. After the fact, there are still jobs in maintaining and operating all of said facilities but they are all fewer than the initial construction and start ups. In terms of safety to the populace and environment, I'll take pipelines any day of the week over trucking and rail: regardless of what the naysayers, there really is no comparison.

 

[petros]

More manpower means higher costs. How would you imagine it to work out otherwise?

Yes, you mentioned that rail couldn't handle the volume, but you also said that oil companies were only utilizing a small portion of our total rail capacity, so clearly they have not maxed out the potential volume there.

Really? The steel and pipe manufacturer here in the city is laying off 400 people because of a rail backlog and you claim rail isn't at capacity? Where do you come up with this crap?

 

[captain morgan]

Productivity is a different issue, but the exchange rate did go a very long way to helping us compete on price.

That uneven exchange rate also increased the cost of living too.

Off shoring certainly has had an impact too, but in this discussion we were talking about plants moving from Canada to the US. A 30% change in prices is certainly a huge change in the business conditions.

You bet it has, and in part, it also impacts the decision(s) to relocate facilities.

Include in that analysis the effects of taxes (prov/state and muni) into the equation. There is big competition among jurisdictions to secure large employers. Decisions to move aren't based exclusively on par/dollar values

Everything in economics is relative to whatever you are using as a comparison. The Canada/US exchange rate is implicitly a comparison between the two countries.

Sure it is, and in this global community in which we live, in addition to politics, the complexity of the relativity increases geometrically

When Canada had a strong manufacturing base, the US had a much much bigger manufacturing base, so it wasn't doing much to appreciate our dollar relative to the US dollar.

Back then, there was no where near the amount of international trade and the trade balance(s) were significantly different

While this stuff is in textbooks, it is also evident in any study of how exchange rates move in the real world.

Individually speaking, you are absolutely correct, however in perspective of the macro view, it plays only a small part

 

[petros]

The only exchange rate that matters is the RMB

 

[BornRuff]

Really? The steel and pipe manufacturer here in the city is laying off 400 people because of a rail backlog and you claim rail isn't at capacity? Where do you come up with this crap?

Try to follow along. If, as you say, moving oil by rail was cheaper than pipeline, then the oil companies would be first bidding all the other rail users out of the market and using a much larger portion of the rail capacity in this country before they sink billions into a pipeline.

Do you really think that the oil execs are going to shed a tear if taking up more rail capacity puts some people in other industries out of work?

 

[petros]

I never said. You did.