UNEMPLOYMENT in Canada - the reasons....
Karen Gordon
(from a Canadian best-seller....)
THE FUTURE OF JOBS
"And in fact, unemployment among youth was lower throughout the deep and
prolonged recession of the early 1990s than it was during the milder recession
of the early 1980s.
[...]
But knowing it was worse in the early 1980s doesn't do much to cheer up an
unsuccessful job-seeker in the mid-1990s. Canada is in its fourth consecutive
decade of rising unemployment...
During the 1950s, unemployment averaged 4.2%, rising to 5% in the 1960s, to
6.7% in the 1970s, 9.5% in the 1980s, and 11% in the early 1990s.
In the mid-1990s, job seekers of all generations find themselves marooned in
what has become known as the "jobless recovery."
The reasons for this situation are well known.
Shoes and fridges and tires and countless other things that once were made
by Canadians for other Canadians are now imported from whichever country can
make them cheapest. Canadian employers trying to survive in this world of
GLOBAL TRADE must cut costs wherever and whenever possible to be more compet-
itive. Cutting costs often means cutting jobs.
Labour-saving technology was first embraced for demographic reasons in the
1960s and 1970s by Japan - when it was trying to compensate for labour shor-
tages caused by falling birth rates in the 1940s.
Since then, technology has taken on a life of its own. Computerized machines
are used everywhere in the economy: from the checkout counter of the super-
market to a mine shaft deep below the earth.
Technology continues to develop at a staggering pace, getting better and
cheaper as each month goes by. The power of computers to store information
and speed operations doubles every 18 months, and the cost of computing is
cut in half every three years.
What does this mean for jobs?
As recently at the early 1980s, it was cheaper to add workers than to add
machines. But by the 1990s, the cost of labour in Canada was twice the cost
of machines (according to a report by the Conference Board of Canada, 1995).
So today's companies are adding machines instead of labour. The result is
improved productivity but increased unemployment.
The conventional wisdom in the 1980s was that technology would eventually
'create as many jobs as it took'. Although the jury is still out on this
question, the optimistic view is increasingly being called into question....
Technology continues, at a relentless pace, to destroy far more jobs than
it creates.
This is happening not only in Canada but right across the developed world.
Jeremy Rivkin [The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force]
estimates that 90 MILLION jobs in the United States out of a potential
labour force of 124 million, are vulnerable to elimination by machines.
The Nobel Prize-winning economist Wassily Leontief, says: "Sophisticated
computers will likely displace humans in the same way that work-horses
were eliminated by the introduction of tractors."
The first jobs to go were the ones requiring minimal skills, such as
routine record-keeping or data transfer or repetitive assemby-line tasks
that could be done quicker, better, and cheaper by robots.
Yet these were precisely the sorts of jobs that young boomers in the 1960s
and 1970s were able to occupy with high school graduation or less.
The ambitious among them had plenty of opportunity to increase their skills
while working their way up to better-paying, more responsible jobs.
However, those unskilled entry-level jobs leading to middle-class security
no longer exist.
This is why the labour force participation rate for people between 15 and
24 fell to a 19-year low in 1995. Rather than jump into a labour market
that has only dead-end jobs to offer the unskilled and under-educated,
young Canadians are staying in school or going backk to school. This is
a wise decision.
In 1994, 145,000 jobs in Canada disappeared for people with high school
education or less, while 422,000 jobs were created for workers with post-
secondary education. Virtually everyone with a post-secondary degree who
entered the job market in 1994 got a job..... although not always in their
area of expertise.
[...]
What will it take to succeed in the job market of the future?
For transitory and spiralling workers, the only 'constant' will be change.
In fact, the very notion of "jobs" will come to seem an anachronism during
the working lives of many young Canadians.
Jobs were developed during the 19th century, when factories required units
of labour to do the same tasks over and over again. In the information age,
workers will apply a wide range of skills to an ever-changing series of
tasks, rather than occupying a particular job.
While routine tasks are being taken over by machines, non-routine ones still
need people to do them. These people will need strong generic skills that can
be applied to the many different challenges they will face during their
careers.
[What will be needed....]
One of the most important sills is COMMUNICATION, both oral and written.
The decline in literacy has enhanced the value of those who can write clearly,
concisely, and grammatically while also possessing the ability to make ef-
fective oral presentations.
INTERPERSONAL SKILLS, including the ability to work effectively as part of
a team, are also essential.
So are COMPUTER SKILLS, which have to be upgraded continually as technology
advances.
Finally, the successful worker of the future needs the kinds of skills that
an old-fashioned liberal arts education still provides very well: the ability
to assembly information, analyze it, and think about it. People with these
skills are what Robert Reich calls "symbolic analysts" - workers who manipu-
late symbols such as mathematical data and words and who identify and solve
problems. A large number of occupations fall into this category.... from
research scientists to movie directors.
But a continued demand will also exist for skilled people who can work well
WITH THEIR HANDS as well as their brains.
It is a paradox of Canada's labour market that with 10% of Canadian workers
unemployed, many employers still can't find the workers they need.
For example, many manufacturing firms in southern Ontario are having trouble
finding skilled machinists and other tradespeople. Partly, this is because
the demarcation line between 'white-collar' and 'blue-collar' work has
faded as information technology has invaded the shop floor.
[...]
TOWARDS A FLEXIBLE WORKFORCE
In Canada, we go to school full-time, work full-time, and then go into
retirement full-time.
In an aging society, characterized by job shortages, rapid technological
change, a need for continuous skill up-grading, and under-funded public
pension funds, this system no longer makes any sense.
Some people are working more hours a week than they would like, while many
more can't find any work at all. Some people work full-time even though
they would prefer semi-retirement, while others - still full of health,
energy and talent - are forced to retire at 65.
The time has come to take seriously the need for a flexible workforce in
Canada. A flexible workforce would not only be happier and healthier, it
would be more PRODUCTIVE because it would make better use of ALL Canadians.
A flexible workforce is one whose participants, rather than staying in one
occupation with one employer for life, move easily between jobs, employers,
and industries. It's also a workforce that allows its participants both
to begin and to end their working careers gradually - and that provides
plentiful opportunities for retraining.
[...]
(exerpt from: Boom, Bust & Echo - by
David Foot and Daniel Stoffman).... still on
the best-seller list months after publication
duke
Karen Gordon wrote
[snip]
> [...]
> (exerpt from: Boom, Bust & Echo - by
> David Foot and Daniel Stoffman).... still
on
> the best-seller list months after
publication
>
>
Interesting post. I think there is a lot we don't know about the nature of
unemplyment in Canada though. I was reading a couple of weeks ago that in
the Region of York (in Ontario), there were a lot of summer jobs for
students that couldn't be filled. The common experience among employers was
students quitting after a short time because the job was too hard or they
had just wanted to take the rest of the summer off. Is there a value system
issue here?
I'm interested in anyone's comment.
Andy Henderson
In article <01bc96aa$55d720e0$bb3bbbcc@hitachi-credit>, d...@monster.asp
says...
> Interesting post. I think there is a lot we don't know about the nature of
> unemplyment in Canada though. I was reading a couple of weeks ago that in
> the Region of York (in Ontario), there were a lot of summer jobs for
> students that couldn't be filled. The common experience among employers was
> students quitting after a short time because the job was too hard or they
> had just wanted to take the rest of the summer off. Is there a value system
> issue here?
> I'm interested in anyone's comment.
>
>
I wanted to reply to your excellent post, but I found it too hard, and
needed to take a break.
--
A.J.Henderson from
Beautiful British Columbia
andy_he...@junkmailsucks.bc.sympatico.ca
for email, remove junkmailsucks.
Steve Ranta
In article <5r113u$h...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ar...@FreeNet.Carlton.CA
(Karen Gordon) wrote:
> (from a Canadian best-seller....)
. . .
> The decline in literacy has enhanced the value of those who can write clearly,
> concisely, and grammatically while also possessing the ability to make ef-
> fective oral presentations. . .
According to Statistics Canada, there's no evidence that there has been a
'decline in literacy', except among adults who don't practice the literacy
skills they learned when they were in school.
--
Steve Ranta
Steve Ranta
In article <01bc96aa$55d720e0$bb3bbbcc@hitachi-credit>, "duke"
<d...@monster.asp> wrote:
. . . The common experience among employers was
> students quitting after a short time because the job was too hard or they
> had just wanted to take the rest of the summer off. Is there a value system
> issue here?
> I'm interested in anyone's comment.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, real wages for students working in the
summer were probably double or triple what they are now.
--
Steve Ranta
duke
Steve Ranta <sra...@macwest.org> wrote in article
<sranta-2407...@van-as-03c02.direct.ca>...
comment on that. Assuming what you said is true, what difference does it
make? Students aren't eligible for social assistance to finance their beer
budget (I wish it had been available for me though), so why decline the
work?
duke
Joseph Abbott <jabbott@{remove}lynx.bc.ca> wrote in article
<33d7fdfe...@news.lynx.bc.ca>...
> On 22 Jul 1997 14:16:25 GMT, "duke" <d...@monster.asp> wrote:
> > Interesting post. I think there is a lot we don't know about the nature
of
> >unemplyment in Canada though. I was reading a couple of weeks ago that
in
> >the Region of York (in Ontario), there were a lot of summer jobs for
was
> >students quitting after a short time because the job was too hard or
they
> >had just wanted to take the rest of the summer off. Is there a value
system
> >issue here?
> > I'm interested in anyone's comment.
>
> treated them like shit?
>
> I know when i was in school I did jobs that most people would never
> do. Like working from 7pm - 6am, 7 days a week in a fish cannery
> throwing salmon into a slicing machine. Worst job of my life. But I
> had no choice there were no other jobs available and i needed to earn
> enough for a whole year of school in just 4 months of summer break.
> And there were lots of other students there too.
>
> So I dont think students mind working hard at all. But if an employer
> treats his/her workers like crap, then why shouldnt they quit?
>
> Joseph Abbott
> 95% of all species on Earth have yet to be
> described and classified.104 go extinct every day.
> <http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/3312/>
>
Agreed but there were no accusations of mistreatment. I kind of found it
amazing myself because like you, had needed to make money during the summer
months.
Bullets
Joseph Abbott wrote:
>
> On 22 Jul 1997 14:16:25 GMT, "duke" <d...@monster.asp> wrote:
> > Interesting post. I think there is a lot we don't know about the nature of
> >unemplyment in Canada though. I was reading a couple of weeks ago that in
> >the Region of York (in Ontario), there were a lot of summer jobs for
> >students that couldn't be filled. The common experience among employers was
> >students quitting after a short time because the job was too hard or they
> >had just wanted to take the rest of the summer off. Is there a value system
> >issue here?
> > I'm interested in anyone's comment.
>
> Quitting because the job was too hard or quitting because the employer
> treated them like shit?
>
> I know when i was in school I did jobs that most people would never
> do. Like working from 7pm - 6am, 7 days a week in a fish cannery
> throwing salmon into a slicing machine. Worst job of my life. But I
> had no choice there were no other jobs available and i needed to earn
> enough for a whole year of school in just 4 months of summer break.
> And there were lots of other students there too.
>
> So I dont think students mind working hard at all. But if an employer
> treats his/her workers like crap, then why shouldnt they quit?
>
I guess that depends on who will "finance their new-found
independence". Do they take responsibility for themselves or not?
--
Bullets
*****************************************
Fact corrections welcomed.
Opinions changed on convincing evidence.
Apologies offered for unprovoked rudeness.
Hey, nobody's perfect!
Danny Aldham
Steve Ranta (sra...@macwest.org) wrote:
: In the late 1960s and early 1970s, real wages for students working in the
: summer were probably double or triple what they are now.
No. In the summer of 1973 I had a summer job making minimum wage.
Paid $1.90 per hour, and the minimum went up half way through the
summer to $2.10 .Yipee.
--
Danny Aldham SCO Ace , MCSE , JAPH , DAD
I don't need to hide my e-mail address, I broke my sendmail.
Steve Ranta
In article <5r9kfu$fgh$1...@lennon.postino.com>, da...@lennon.postino.com
(Danny Aldham) wrote:
> Steve Ranta (sra...@macwest.org) wrote:
> : In the late 1960s and early 1970s, real wages for students working in the
> : summer were probably double or triple what they are now.
>
> No. In the summer of 1973 I had a summer job making minimum wage.
> Paid $1.90 per hour, and the minimum went up half way through the
> summer to $2.10 .Yipee.
I feel sorry for you. Most students I knew in B.C. were making at least
$4.00 an hour in their summer jobs at that time.
--
Steve Ranta
Bullets
As ever, Steve plays fast and loose with the facts.
I had a very good summer job as an Engineering Technician for the
Federal Ministry of Transport in 1973. My salary was $535.00 per
month. Graduate Engineers--typically the highest paid bachelor degree
grads, made an average of $770 per month in 1973. That's $4.45 per
hour.
Paige Smyth
Steve Ranta <sra...@macwest.org> wrote in article
<sranta-2507...@van-as-10b02.direct.ca>...
> In article <5r9kfu$fgh$1...@lennon.postino.com>, da...@lennon.postino.com
> (Danny Aldham) wrote:
>
> > Steve Ranta (sra...@macwest.org) wrote:
> > : In the late 1960s and early 1970s, real wages for students working in
the
> > : summer were probably double or triple what they are now.
> >
> > No. In the summer of 1973 I had a summer job making minimum wage.
> > Paid $1.90 per hour, and the minimum went up half way through the
> > summer to $2.10 .Yipee.
>
> I feel sorry for you. Most students I knew in B.C. were making at least
> $4.00 an hour in their summer jobs at that time.
>
> --
> Steve Ranta
>
Rubbish. In 1973 I worked for the BC Forest Service. The monthly pay was
$454.00/month, this equates to $2.64/hour. This was a full time position in
the civil service although admittedly at the low end of the scale. Later
the same year I started working for Crown Zellerbach (forerunner to
Fletcher Challenge) at an IWA union wage of over $4.50/hr. Only the most
fortunate summer students would have ever received close to that amount.
Bullets
Steve Ranta wrote:
>
> In article <33D913...@mail.direct.ca>, tric...@mail.direct.ca wrote:
>
> . . .
> > > I feel sorry for you. Most students I knew in B.C. were making at least
> > > $4.00 an hour in their summer jobs at that time.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Steve Ranta
> >
> >
> > I had a very good summer job as an Engineering Technician for the
> > Federal Ministry of Transport in 1973. My salary was $535.00 per
> > month. Graduate Engineers--typically the highest paid bachelor degree
> > grads, made an average of $770 per month in 1973. That's $4.45 per
> > hour.
>
>
> --
> Steve Ranta
Steve, you have destroyed your own credibility on several occasions for
failing to back up suspect claims with evidence. While it is possible
that you are right this time, without evidence from another (credible)
source, I just can't bring myself to believe this apparently outrageous
claim.
intp...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
As I see it there are several major reasons.
1. Most Gov't and bank loans and grants go to foreign corporations,
immigrants or minorities. (Grey Report) If Exxon can get money without
importing it, then the profits, royalties consulting fees can be exported
without actual investment across the border.
2, We have a percentage markup system which discriminates against our
Manufacturers. A $1 item (say Tiawan)
will be marked up to 2 by distributors
and marked up to 4 by retailers.
A $2 item (say Canada)
will be marked up to 4 by dist.
and marked up to 8 by retailers.
If we had a absolute markup the
$2 item would be
3 by the dist.
and 5 by the retailers (and much more competative.
3. We subsidize and support capital intensive resources. not labour
intensive manufacturing.
4. We also spend huge amounts of money in wasteful goverment.
We do not need 10 provincial ministers or Education buying
American books because the provincial markets are too small.
We need one National Government buying Canadian.
There are lots of ways around the Free Trade Agreement.
--
THOSE WHO WOULD DEFEND EVIL I wish politicians would
SURELY BECOME EVIL THEMSELVES care as much about victims
AND NOT SIMPLY AT THE PRICE as they do about the rights
OF THEIR OWN SOULS INTPHASE of child killers.
David Buchanan
In article <33DA1C...@mail.direct.ca>,
Bullets <tric...@mail.direct.ca> wrote:
>Steve Ranta wrote:
>> In article <33D913...@mail.direct.ca>, tric...@mail.direct.ca wrote:
>> . . .
>> > > I feel sorry for you. Most students I knew in B.C. were making at least
>> > > $4.00 an hour in their summer jobs at that time.
>> > . . .
>> Beginning municipal labourers made over $6.00 per hour.
>> --
>> Steve Ranta
>
>Steve, you have destroyed your own credibility on several occasions for
1973 AND 1974 WERE A GREAT PARTY ON BORROWED MONEY
Apologies ahead of time if my comments end up supporting Steve Ranta
-- we don't agree on much -- but the 1973 and 1974 periods were
generally good in terms of jobs and wages. Remember Trudeau was
financing his re-election by inflating the economy with borrowed and
printed money. It's possible to have a great party on borrowed money
until the bills start coming in -- and we did. The hangover from
Trudeau's spending spree, like some of his flunkies, is still with us
today.
In Hamilton, Ontario in 1973 I had a completely unskilled laboring job
in a small metal-working shop. The shop was non-union and was one of
the many small suppliers to the big industries in the area so wages
offered were typical for small industrial concerns in the region. I
was hired at $3.02 an hour, after three months that increased to $3.44
and after six months I was making $3.87 an hour. I have to emphasize
that at no point did I acquire any special skill or demonstrate any
particular apptitude other than to show up regularly.
In order to put this in more understandable monetary terms, note that
one 1973-dollar is worth approximately 3.62 1995-dollars. A
1974-dollar is worth about 3.19 1995-dollars.
So in terms of 1995 dollars, I was hired at $10.99 per hour for a
completely unskilled job! I then had my wages increased to $12.45
after three months and within six months was making $14.01 per hour as
my base rate. I invite anyone to try to find such pay scales today
for completely unskilled work -- at least outside government and the
big unionized industries. In the Hamilton area, starting wages for
unskilled and low-skill jobs currently are in the $7 to $8 an hour
range. To start at more than $10 today, you have to be a skilled
tradesman or possess an equivalent skill level.
These numbers for gross pay don't tell the whole story. One must also
remember that one could take home a much larger share of one's
paycheck in 1973 when all income taxes including UI and CPP were much
lower than they are today.
In addition, the industries in 1973 seemed to be rather desperate to
find workers. For example, I didn't have any trouble getting hired
and I was outrageously overqualified for that labouring job. In
today's job market, no personal manager would be forced to take the
risk of hiring such an overqualified applicant.
(When the baby-boomers came flooding out of the colleges and
universities with their sheepskins clutched in their sweaty hands and
all starting looking for work at the same time, what happened was the
career equivalent of a thousand car highway pile-up. As a result it
was difficult to get hired for high-level jobs in the early 1970's,
perhaps even as hard as it is for today's university graduates, but
that is an entirely different debate.)
If Steve Ranta's position is that today's economy stinks and the
so-called economic "boom" we're hearing about is nothing but hot air
belching forth from politicians, then I'm going to have to agree with
him. Except for a bit of activity in the real estate and housing
sectors, there is no evidence of Chretien's mythical economic boom in
the Hamilton-Wentworth Region and no "jobs, jobs, jobs" visible except
through the rose-tinted glasses worn by all card-carrying Liberals.
DB
--
Steve Ranta
In article <B2o2zM+p...@hwcn.org>, ag...@hwcn.org (David Buchanan) wrote:
. . .
> If Steve Ranta's position is that today's economy stinks and the
> so-called economic "boom" we're hearing about is nothing but hot air
> belching forth from politicians, then I'm going to have to agree with
> him. Except for a bit of activity in the real estate and housing
> sectors, there is no evidence of Chretien's mythical economic boom in
> the Hamilton-Wentworth Region and no "jobs, jobs, jobs" visible except
> through the rose-tinted glasses worn by all card-carrying Liberals.
It certainly is my position that Canada's economy has been in a slump
since the Free Trade agreements, and the accompanying privatisations,
de-regulations, and government and corporate cuts.
--
Steve Ranta
Andrew J. Sullivan
In article <B2o2zM+p...@hwcn.org>, David Buchanan <ag...@hwcn.org> wrote:
[wonderfully useful illustration of economic data snipped for brevity's
sake]
>If Steve Ranta's position is that today's economy stinks and the
>so-called economic "boom" we're hearing about is nothing but hot air
>belching forth from politicians, then I'm going to have to agree with
>him. Except for a bit of activity in the real estate and housing
>sectors, there is no evidence of Chretien's mythical economic boom in
>the Hamilton-Wentworth Region and no "jobs, jobs, jobs" visible except
>through the rose-tinted glasses worn by all card-carrying Liberals.
The trouble is not exactly that the political masters are just making a
lot of noise about a non-existent economic boom. The problem is that the
offical measures of economic boom are bad measures of current prosperity,
because they usually do not worry about unemployment as a good measure of
prosperity. (In fact, there is much debate about a mythical number -- the
"natural unemployment level".)
The main measures of economic prosperity (according to economic
theory) have to do with efficiency and production. Hence, we have the
measure of G.N.P./G.D.P. (the official measure changed some years ago
because of some econometric concerns about the accuracy of a G.N.P.
measurement of actual national/domestic output), for instance. Moreover,
the question of worker productivity is paramount in economic analysis.
Now, the trouble is that these measures are measures of average aggregate
perfomance (or, in many cases, measures of productivity by industry
sector). But the trouble should be obvious: if consumption is very high
by some individuals (because they have very high incomes) and very low by
other individuals (because of their depressed wages), this can work out
(mathematically) to be the same as moderate consumption by everyone. Now,
if an industry has also reached a very high level of efficiency, it can
produce goods more cheaply with less labour than it would where it is
inefficient. That means that one can have very high unemployment at the
same time as highly efficient industry. (If one includes all the
unemployed in the productivity measures, of course, one's productivity
numbers will go down. It is not always clear what is being counted in
productivity surveys. But they are usually done by industry sector, and
then averaged to get a pseudo-measure of "domestic productivity".) If we
put such high unemployment together with high consumption by the employed,
we get a "booming" economy with high unemployment. (At least, this is the
best explanation I've yet come across for the current situation. The
other one is usually dressed up with the "natural level of unemployment",
which level nobody can say.)
The answer seems to be to recast our economic measures. Whether that will
happen is not at all clear.
--
Andrew Sullivan <ajsu...@mcmaster.ca> | "The plural of anecdote is not data."
Ph.D. Candidate, Philosophy | -- Roger Brinner, quoted in Bruce
McMaster University | Little's "Amazing Facts", _The
*Solicitors billed for proof-reading.* | Globe and Mail_
Bill MacArthur
sra...@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:
>In article <33D913...@mail.direct.ca>, tric...@mail.direct.ca wrote:
>
>. . .
>> > I feel sorry for you. Most students I knew in B.C. were making at least
>> > $4.00 an hour in their summer jobs at that time.
>> >
>> > Steve Ranta
>>
>> As ever, Steve plays fast and loose with the facts.
>>
>> I had a very good summer job as an Engineering Technician for the
>> Federal Ministry of Transport in 1973. My salary was $535.00 per
>> month. Graduate Engineers--typically the highest paid bachelor degree
>> grads, made an average of $770 per month in 1973. That's $4.45 per
>> hour.
>
>
1973, it certainly wasn't the rule. Bullets wage figure for 1973 is
typical.
Bill MacArthur
jabbott@{remove}lynx.bc.ca (Joseph Abbott) wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 13:57:03 -0700, Bullets <tric...@mail.direct.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>I had a very good summer job as an Engineering Technician for the
>>Federal Ministry of Transport in 1973. My salary was $535.00 per
>>month. Graduate Engineers--typically the highest paid bachelor degree
>>grads, made an average of $770 per month in 1973. That's $4.45 per
>>hour.
>
>The other point is that you HAD a job. Every student who wanted a job
>could find one in 1973. Maybe it shouldnt be a great job, but you
>could find one. In 1997 many many smart, hardworking students look all
>summer and NEVER find any work at all.
>
I think Bullets was responding to an earlier post that suggested 1973
wage levels were comparably higher and wasn't looking at the ease of
finding work. In 1997 as in 1973, Engineering students had no trouble
finding work. In fact, our co-op students for the fall are already
placed. For others, it is probably more difficult.
>But of course you dont believe that. You think everyone who doesnt
>have a job either doesnt want one or doesnt deserve one. And why dont
>they want to work? It must be all that heavy metal music they listen
>too! Wow, glad we got to the botom of the unemployment issue, i wish
>all our problems were as easy to solve.
>
We listened to heavy metal back in 73 as well. IIRC that's when Houses
of the Holy was released. Black Sabbath had been around for about 4
years. There is no doubt that today is tougher for a student in the
wrong discipline. OTOH Computer Science and Engineering students are
going at a premium.
BTW I understand that there is a real shortage of kids to detassel corn
this year. Why?
Bullets
Bill MacArthur wrote:
>
> jabbott@{remove}lynx.bc.ca (Joseph Abbott) wrote:
> >On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 13:57:03 -0700, Bullets <tric...@mail.direct.ca>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>I had a very good summer job as an Engineering Technician for the
> >>Federal Ministry of Transport in 1973. My salary was $535.00 per
> >>month. Graduate Engineers--typically the highest paid bachelor degree
> >>grads, made an average of $770 per month in 1973. That's $4.45 per
> >>hour.
> >
>
> >The other point is that you HAD a job. Every student who wanted a job
> >could find one in 1973. Maybe it shouldnt be a great job, but you
> >could find one. In 1997 many many smart, hardworking students look all
> >summer and NEVER find any work at all.
> >
> I think Bullets was responding to an earlier post that suggested 1973
> wage levels were comparably higher and wasn't looking at the ease of
> finding work. In 1997 as in 1973, Engineering students had no trouble
> finding work. In fact, our co-op students for the fall are already
> placed. For others, it is probably more difficult.
Quite correct.
> >But of course you dont believe that. You think everyone who doesnt
> >have a job either doesnt want one or doesnt deserve one. And why dont
> >they want to work? It must be all that heavy metal music they listen
> >too! Wow, glad we got to the botom of the unemployment issue, i wish
> >all our problems were as easy to solve.
> >
> We listened to heavy metal back in 73 as well. IIRC that's when Houses
> of the Holy was released. Black Sabbath had been around for about 4
> years. There is no doubt that today is tougher for a student in the
> wrong discipline. OTOH Computer Science and Engineering students are
> going at a premium.
>
> BTW I understand that there is a real shortage of kids to detassel corn
> this year. Why?
--
Joseph Abbott
On Sun, 27 Jul 1997 23:37:13 GMT, Bill MacArthur
<billmac...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>BTW I understand that there is a real shortage of kids to detassel corn
>this year. Why?
No Idea. I think it is a terrible year for corn in BC because of all
the rain. The corn is still only a foot high when it should be 3-4 by
now.
I think you are right about comp sci, thats what i'm doing right now
even tho I have no formal training in computers at all - shows how
desperate they are. :)
I also heard that welding is a good career to get into right now. The
problem with all these trends are, they seem to change so fast! One
year all they need is corn detasslers and computer programers, and the
next year all they need is bicyle mechanics and airline stewardesses.
*shrug*
Steve Ranta
In article <33dc361e...@news.lynx.bc.ca>, jabbott@{remove}lynx.bc.ca
(Joseph Abbott) wrote:
. . .
> I also heard that welding is a good career to get into right now.. .
I heard that too.
Unfortunately for prospective welders, there is a huge pool of
underemployed boilermakers who are well qualified to switch to welding.
--
Steve Ranta
David Buchanan
>problem with all these trends are, they seem to change so fast! One
>year all they need is corn detasslers and computer programers, and the
>next year all they need is bicyle mechanics and airline stewardesses.
>*shrug*
Joseph Abbott is right about the volatility of job markets. And the
more highly trained and specialized one becomes in an attempt to
acquire skills which will lead to high wages, the more vulnerable one
becomes to the boom-bust cycles in specialized career areas.
For example, about five years ago only a tiny fraction of the
graduating chemical engineering class at a top Canadian university
were able to get jobs related to their training. Attempts to move
into related areas of engineering were difficult for them because of
the stiff competition from engineers who had trained in those related
areas. It's a good thing they learned how to live on Kraft Dinners
while they were students because some of them still have to live on
the stuff.
By the time a specialized job market like chemical engineering turns
around from bust to boom, the losers in the job lottery may be no
longer qualified because their expensively acquired skills are
outdated or simply forgotten.
Perhaps graduate engineers are finding plenty of jobs in 1997 but when
today's freshman classes graduate around 2002 the market for engineers
could be completely different and probably will be quite different.
And remember we have been talking about undergraduate degrees in
engineering here -- a relatively safe bet. The risks of
specialization for those taking advanced degrees in areas more
esoteric than engineering are correspondingly higher. One begins to
wonder if the chances of a payoff from ones investment would be better
if one bought lottery tickets rather than pursued highly specialized
training.
DB
--
Steve Ranta
In article <QfM3zM+p...@hwcn.org>, ag...@hwcn.org (David Buchanan) wrote:
. . . The risks of
> specialization for those taking advanced degrees in areas more
> esoteric than engineering are correspondingly higher. One begins to
> wonder if the chances of a payoff from ones investment would be better
> if one bought lottery tickets rather than pursued highly specialized
> training.
Highly specialised training also costs society as a whole a lot of money.
One would think that society would find a way to stabilize demand demand
in order to make training needs more predictable.
--
Steve Ranta
Bullets
Brilliant suggestion! Let's tell customers what, and how much of it, to
buy! It worked great in the Soviet Union . . . or did it?
Bill MacArthur
><billmac...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>>BTW I understand that there is a real shortage of kids to detassel corn
>>this year. Why?
>
>No Idea. I think it is a terrible year for corn in BC because of all
>the rain. The corn is still only a foot high when it should be 3-4 by
>now.
>
>I think you are right about comp sci, thats what i'm doing right now
>even tho I have no formal training in computers at all - shows how
>desperate they are. :)
>
degree in Mathematics with computer courses. That will enable you to
solve algorithmic problems with state of the art languages.
>I also heard that welding is a good career to get into right now. The
>problem with all these trends are, they seem to change so fast! One
>year all they need is corn detasslers and computer programers, and the
>next year all they need is bicyle mechanics and airline stewardesses.
>*shrug*
>
Software development promises to be a major field for sometime to come.
The shortage of programmers seems to be for at least several years.
Welding is a good career but expertise in robotics should go hand in hand
with it as more welding is becoming automated.
Corn detasseling is a basic student job which is typically performed by
the youngest workers. For most, it is not a career move but a job. Any
job is better than no job at all.
David Buchanan
In article <sranta-2807...@van-as-13b12.direct.ca>,
sra...@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:
>Highly specialised training also costs society as a whole a lot of money.
>One would think that society would find a way to stabilize demand demand
>in order to make training needs more predictable.
By "society" Steve means government and politicians. We KNOW they are
sure to get it wrong and create an even worse mess than we have right
now.
At least, we can agree that the current economy and job market stinks
like a bucket of codfish that has been sitting on the dock for a week.
Of course, there are no cod thanks to our government's central
planners but that's another story.
DB
--
Steve Ranta
. . .
> By "society" Steve means government and politicians. . .
No, I mean the citizenry as a whole, and the relationships and structures
by which they live.
. . .
> Of course, there are no cod thanks to our government's central
> planners but that's another story. . .
There are no cod because government was corrupted by large fishing
corporations. If there was no government interference, the cod would have
been gone much sooner.
The answer is not to disempower government and give our country over to
corporations, but to empower government and keep a close watch on it.
--
Steve Ranta
Steve Ranta
. . .
> Brilliant suggestion! Let's tell customers what, and how much of it, to
> buy! It worked great in the Soviet Union . . . or did it? . .
Companies are already telling consumers what to buy, often by using
psychologically manipulative advertising.
The total amount spent each year on advertising in the world is more than
than half of the total spent on education.
--
Steve Ranta
Bullets
And look at the results! I think we should put the marketers in charge
of education.
David Buchanan
In article <sranta-2807...@van-as-01b12.direct.ca>,
sra...@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:
>No, I mean the citizenry as a whole, and the relationships and structures
>by which they live.
>
But whatever the mechanism you set up to reach those myriad decisions
-- what will be produced, in what quantities, by whom, and who gets
to purchase or is forced to purchase the output at what price -- you
will face the problem that those who "win" under each decision will be
content to accept the decision but the "losers" will have to be FORCED
to obey the decision.
That means the decision making apparatus, whatever you choose to call
it and whatever the organizational details, must have the power and
characteristics of a government. Inevitably it will attract the same
sorts of greedy, lying, corrupt individuals that we see attracted to
and leading our current government.
If government and politics is inherently corrupt, the best the
ordinary person can hope for is to limit the size of government and
thereby limit the amount of corruption that politicians can engage in.
Unfortunately, Canada continues on its brisk march towards becoming a
mercantilist state in which only the friends and supporters of the
politically powerful can hope to do well economically.
In medieval mercantilism the kings would grant monopolies to companies
or tradesman's guilds. These monopolies for such things as importing
particular fabrics or making particular items like hats or wagon
wheels ensured the grantees much larger incomes than their services
would normally earn. Their enhanced incomes were at the expense of
their customers and at the expense of other workers who would have
been able to make those items if the artificial legal barrier had not
been in place. A substantial portion of this extra income had to be
kicked-back to the king and his friends who made up the government.
Understandably, monopoly infringing competition from other workers or
merchants was enthusiastically punished. On *one* occasion in
Valence, France seventy-seven illegal competitors were sentenced to be
hanged, fifty-eight were to be broken on the wheel, six-hundred and
thirty-one were sentenced to the galleys while only one of the accused
was set free (Heckscher, Mercantilism). Most of those maimed and
murdered by the state were probably tenant farmers or impoverished
townsmem who had tried to make little money by selling a few loaves of
bread to their neighbors or a few pieces of cloth woven by members of
their family.
In Canada's new mercantilism, our leaders prefer to call these
monopolies by other names, "direct satellite broadcasting licenses"
for example, but they are still being awarded to the friends and
relatives of "King" Jean. Today the guilds are called "unions" but
they're still busy fixing prices and excluding competition. At least,
nobody's been broken on the wheel or sent to the galleys for using an
unlicensed satellite receiver to listen to American satellite TV so
maybe the new mercantilism is a some improvement over the old one.
> . . .
>The answer is not to disempower government and give our country over to
>corporations, but to empower government and keep a close watch on it.
But if all types of government are inherently and unavoidably corrupt
because of human nature, then a more powerful government will be one
even better able to oppress the population with laws and regulations
designed to help their cronies. It will also be much better able to
ruthlessly crush any who dare to expose its corruption.
Sorry to let the discussion wander off the topic of unemployment and
its causes to the nature and evils of government.
I'd better go back to hunting for all those "jobs, jobs, jobs" that
good King Jean of New France has promised us. Now if I can only find
a big enough microscope, I might find a trace of them. :-)
DB
--
Bill MacArthur
ag...@hwcn.org (David Buchanan) wrote:
>In article <sranta-2807...@van-as-13b12.direct.ca>,
>sra...@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:
>>Highly specialised training also costs society as a whole a lot of money.
>>One would think that society would find a way to stabilize demand demand
>>in order to make training needs more predictable.
>
>
>By "society" Steve means government and politicians. We KNOW they are
>sure to get it wrong and create an even worse mess than we have right
>now.
>
economy in any case?
>At least, we can agree that the current economy and job market stinks
>like a bucket of codfish that has been sitting on the dock for a week.
>Of course, there are no cod thanks to our government's central
>planners but that's another story.
>
All the numbers that I have read lately indicate that the economy is
picking up. Employment is up. Full-time employment is up. Unemployment
is down. Consumer confidence is up. We appear to be heading into an
economic boom. People with appropriate skills are getting hired rapidly.
Jobs are going begging for lack of skill Canadians. Not only are
computer programmers in great demand but there is a real shortage of many
skilled trades. Stone masons for instance are in great demand and will
make top buck. Why do Canadians avoid the trades? There's something
fishy about this as well.
Marc Thibault
ag...@hwcn.org (David Buchanan) writes:
> engineering here -- a relatively safe bet. The risks of
> specialization for those taking advanced degrees in areas more
> esoteric than engineering are correspondingly higher. One begins to
> wonder if the chances of a payoff from ones investment would be better
Welcome to the real world. As long ago as 1970, a friend of mine
at a "big eight"consultancy did a study on education versus
lifetime earnings. He found that a non-medical doctorate generated
a _loss_ of $50,000 to $150,000 in lifetime earnings (he had a PhD
in something or other, so he wasn't happy about that). He also
found that when he singled out the top twenty-five percent of
earners, that lifetime income declined steadily with years of
education past high school graduation.
The point I took from this is that a university education is good
for your soul, but if you want to get rich, start early.
Bill MacArthur
ag...@hwcn.org (David Buchanan) wrote:
>In article <33dc361e...@news.lynx.bc.ca>,
>jabbott@{remove}lynx.bc.ca (Joseph Abbott) wrote:
>>I also heard that welding is a good career to get into right now. The
>>problem with all these trends are, they seem to change so fast! One
>>year all they need is corn detasslers and computer programers, and the
>>next year all they need is bicyle mechanics and airline stewardesses.
>>*shrug*
>
>more highly trained and specialized one becomes in an attempt to
>acquire skills which will lead to high wages, the more vulnerable one
>becomes to the boom-bust cycles in specialized career areas.
>
3 year diploma, it makes sense to take a look at the potential job market
and make your decision then.
>For example, about five years ago only a tiny fraction of the
>graduating chemical engineering class at a top Canadian university
>were able to get jobs related to their training. Attempts to move
>into related areas of engineering were difficult for them because of
>the stiff competition from engineers who had trained in those related
>areas. It's a good thing they learned how to live on Kraft Dinners
>while they were students because some of them still have to live on
>the stuff.
>
This wasn't as much of a roll of the dice situation as you indicate. It
has been known for years that chemical plants have been automating and
down sizing. I know people who were outplaced from Sarnia's chemical
valley in the early 80s. Furthermore, the large companies which
typically hire chemical engineers have been known to be reducing staff
and closing operations. Going into chemical engineering in the late 80s
or early 90s wasn't a terrific career move.
>By the time a specialized job market like chemical engineering turns
>around from bust to boom, the losers in the job lottery may be no
>longer qualified because their expensively acquired skills are
>outdated or simply forgotten.
>
There is a good point in here but as I said, it is not really a lottery.
If a chemical engineer has a good background in controls, this is
transferrable to other disciplines. A modest recent course in PLC
programming would probably be all that is required to get back in there.
Suggested alternate career paths include aquaculture and hydroponics.
>Perhaps graduate engineers are finding plenty of jobs in 1997 but when
>today's freshman classes graduate around 2002 the market for engineers
>could be completely different and probably will be quite different.
>
Well, take a look at where the jobs are going. We know that programming
will be important. Controls are going to be important. Robots are here
to stay.
>And remember we have been talking about undergraduate degrees in
>engineering here -- a relatively safe bet. The risks of
>specialization for those taking advanced degrees in areas more
>esoteric than engineering are correspondingly higher. One begins to
>wonder if the chances of a payoff from ones investment would be better
>if one bought lottery tickets rather than pursued highly specialized
>training.
>
It depends why you want to go into these disciplines. If one is looking
for a job period, then taking an advanced degree in something esoteric is
not the best choice. In fact, the best choice would be to go to a
community college and/or try to get a trade. Tool and die makers and
mouldmakers in this area typically make $75k per year. So your best bet
for a job is not a university degree and it never was. If you are
looking at investing in education so that you get a return on your
investment, then you have to pick a skill set that has a market in the
foreseeable future and there are lots of those.
Jack Plant
On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 22:47:10 +0800, sra...@macwest.org (Steve Ranta)
wrote:
>In article <33DD25...@mail.direct.ca>, tric...@mail.direct.ca wrote:
>
>. . .
>> Brilliant suggestion! Let's tell customers what, and how much of it, to
>> buy! It worked great in the Soviet Union . . . or did it? . .
>
>Companies are already telling consumers what to buy, often by using
>psychologically manipulative advertising.
I think he meant "telling", as in "forcing", Steve. Most people would
understand that, do you, and are you deliberately obfuscating the
issue???
>
>The total amount spent each year on advertising in the world is more than
>than half of the total spent on education.
>
Point????
em
>The total amount spent each year on advertising in the world is more than
>than half of the total spent on education.
Wonder how much of these advertising dollars are spent by governments.
David Buchanan
In article <4yLmae...@tanda.on.ca>,
ma...@tanda.out.damned.spam.on.ca (Marc Thibault) wrote:
> Welcome to the real world. As long ago as 1970, a friend of mine
> at a "big eight"consultancy did a study on education versus
> lifetime earnings. He found that a non-medical doctorate generated
> a _loss_ of $50,000 to $150,000 in lifetime earnings (he had a PhD
And to get that in 1995-dollars we need to multiple by a factor of
about 5 so we're talking about an LOSS of $250,000 to $750,000 in
lifetime earnings for a non-medical doctorate. I'm not a damn bit
surprised that the numbers turned out that way.
And that's a pretty substantial loss we're talking about. Enough for
a good house, a cottage, a boat, and quite a few other toys as well.
> The point I took from this is that a university education is good
> for your soul, but if you want to get rich, start early.
Good for the soul, I doubt it. All it ever did for me was to make me
very tired and very grouchy! :-)
DB
--
David Buchanan
In article <EE2vx...@news.uwindsor.ca>,
Bill MacArthur <billmac...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>ag...@hwcn.org (David Buchanan) wrote:
>>Joseph Abbott is right about the volatility of job markets. And the
>>more highly trained and specialized one becomes in an attempt to
>>acquire skills which will lead to high wages, the more vulnerable one
>>becomes to the boom-bust cycles in specialized career areas.
>>
>This doesn't necessarily follow. Before embarking on a 4 year degree or
>3 year diploma, it makes sense to take a look at the potential job market
>and make your decision then.
SPECIALIZATION, SMALL JOB MARKET, VULNERABILITY
Admittedly, it doesn't follow as a logical necessity but those with
highly specialized training usually find themselves competing in
quite small job markets. It certainly would depend which specialty
we are talking about but for graduate degrees a total of only a few
thousand positions in the entire country wouldn't be that unusual. Of
that total, only a few percent of those positions would become open
each year due to retirements or other exits. That leaves a quite
small number of openings available each year for new entrants.
That is why those pursuing highly specialized training are likely to
be highly vulnerable to even minor boom-bust cycles in their chosen
field. Of course, much depends on how easy it is for the unemployed
would-be entrants to transfer some of their skills to a related field
and whether that field is also overcrowded.
(The preceding argument doesn't apply to areas such as law and
medicine where professional associations keep tight control on the
numbers who are allowed to enter the profession. )
As an extreme example, consider the period around 1970 when the
universities stopped expanding and simultaneously the first wave of
PhD baby boomers started looking for work. I don't know how
wide-spread the term is but there are some university departments
where the period is still known as "The Krunch." For a lot of
post-Krunch PhD's, the best career move was to go into high school
teaching although it took a bit of minor trickery to get around the
"overqualified" problem.
Aerospace engineers have their own horror-stories to tell about their
experiences a few years later when the US space program was
down-sized.
I whole-heartedly agree with the recommendation that anyone embarking
on a 3 or 4 year degree should carefully evaluate the future job
picture. Unfortunately, most students have only the vaguest ideas
about the world of jobs and even less awareness of economic trends.
It's really too much to hope for them to effectively forecast the
state of job markets 4 or more years in the future. And
professionally done job market forecasts don't seem to be much better
than the students' uneducated guesses.
>>For example, about five years ago only a tiny fraction of the
>>graduating chemical engineering class at a top Canadian university
>>were able to get jobs related to their training. . . .
>>
>This wasn't as much of a roll of the dice situation as you indicate. It
>has been known for years that chemical plants have been automating and
>down sizing. I know people who were outplaced from Sarnia's chemical
>valley in the early 80s. Furthermore, the large companies which
>typically hire chemical engineers have been known to be reducing staff
>and closing operations. Going into chemical engineering in the late 80s
>or early 90s wasn't a terrific career move.
Another big factor was the downturn in the economy which tended to
kill large capital intensive projects. I doubt that automation itself
would have affected engineers although it would have eliminated a lot
of blue-collar jobs such as operators. My understanding is that
chemical engineers tend to be assigned to design or optimization type
jobs rather than day-to-day operation which is what would be
automated. Down-sizing in other areas would have been a different
matter.
> . . .
>It depends why you want to go into these disciplines. If one is looking
>for a job period, then taking an advanced degree in something esoteric is
>not the best choice. In fact, the best choice would be to go to a
>community college and/or try to get a trade. Tool and die makers and
>mouldmakers in this area typically make $75k per year. So your best bet
>for a job is not a university degree and it never was. If you are
>looking at investing in education so that you get a return on your
>investment, then you have to pick a skill set that has a market in the
>foreseeable future and there are lots of those.
>
Gee, $75K for tool and die makers. Don't tell the Assistant Professors
about that or you're going to have mass desertions. :-)
And how things change! In 1973, there was a huge surplus of tool and
die makers thanks to government training programs. They could be
hired for the same wage rates as ordinary machinists. I ran into a
few of those disgruntled fellows where I was working as a labourer
back then.
PROGRAMMING IN GENERAL VERSUS SPECIFIC PROGRAMMING JOBS
There can be important differences between broadly defined job areas
such as programming and the specific skill sets required for specific
jobs. I too expect there will continue to be many job openings for
persons described as programmers. If one surveys job newsgroups such
as can.jobs or ont.jobs one does find many openings for programmers but
the skill set required for a particular job is usually so specific that
very few programmers would qualify for the opening.
That's not surprising since it is the jobs requiring the latest,
hottest languages and the rarest skill sets that will remain unfilled
the longest and pay the most. Naturally, those are the programming
jobs that are advertised for the longest periods. Programming jobs
with older, more widely known languages such as COBOL and RPG appear
less frequently, are filled quicker, and seem to offer much smaller
paychecks. For very widely known languages such as FORTRAN which
every science and engineering student used to know, there are
practically no job openings and the renumeration is probably abysmal.
It seems much wiser to think of "programming" as a set of related
specialties rather than a generic job category. Because of this,
programmers are subject to the same boom-bust cycles as other
specialties. Of course, an experienced programmer is much better
positioned to move into a new programming specialty than is a
non-programmer. But to succeed in programming and to be certain of a
job in the future, a programmer really must manage to stay one step
ahead of the crowd.
IT'S A LOTTERY
Although one can improve one's chances greatly by a careful study of
the potential job market before investing in career training, I still
think it is very much a lottery due to the volatility of the markets.
It's unfortunate and unavoidable but you've got to put your money down
and then take your chances. And sometimes you're going to lose. :-(
DB
--
--
David Buchanan
In article <EE2wA...@news.uwindsor.ca>,
Bill MacArthur <billmac...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>All the numbers that I have read lately indicate that the economy is
>picking up. Employment is up. Full-time employment is up. Unemployment
>is down. Consumer confidence is up. We appear to be heading into an
>economic boom. People with appropriate skills are getting hired rapidly.
>Jobs are going begging for lack of skill Canadians. Not only are
>computer programmers in great demand but there is a real shortage of many
>skilled trades. Stone masons for instance are in great demand and will
>make top buck. Why do Canadians avoid the trades? There's something
>fishy about this as well.
>
A lot of this "good news" is directly related to real estate and
housing sectors which I admit are showing signs of life. But the
widely reported consumer confidence may be the sort of confidence
exhibited by a flock of lemmings as they head toward the sea. Time
will tell.
Except for the aforementioned real estate activity, there is no
evidence of this widely touted job "boom" in the Hamilton-Wentworth
region. Maybe the rest of the country is surging forward on a tidal
wave of prosperity while we remain a jobless backwater but I rather
doubt it.
DB
--
--
mm
Jean-Francois Beaulieu <jf...@vir.com> wrote:
>Karen Gordon wrote:
>>
>> (from a Canadian best-seller....)
>>
>> THE FUTURE OF JOBS
>
>[snip]
>
> Interesting, and I think it's very dangerous to seea too important
> disparity between people...There will be probably an average week
> of 25 hours of work a day, unless the denatality cancel this growing
> disparity between the production and the available jobs.
While that may solve the unemployement problem it will probably not
happen. Over the last 10-20 years hours have grown from 9-5 to 8-5 or
9-6.
Companies try to make their workers work harder and use less of them.
This, in fact, is being used to partially explain why the current bull
market continues without falling into a recession. Companies are
leaner and able to adapt to changes more quickly.
Higher productivity, higher profits, and higher unemployment (in
Canada).
But in the U.S. unemployment is at the zero effective level. The only
major difference I see is the enormous tax burden placed on Canadians.
Taxes effectively remove money from the normal flow. As they suck
the capital from the economy the economy grows far more slowly than it
does if this capital is available. This probably accounts for the
difference in our unemployment rate more than anything else.
Bullets
David Buchanan wrote:
>
> In article <EE2wA...@news.uwindsor.ca>,
> Bill MacArthur <billmac...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
> >All the numbers that I have read lately indicate that the economy is
> >picking up. Employment is up. Full-time employment is up. Unemployment
> >is down. Consumer confidence is up. We appear to be heading into an
> >economic boom. People with appropriate skills are getting hired rapidly.
> >Jobs are going begging for lack of skill Canadians. Not only are
> >computer programmers in great demand but there is a real shortage of many
> >skilled trades. Stone masons for instance are in great demand and will
> >make top buck. Why do Canadians avoid the trades? There's something
> >fishy about this as well.
> >
>
> A lot of this "good news" is directly related to real estate and
> housing sectors which I admit are showing signs of life. But the
> widely reported consumer confidence may be the sort of confidence
> exhibited by a flock of lemmings as they head toward the sea. Time
> will tell.
Given the fact that lemmings flocking ot the sea is a myth created by
Disney, I wonder.
> Except for the aforementioned real estate activity, there is no
> evidence of this widely touted job "boom" in the Hamilton-Wentworth
> region. Maybe the rest of the country is surging forward on a tidal
> wave of prosperity while we remain a jobless backwater but I rather
> doubt it.
>
> DB
> --
>
> --
>
--
jake
>
> Taxes effectively remove money from the normal flow. As they suck
> the capital from the economy the economy grows far more slowly than it
> does if this capital is available. This probably accounts for the
> difference in our unemployment rate more than anything else.
Or to rephrase M&M, money taxed by the government is money subtracted
from private investment and added to government investment. In the
economic climate of the 80s and 90s, private investment has created a
lot more jobs than government investment.
There is, however, another factor evident in Europe. The "underclass" of
unskilled and old skilled labour.
These are the people failed by the school system (or who failed in the
school system, depending on your point of view) who are not qualified
for a job.
They are also the middle aged whose skills have been made obsolete and
cannot for a variety of reasons retrain.
They are also the single mothers who are unable to walk as they have
children.
The new British government is trying desparately to invest government
money in training for these people WITHOUT raising the overall tax
burden.
--
Jake Stone
Attainment
知而得
David Buchanan
In article <33DF4D...@mail.direct.ca>,
Bullets <tric...@mail.direct.ca> wrote:
>David Buchanan wrote:
>> A lot of this "good news" is directly related to real estate and
>> housing sectors which I admit are showing signs of life. But the
>> widely reported consumer confidence may be the sort of confidence
>> exhibited by a flock of lemmings as they head toward the sea. Time
>> will tell.
>
>Given the fact that lemmings flocking ot the sea is a myth created by
>Disney, I wonder.
It think the lemming story/myth predates Disney and Hollywood by quite
a few years. If memory serves, it was used around the turn of the
century in serious debates about the possible existence of "racial or
inherited memory" in animals.
The cartoon version is of course mythical but apparently it is based
on a real phenomenon. I once saw a film of flock of a few hundred
lemmings in Scandinavia stampeding over a ledge and swimming out into
a quite large lake. It was probably was some sort of reaction to
overpopulation. I saw the film on some nature program decades ago so
I'm at a loss for any kind of reference.
At least the lemmings provided us with a rhetorically useful myth.
DB
--
David in Vancouver
parked out on the grassy cliffs in the Netherlands or something. Their
goal is to save the lemmings from themselves. Of course later they
realize that they are inadequately prepared for what happens........
Anyone see that one?
-David in Vancouver.
jake
>
> Highly specialised training also costs society as a whole a lot of money.
> One would think that society would find a way to stabilize demand demand
> in order to make training needs more predictable.
>
How ?
> --
> Steve Ranta
Bill MacArthur
ag...@hwcn.org (David Buchanan) wrote:
>In article <4yLmae...@tanda.on.ca>,
>ma...@tanda.out.damned.spam.on.ca (Marc Thibault) wrote:
>> Welcome to the real world. As long ago as 1970, a friend of mine
>> at a "big eight"consultancy did a study on education versus
>> lifetime earnings. He found that a non-medical doctorate generated
>> a _loss_ of $50,000 to $150,000 in lifetime earnings (he had a PhD
>> in something or other, so he wasn't happy about that). . . .
>
>And to get that in 1995-dollars we need to multiple by a factor of
>about 5 so we're talking about an LOSS of $250,000 to $750,000 in
>lifetime earnings for a non-medical doctorate. I'm not a damn bit
>surprised that the numbers turned out that way.
>
extrapolation based on second hand 1970 statistics. Keep in mind that in
1970 statistics would be for people who graduated circa 1927. At that
time a degree would pretty well guarantee a job although the depression
was around the corner. A post-graduate degree meant that one would be an
academic/researcher and those positions were not terribly well paid prior
to 1970. A 1927 graduate would likely have earned a PhD in the early 30s
and would have been happy to have any job whereas the 1927 graduate who
went into the work force likely could have worked through the depression.
Wages went nowhere during the war so by the time a PhD started catching
up he (mostly hes at that time) was in his forties. If that study was
accurate, it probably reflected the unique circumstances of the times.
>And that's a pretty substantial loss we're talking about. Enough for
>a good house, a cottage, a boat, and quite a few other toys as well.
>
>> The point I took from this is that a university education is good
>> for your soul, but if you want to get rich, start early.
>
>Good for the soul, I doubt it. All it ever did for me was to make me
>very tired and very grouchy! :-)
>
while you were there. If it didn't development your critical thinking,
then it was a waste. If it did, then you should have been able to use
that to advance your goals in life.
Bill MacArthur
ag...@hwcn.org (David Buchanan) wrote:
>In article <EE2vx...@news.uwindsor.ca>,
>Bill MacArthur <billmac...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>
>>It depends why you want to go into these disciplines. If one is looking
>>for a job period, then taking an advanced degree in something esoteric is
>>not the best choice. In fact, the best choice would be to go to a
>>community college and/or try to get a trade. Tool and die makers and
>>mouldmakers in this area typically make $75k per year. So your best bet
>>for a job is not a university degree and it never was. If you are
>>looking at investing in education so that you get a return on your
>>investment, then you have to pick a skill set that has a market in the
>>foreseeable future and there are lots of those.
>>
>
>Gee, $75K for tool and die makers. Don't tell the Assistant Professors
>about that or you're going to have mass desertions. :-)
>
>And how things change! In 1973, there was a huge surplus of tool and
>die makers thanks to government training programs. They could be
>hired for the same wage rates as ordinary machinists. I ran into a
>few of those disgruntled fellows where I was working as a labourer
>back then.
>
quite well thank you. I sometimes wonder about government training
programs especially when these trades typically take years of
apprenticeship.
>PROGRAMMING IN GENERAL VERSUS SPECIFIC PROGRAMMING JOBS
>
>There can be important differences between broadly defined job areas
>such as programming and the specific skill sets required for specific
>jobs. I too expect there will continue to be many job openings for
>persons described as programmers. If one surveys job newsgroups such
>as can.jobs or ont.jobs one does find many openings for programmers but
>the skill set required for a particular job is usually so specific that
>very few programmers would qualify for the opening.
>
Perhaps but 85% of vacancies are never posted. Most software companies
are recruiting heavily and most want Windows programming. As one owner
told me,"I prefer university graduates even if they don't know the
language because they can learn it and they know how to think through
problems"
David Buchanan
In article <EE7JK...@news.uwindsor.ca>,>>> . . . He found that a non-medical doctorate generated
>>> a _loss_ of $50,000 to $150,000 in lifetime earnings ....
>>
>>And to get that in 1995-dollars we need to multiple by a factor of
>>about 5 so we're talking about an LOSS of $250,000 to $750,000 in
>>lifetime earnings for a non-medical doctorate. I'm not a damn bit
>>surprised that the numbers turned out that way.
>>
>I don't know that I'm terribly comfortable making that kind of
>extrapolation based on second hand 1970 statistics.
Fair enough point. There are an astonishing number of ways for people
to misinterpret data and we are talking about an annecdotal account of
one unreviewed study 27 years ago.
However we do know that during the 3 to 5 years it takes to get a
non-medical doctorate, the students income is much lower than it
otherwise would have been and indeed is probably negative. The
question is whether the doctorate then leads to incomes in later years
which are high enough to offset the opportunity costs and out of
pocket costs incurred during graduate school.
A second factor which must be taken into account is that not all those
with non-medical doctorates are able to find the work for which they
have trained. This depends very much on the area of study involved.
I understand that PhD's in astronomy have virtually no hope of
permanent work in astronomy and normally go into other fields such as
programming to earn a living. (A rather round-about and inept way of
getting into programming.) When estimating the *expected* profit or
loss from a doctoral degree, one must take into account the incomes of
those who don't find work in their field as well as those who do.
Although the programmer-astronomers probably raise the average income
of those possessing doctorates in astronomy, one would expect that
those working outside their fields would usually have lower incomes and
hence lower the expected value.
In addition, I would expect there is also some income loss simply from
being "overqualified" since those offering the highest pay usually do
not need to take the risk associated with overqualified applicants
hired outside their fields of expertise.
Accordingly I don't find it at all surprising that a study might
conclude that acquiring a non-medical doctorate produced a substantial
loss in lifetime earnings. On the other hand, this is an extremely
complicated question and I wonder if it's even possible to get
meaningful results. At the very least, I expect one would have to
break it down into specific types of degrees and even then the return
on investment would depend greatly on the time period in which the
student graduated.
>Keep in mind that in
>1970 statistics would be for people who graduated circa 1927. At that
>time a degree would pretty well guarantee a job although the depression
>was around the corner. A post-graduate degree meant that one would be an
>academic/researcher and those positions were not terribly well paid prior
>to 1970. . . .
Are they well paid now? I would expect virtually all of your
Assistant Professors make LESS than the $75K per year that you've
reported tool and die makers can earn in your area. Indeed I would
expect that the majority of your Associate Professors hired in the
last 15 years make less than $75K as well (medical and legal types
excluded of course.) Granted they're not going to starve but for
those with any mechanical aptitude, which speciality represents the
better return on investment, teaching or tool-and-die making?
To do such a comparison properly we would also have to compare the
number of hours worked per year by each group. Considering the
research and administrative duties that university faculty normally
have in adddition to their teaching load I would not be surprised if
on the average they were putting in considerably more hours than the
tool-and-die makers.
DB
--
David Buchanan
In article <EE7Kt...@news.uwindsor.ca>,
Bill MacArthur <billmac...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>ag...@hwcn.org (David Buchanan) wrote:
>>In article <EE2vx...@news.uwindsor.ca>,
>>Bill MacArthur <billmac...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>>And how things change! In 1973, there was a huge surplus of tool and
>>
>Most of the crew from that era own their own shops now and are doing
>quite well thank you. I sometimes wonder about government training
>programs especially when these trades typically take years of
>apprenticeship.
And the government has a marvelously bad sense of timing when it
comes to job training programs. They managed to produce a glut of
"quality control technicians" some years ago which made it rather
difficult for the QC technicians to find work. Moreover they managed
to produce the glut just before "quality at the source" became
popular. In "quality at the source" the operators inspect and chart
their own output eliminating about 90% of the QC inspectors.
Maybe the underpaid and underemployed tool-and-die makers from 1973
were finally able to cash in on their training but one doesn't have to
look very far to find lots of other victims of these government
sponsored job training courses.
DB
--
Bill MacArthur
ag...@hwcn.org (David Buchanan) wrote:
>In article <EE2wA...@news.uwindsor.ca>,
>Bill MacArthur <billmac...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>>All the numbers that I have read lately indicate that the economy is
>>picking up. Employment is up. Full-time employment is up. Unemployment
>>is down. Consumer confidence is up. We appear to be heading into an
>>economic boom. People with appropriate skills are getting hired rapidly.
>>Jobs are going begging for lack of skill Canadians. Not only are
>>computer programmers in great demand but there is a real shortage of many
>>skilled trades. Stone masons for instance are in great demand and will
>>make top buck. Why do Canadians avoid the trades? There's something
>>fishy about this as well.
>>
>
>housing sectors which I admit are showing signs of life. But the
>widely reported consumer confidence may be the sort of confidence
>exhibited by a flock of lemmings as they head toward the sea. Time
>will tell.
>
>evidence of this widely touted job "boom" in the Hamilton-Wentworth
>region. Maybe the rest of the country is surging forward on a tidal
>wave of prosperity while we remain a jobless backwater but I rather
>doubt it.
>
employment is up. Hamilton may still have some unique problems and I
understand that it is still fairly slow there.
Harry
Bill MacArthur wrote:
<snip>
> Perhaps but 85% of vacancies are never posted. Most software companies
> are recruiting heavily and most want Windows programming. As one owner
> told me,"I prefer university graduates even if they don't know the
> language because they can learn it and they know how to think through
> problems"
HA HA! What's his address? Have I got a resume for HIM!?!?
--
* Regards. Harry
*
* Peace on Earth . . . Goodwill to All
doc...@ibm.net
In <33D76B...@mail.direct.ca>, Bullets <tric...@mail.direct.ca> writes:
>Joseph Abbott wrote:
>>
>> On 22 Jul 1997 14:16:25 GMT, "duke" <d...@monster.asp> wrote:
>> > Interesting post. I think there is a lot we don't know about the nature of
>> >unemplyment in Canada though. I was reading a couple of weeks ago that in
>> >the Region of York (in Ontario), there were a lot of summer jobs for
>> >students that couldn't be filled. The common experience among employers was
>> >students quitting after a short time because the job was too hard or they
>> >had just wanted to take the rest of the summer off. Is there a value system
>> >issue here?
>> > I'm interested in anyone's comment.
>>
>> Quitting because the job was too hard or quitting because the employer
>> treated them like shit?
>>
>> I know when i was in school I did jobs that most people would never
>> do. Like working from 7pm - 6am, 7 days a week in a fish cannery
>> throwing salmon into a slicing machine. Worst job of my life. But I
>> had no choice there were no other jobs available and i needed to earn
>> enough for a whole year of school in just 4 months of summer break.
>> And there were lots of other students there too.
>>
>> So I dont think students mind working hard at all. But if an employer
>> treats his/her workers like crap, then why shouldnt they quit?
>>
>
>I guess that depends on who will "finance their new-found
>independence". Do they take responsibility for themselves or not?
>Bullets
>*****************************************
>Fact corrections welcomed.
>Opinions changed on convincing evidence.
>Apologies offered for unprovoked rudeness.
>Hey, nobody's perfect!
>
I don't think that the problem is due to people quitting because the job is too hard.
The fact is to day that some employers, especially the mega-banks and other
large corporations, are 'downsizing', not for the sake of staying in business, but
instead to maximize mega-profits for themselves and their shareholders.
Most of corporate Canada couln't give a flying f**k about those whose lives
they screw up by downsizing. The other fellow is correct when he says the
employer treats people like shit. A lot of employers do in order to make
employees leave. Then it saves them the trouble of having to downsize.
Derek O'Cain
Steve Ranta
> >
> > Highly specialised training also costs society as a whole a lot of money.
> > One would think that society would find a way to stabilize demand demand
> > in order to make training needs more predictable.
> >
>
>
> How ?
>
Emphasize certain industries, and then promote them over the long term.
--
Steve Ranta
Steve Ranta
An interesting point.
It seems to me that if advertising is effective in changing the way people
choose to spend their money, then if there is not a balance between
advertising to private sector services and public sector services, one of
them will be artifically undervalued by citizens.
--
Steve Ranta
Steve Ranta
In article <33de9736...@news.wwdc.com>, jpl...@wwdc.com (Jack Plant)
wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 22:47:10 +0800, sra...@macwest.org (Steve Ranta)
> wrote:
. . .
> >Companies are already telling consumers what to buy, often by using
> >psychologically manipulative advertising.
>
> I think he meant "telling", as in "forcing", Steve. Most people would
> understand that, do you, and are you deliberately obfuscating the
> issue??? . . .
You would have to have to subscribe to a pretty simple and naive model of
human behaviour to think that psychologically manipulative advertising
still leaves all the viewers 'free' to make choices.
--
Steve Ranta
John Corman
On 2 Aug 97 05:36:03 GMT, doc...@ibm.net wrote:
>I don't think that the problem is due to people quitting because the job is too hard.
>The fact is to day that some employers, especially the mega-banks and other
>large corporations, are 'downsizing', not for the sake of staying in business, but
>instead to maximize mega-profits for themselves and their shareholders.
>Most of corporate Canada couln't give a flying f**k about those whose lives
>they screw up by downsizing. The other fellow is correct when he says the
>employer treats people like shit. A lot of employers do in order to make
>employees leave. Then it saves them the trouble of having to downsize.
>Derek O'Cain
This post of yours gets back to the issue of what the employer owes
his employees. Suppose I create a business and a job vacancy and then
hire you. Other than a pay cheque, what is it that I owe you?
John Corman ******** jco...@island.net
Bullets
How does one "emphasize" certain industries? What is the mechanism?
Bullets
Do you blame someone for all your bad decisions or only some of them?
Bill MacArthur
doc...@ibm.net wrote:
>
>I don't think that the problem is due to people quitting because the job is too hard.
>The fact is to day that some employers, especially the mega-banks and other
>large corporations, are 'downsizing', not for the sake of staying in business, but
>instead to maximize mega-profits for themselves and their shareholders.
>Most of corporate Canada couln't give a flying f**k about those whose lives
>they screw up by downsizing. The other fellow is correct when he says the
>employer treats people like shit. A lot of employers do in order to make
>employees leave. Then it saves them the trouble of having to downsize.
>
While lay-offs from large corporations are spectacular, generally receive
a lot of press and always impact the people involved; to blame these
large corporations for all our ills is simplistic. The vast majority of
people work for small companies. The corporate downsizing situation
which is largely complete, is only a small portion of the unemployment
problem. The above is groundless suppostion.
Bill MacArthur
sra...@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:
>In article <33DFEB...@tpts1.seed.net.tw>, jake...@tpts1.seed.net.tw wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Highly specialised training also costs society as a whole a lot of money.
>> > One would think that society would find a way to stabilize demand demand
>> > in order to make training needs more predictable.
>> >
>>
>>
>> How ?
>>
>
>Emphasize certain industries, and then promote them over the long term.
>
Bill MacArthur
sra...@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:
>In article <33de9736...@news.wwdc.com>, jpl...@wwdc.com (Jack Plant)
>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 22:47:10 +0800, sra...@macwest.org (Steve Ranta)
>> wrote:
>. . .
>> >Companies are already telling consumers what to buy, often by using
>> >psychologically manipulative advertising.
>>
>> I think he meant "telling", as in "forcing", Steve. Most people would
>> understand that, do you, and are you deliberately obfuscating the
>> issue??? . . .
>
>You would have to have to subscribe to a pretty simple and naive model of
>human behaviour to think that psychologically manipulative advertising
>still leaves all the viewers 'free' to make choices.
>
ad which leaves viewers powerless to resist its enchantments.
Bullets
Bullets wrote:
> those DEPENDS commercials. He can't stop buying them--has closets full
> of the damned things. During his more lucid moments, he listens
> endlessly the Who's "My Generation"--hopes he dies before he gets old
> (and has to use them). :-)
Oops--I meant Stones. Is this the first sign of Alzheimers?
David Buchanan
In article <EEC4p...@news.uwindsor.ca>,
And what exactly does Steve Ranta expect the government do to
"emphasize" or "promote" certain industries? Do we all sit
around in a circle and think positive thoughts about electric arc
furnace steel mini-mills? Or is it the same old subsidies and
preferential regulatory and tax treatment of the favoured
industries?
Sounds like we're back to the old, failed central planning
schemes or maybe medieval mercantilism in spite of the nice
sounding words "emphasize" and "promote."
DB
--
Steve Ranta
In article <EEC4n...@news.uwindsor.ca>, Bill MacArthur
<billmac...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
. . .
> While lay-offs from large corporations are spectacular, generally receive
> a lot of press and always impact the people involved; to blame these
> large corporations for all our ills is simplistic. The vast majority of
> people work for small companies. The corporate downsizing situation
> which is largely complete, is only a small portion of the unemployment
> problem. The above is groundless suppostion. . .
Yet the fact that corporate oligopolies are taking over more and more of
our economy, while at the same time laying off workers in order to improve
short-term profits, is surely cause for concern.
If the small business sector was actually growing, perhaps your point
would be more comforting.
--
Steve Ranta
Steve Ranta
In article <EEC4p...@news.uwindsor.ca>, Bill MacArthur
<billmac...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
> sra...@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:
> >In article <33DFEB...@tpts1.seed.net.tw>,
jake...@tpts1.seed.net.tw wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > Highly specialised training also costs society as a whole a lot of money.
> >> > One would think that society would find a way to stabilize demand demand
> >> > in order to make training needs more predictable.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> How ?
> >>
> >
> >Emphasize certain industries, and then promote them over the long term.
> >
> Which industries? Who picks?
The citizens pick, on advice from disinterested public servants who see
where Canada's relative advantage lies, and can explain the consequences
of certain strategies.
To expect the international 'market' to decide what is good for a
country's citizens is naive. International agreements and institutions
control most 'markets', and are dominated by transnational corporations or
technocrats sympathetic to transnational corporations.
--
Steve Ranta
Steve Ranta
In article <EEC8H...@news.uwindsor.ca>, Bill MacArthur
<billmac...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
> sra...@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:
> >You would have to have to subscribe to a pretty simple and naive model of
> >human behaviour to think that psychologically manipulative advertising
> >still leaves all the viewers 'free' to make choices.
> >
> Please provide an example of or describe a "psychologically manipulative"
> ad which leaves viewers powerless to resist its enchantments.
'Powerless to resist' is an extreme term. But so is 'free to make
choices'. The truth is in between.
Many books on advertising, even textbooks for training advertisers, are
quite open about psychological manipulation.
--
Steve Ranta
Bullets
Steve Ranta wrote:
>
> In article <EEC4n...@news.uwindsor.ca>, Bill MacArthur
> <billmac...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>
> . . .
> > While lay-offs from large corporations are spectacular, generally receive
> > a lot of press and always impact the people involved; to blame these
> > large corporations for all our ills is simplistic. The vast majority of
> > people work for small companies. The corporate downsizing situation
> > which is largely complete, is only a small portion of the unemployment
> > problem. The above is groundless suppostion. . .
>
> Yet the fact that corporate oligopolies are taking over more and more of
> our economy, while at the same time laying off workers in order to improve
> short-term profits, is surely cause for concern.
>
> If the small business sector was actually growing, perhaps your point
> would be more comforting.
>
> --
> Steve Ranta
Steve, can you cite a few oligopolies in which the big players have
increased their share of the markets in which they compete in the past
10 years while putting workers out on the street?
Shannon Mitchell
Shannon Mitchell
Bullets <tric...@mail.direct.ca> wrote:
>Robert Sveinson wrote:
>>
>> Bullets wrote:
>> >
>> > Steve Ranta wrote:
>> > >
>> > > In article <EEC4n...@news.uwindsor.ca>, Bill MacArthur
>> > > <billmac...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > . . .
>> > > > While lay-offs from large corporations are spectacular, generally receive
>> > > > a lot of press and always impact the people involved; to blame these
>> > > > large corporations for all our ills is simplistic. The vast majority of
>> > > > people work for small companies. The corporate downsizing situation
>> > > > which is largely complete, is only a small portion of the unemployment
>> > > > problem. The above is groundless suppostion. . .
>> > >
>> > > Yet the fact that corporate oligopolies are taking over more and more of
>> > > our economy, while at the same time laying off workers in order to improve
>> > > short-term profits, is surely cause for concern.
>> > >
>> > > If the small business sector was actually growing, perhaps your point
>> > > would be more comforting.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Steve Ranta
>>
>> >
>> > Steve, can you cite a few oligopolies in which the big players have
>> > increased their share of the markets in which they compete in the past
>> > 10 years while putting workers out on the street?
>>
>> This isn't Steve, and I appologize for stealing his thunder, but,
>>
>> All the Banks in Canada springs to mind.
>>
>> Their slick advertising about how high tech they are to serve
>> us better.. Then we pay for every computer entry that we use
>> and they release workers because the customers do there own
>> computer entries.
>>
>What is their net staff increase or decrease? And are they increasing
>their share of the total financial services market? That was, after
>all, Steve's claim.
>--
>Bullets
>*****************************************
>Fact corrections welcomed.
>Opinions changed on convincing evidence.
>Apologies offered for unprovoked rudeness.
>Hey, nobody's perfect!
Their net staff has decreased, dramatically. I'm not sure about their
market share, though.
SHannon Mitchell
Shannon Mitchell
Bullets <tric...@mail.direct.ca> wrote:
>David Buchanan wrote:
>>
>> In article <EE2wA...@news.uwindsor.ca>,
>> Bill MacArthur <billmac...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>> >All the numbers that I have read lately indicate that the economy is
>> >picking up. Employment is up. Full-time employment is up. Unemployment
>> >is down. Consumer confidence is up. We appear to be heading into an
>> >economic boom. People with appropriate skills are getting hired rapidly.
>> >Jobs are going begging for lack of skill Canadians. Not only are
>> >computer programmers in great demand but there is a real shortage of many
>> >skilled trades. Stone masons for instance are in great demand and will
>> >make top buck. Why do Canadians avoid the trades? There's something
>> >fishy about this as well.
>> >
>>
>> A lot of this "good news" is directly related to real estate and
>> housing sectors which I admit are showing signs of life. But the
>> widely reported consumer confidence may be the sort of confidence
>> exhibited by a flock of lemmings as they head toward the sea. Time
>> will tell.
>Given the fact that lemmings flocking ot the sea is a myth created by
>Disney, I wonder.
Nope, sorry. Scientifically observed, documented, and verified fact.
Lemmings do occassionally, for no apparent reason, march out to sea in
large swarms and drown themselves.
>> Except for the aforementioned real estate activity, there is no
>> evidence of this widely touted job "boom" in the Hamilton-Wentworth
>> region. Maybe the rest of the country is surging forward on a tidal
>> wave of prosperity while we remain a jobless backwater but I rather
>> doubt it.
>>
>> DB
>> --
>>
>> --
Kevin McDougald
Steve Ranta <sra...@macwest.org> wrote in article
<01bca123$2b543f00$40b270cc@kevinm>...
> In article <EEC4p...@news.uwindsor.ca>, Bill MacArthur
> <billmac...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
[snip]
> > >Emphasize certain industries, and then promote them over the long
term.
> > >
> > Which industries? Who picks?
>
> The citizens pick, on advice from disinterested public servants who see
> where Canada's relative advantage lies, and can explain the consequences
> of certain strategies.
If the citizens really pick the industries to emphasize, how are they to do
the picking? By referendum/plebiscite? By paying Gallup to do a poll? By
bringing Keith Spicer back from oblivion to chair a Citizen's Forum on
Industrial Policy?
On a more serious note, if the federal government ever put a
"pick-the-winners" policy in place, the citizens would have no say in the
matter. Public servants could not be counted on to be a strong voice on
the public's behalf; public servants themselves are a vested interest, and
will naturally have a bias against any industry that might undermine their
positions, particularly technology. Witness the attempts in the U.S. in
the early 1980's to stall the proliferation of fax machines because they
threatened the U.S. Postal Service's monopoly on first-class mail.
In the end, politicians will end up with the task of picking the winners.
And they are most certainly not disinterested. In judging winners,
politicians will consider such things as the generosity of donations from
an industry, the effects of their choices in the polls and at the next
election, the geographical location of an industry (eg., an industry with
strong ties to the Prime Minister's or Finance Minister's riding is bound
to be picked as a "winner", even if the industry is on its deathbed), and
so on. Economic sensibility will be disregarded, as it regularly is in
socialist and corporatist systems, and corruption will flourish.
> To expect the international 'market' to decide what is good for a
> country's citizens is naive. International agreements and institutions
The market is not a giant monolith, crushing humanity as it romps around
the world, as the left would have us believe. The market *is* humanity.
It is a complex series of voluntary exchanges for mutual benefit between
people like you, Bill and I, and between all walks of life, ranging from
Havana's black-market restauranteurs to London's aristocrats. Because it
is based on voluntary exchanges for mutual benefit, the market is a
surprisingly effective tool at deciding what is good for a citizens,
because it is ultimately run by citizens. Restricting the market means
restricting citizens.
On the other hand, to expect public servants and politicians to decide what
is good for a country's citizens is dangerously naive. It is always risky
to allow particular classes of citizens to decide what's best for all the
others because those classes will ultimately make decisions that benefit
themselves. If everyone else loses, too bad.
Here's something to think about. Was it the market or the state that
picked Mirabel Airport, the canoe museum and the Voice of Fire as winners?
--
When responding by e-mail
remove the ".no.spam" portion
from the address.
Bullets
Robert Sveinson wrote:
>
> Bullets wrote:
> >
> > Steve Ranta wrote:
> > >
Bill MacArthur
ag...@hwcn.org (David Buchanan) wrote:
>In article <EEC4p...@news.uwindsor.ca>,
>Bill MacArthur <billmac...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>>sra...@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:
>>>In article <33DFEB...@tpts1.seed.net.tw>, jake...@tpts1.seed.net.tw wrote:
>>>> > Highly specialised training also costs society as a whole a lot of money.
>>>> > One would think that society would find a way to stabilize demand demand
>>>> > in order to make training needs more predictable.
>>>>
>>>> How ?
>>>>
>>>
>>Which industries? Who picks?
>
>"emphasize" or "promote" certain industries? Do we all sit
>around in a circle and think positive thoughts about electric arc
>furnace steel mini-mills? Or is it the same old subsidies and
>preferential regulatory and tax treatment of the favoured
>industries?
>
>Sounds like we're back to the old, failed central planning
>schemes or maybe medieval mercantilism in spite of the nice
>sounding words "emphasize" and "promote."
>
Furthermore, civil servants aren't in the actual day to day business and
don't get to know first hand what's hot and what's not.
If somebody wanted to invest in a new idea, would Steve restrict that?
If somebody had expertise in an area that was not approved by the
government would he be forced to close up shop and move? If there were
too many companies in an approved sector who would decide which ones to
shut down? If international sales fell, would the companies continue to
produce and exceed demand? Would some companies be required to set up in
the Maritimes or Quebec to balance regional interests?
The questions are legion and I suspect there could be a lot more that
would be difficult to answer.
Bill MacArthur
>> > <billmac...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> > . . .
>> > > While lay-offs from large corporations are spectacular, generally receive
>> > > a lot of press and always impact the people involved; to blame these
>> > > large corporations for all our ills is simplistic. The vast majority of
>> > > people work for small companies. The corporate downsizing situation
>> > > which is largely complete, is only a small portion of the unemployment
>> > > problem. The above is groundless suppostion. . .
>> >
>> > Yet the fact that corporate oligopolies are taking over more and more of
>> > our economy, while at the same time laying off workers in order to improve
>> > short-term profits, is surely cause for concern.
>> >
>> > If the small business sector was actually growing, perhaps your point
>> > would be more comforting.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Steve Ranta
>
>>
>> Steve, can you cite a few oligopolies in which the big players have
>> increased their share of the markets in which they compete in the past
>> 10 years while putting workers out on the street?
>
> This isn't Steve, and I appologize for stealing his thunder, but,
>
> All the Banks in Canada springs to mind.
>
> Their slick advertising about how high tech they are to serve
> us better.. Then we pay for every computer entry that we use
> and they release workers because the customers do there own
> computer entries.
>
You don't have to deal with banks. Credit Unions and Trust Companies are
alternatives. Furthermore, foreign banks like the Bank of Hong Kong and
NBD are setting up in Canada. Those are alternatives.
Robert Sveinson
Shannon Mitchell wrote:
>
> Bullets <tric...@mail.direct.ca> wrote:
>
> >Steve Ranta wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <EEC4n...@news.uwindsor.ca>, Bill MacArthur
> >> <billmac...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> . . .
> >> > While lay-offs from large corporations are spectacular, generally receive
> >> > a lot of press and always impact the people involved; to blame these
> >> > large corporations for all our ills is simplistic. The vast majority of
> >> > people work for small companies. The corporate downsizing situation
> >> > which is largely complete, is only a small portion of the unemployment
> >> > problem. The above is groundless suppostion. . .
> >>
> >> Yet the fact that corporate oligopolies are taking over more and more of
> >> our economy, while at the same time laying off workers in order to improve
> >> short-term profits, is surely cause for concern.
> >>
> >> If the small business sector was actually growing, perhaps your point
> >> would be more comforting.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Steve Ranta
>
> >Steve, can you cite a few oligopolies in which the big players have
> >increased their share of the markets in which they compete in the past
> >10 years while putting workers out on the street?
>
> >Bullets
> >*****************************************
> >Fact corrections welcomed.
> >Opinions changed on convincing evidence.
> >Apologies offered for unprovoked rudeness.
> >Hey, nobody's perfect!
>
>
> Shannon Mitchell
THE BANKS INSTALLING self serve ATMs and reducing their
staff because they weren't needed to serve US anymore.
Robert Sveinson
--
MZ
Bullets
Shannon Mitchell wrote:
>
> Bullets <tric...@mail.direct.ca> wrote:
>
> >Steve Ranta wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <EEC4n...@news.uwindsor.ca>, Bill MacArthur
> >> <billmac...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> . . .
> >> > While lay-offs from large corporations are spectacular, generally receive
> >> > a lot of press and always impact the people involved; to blame these
> >> > large corporations for all our ills is simplistic. The vast majority of
> >> > people work for small companies. The corporate downsizing situation
> >> > which is largely complete, is only a small portion of the unemployment
> >> > problem. The above is groundless suppostion. . .
> >>
> >> Yet the fact that corporate oligopolies are taking over more and more of
> >> our economy, while at the same time laying off workers in order to improve
> >> short-term profits, is surely cause for concern.
> >>
> >> If the small business sector was actually growing, perhaps your point
> >> would be more comforting.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Steve Ranta
>
> >Steve, can you cite a few oligopolies in which the big players have
> >increased their share of the markets in which they compete in the past
> >10 years while putting workers out on the street?
>
>
they increased their market share while laying off workers? that is
Steve's claim. So far he (and you) have failed to provide any evidence.
Bullets
> >>
> >> Bullets wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Steve Ranta wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > In article <EEC4n...@news.uwindsor.ca>, Bill MacArthur
> >> > > <billmac...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > . . .
> >> > > > While lay-offs from large corporations are spectacular, generally receive
> >> > > > a lot of press and always impact the people involved; to blame these
> >> > > > large corporations for all our ills is simplistic. The vast majority of
> >> > > > people work for small companies. The corporate downsizing situation
> >> > > > which is largely complete, is only a small portion of the unemployment
> >> > > > problem. The above is groundless suppostion. . .
> >> > >
> >> > > Yet the fact that corporate oligopolies are taking over more and more of
> >> > > our economy, while at the same time laying off workers in order to improve
> >> > > short-term profits, is surely cause for concern.
> >> > >
> >> > > If the small business sector was actually growing, perhaps your point
> >> > > would be more comforting.
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Steve Ranta
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Steve, can you cite a few oligopolies in which the big players have
> >> > increased their share of the markets in which they compete in the past
> >> > 10 years while putting workers out on the street?
> >>
> >>
> >> All the Banks in Canada springs to mind.
> >>
> >> Their slick advertising about how high tech they are to serve
> >> us better.. Then we pay for every computer entry that we use
> >> and they release workers because the customers do there own
> >> computer entries.
> >>
> >their share of the total financial services market? That was, after
> >all, Steve's claim.
> >Bullets
> >*****************************************
> >Fact corrections welcomed.
> >Opinions changed on convincing evidence.
> >Apologies offered for unprovoked rudeness.
> >Hey, nobody's perfect!
>
> market share, though.
>
one of them. You have failed to make any point.
John Monroe
Shannon Mitchell (s...@cas.auracom.com) writes:
> Bullets <tric...@mail.direct.ca> wrote:
>
>>Robert Sveinson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> All the Banks in Canada springs to mind.
>>> Their slick advertising about how high tech they are to serve
>>> us better.. Then we pay for every computer entry that we use
>>> and they release workers because the customers do there own
>>> computer entries.
>>>
Bullets:
>>What is their net staff increase or decrease? And are they increasing
>>their share of the total financial services market? That was, after
>>all, Steve's claim.
>>--
>>Bullets
Shannon Mitchell:>
>
> Their net staff has decreased, dramatically. I'm not sure about their
> market share, though.
>
John Monroe:
What evidence do you have that their "net staff has decreased,
dramatically"? The one annual report I have looked at, the
Bank of Nova Scotia's, shows that their number of
employees has increased from 26,187 in 1987 to 34592 in 1996.
The number of branches increased from 1183 to 1464.
Most bank's annual reports are available on the net. Can
you find one whose net staff has decreased as dramatically
as the Bank of Nova Scotia's has increased? Any evidence that
total employment in the financial services industry has
"declined dramatically"?
jc
>Nope, sorry. Scientifically observed, documented, and verified fact.
>Lemmings do occassionally, for no apparent reason, march out to sea in
>large swarms and drown themselves.
>
Now, if we could only get socialists to do the same thing!
Barry Gaudet
Robert Sveinson (rsve...@swdesign.com) wrote:: > >Steve Ranta wrote:
[...]
: > >> If the small business sector was actually growing, perhaps your point
: > >> would be more comforting.
[...]
: > >Steve, can you cite a few oligopolies in which the big players have
: > >increased their share of the markets in which they compete in the past
: > >10 years while putting workers out on the street?
: > How about the oil cartel?
: >
: > Shannon Mitchell
: THE BANKS INSTALLING self serve ATMs and reducing their
: staff because they weren't needed to serve US anymore.
: Robert Sveinson
I'm curious; Do either of you, or does anyone have stats on the
employment levelsof the banks, or oil companies? Otherwise your
assertions are worthless.
-the shambling wreck
While Cost is objective, Worth is subjective.
Bullets
Karen Gordon wrote:
> >: > >Steve Ranta wrote:
> >: > >> If the small business sector was actually growing, perhaps
> your point
> >: > >> would be more comforting.
>
> >: > Bullets <tric...@mail.direct.ca> wrote:
> >: > >Steve, can you cite a few oligopolies in which the big players
> have
> >: > >increased their share of the markets in which they compete in
> the past
> >: > >10 years while putting workers out on the street?
> >: >
> >: > How about the oil cartel?
> >: > Shannon Mitchell
>
> >: THE BANKS INSTALLING self serve ATMs and reducing
> their
> >: staff because they weren't needed to serve US anymore.
>
> >: Robert Sveinson
>
> bga...@uoguelph.ca (Barry Gaudet) says:
> > I'm curious; Do either of you, or does anyone have stats on the
> >employment levelsof the banks, or oil companies? Otherwise your
> >assertions are worthless.
>
> (Karen): The stats are available to anyone who wants to take the time
>
> to get the facts. Here are a few from BC Business - citing the top
> 100
> companies in that province - which are also somewhere on the upper
> half
> of the top companies in Canada.....
>
> Rev/Profit % incr. Emp's 1995 Emp's
> 1996
>
> WESTCOAST ENERGY ...... $18 million 16.4 1,200 900
> BC TEL ................ 2+ billion 6.2 11,403 9,558
> HONGKONG BANK OF CDA. 1.4 billion 10.3 1,694 1,100
>
> ....and the story is the same and worse for other companies who
> decided
> to relocate to Mexico (Janzen swim suits) and put over 280 employees
> out
> of work - permanently.
> --
I don;t know about the other 2, but I know BC Tel has NOT, as Steve
Ranta set out in the post that first attracted me to this thread,
increased its "dominance" while laying off workers. BC Tel has lost
considerable market share to other long distance providers. In 1991 it
had 100% of the lucrative long-distance market. Now it has 65 to 70 %.
Now, what about the others? Are your facts on those equally inaccurate?
Karen Gordon
Peter B. Macdonald
1,100
employees - Wow!
That is $1,272,727 profit per employee - no wonder the socialists are
unhappy
with their take. And I was under the foolish impression that a gross
profit
of 3-5000 dollars / employee was a good return.
If one person working for a bank can make 1.27 million $ - then where
can
I buy a bank.
The socialist should buy in too. Buy shares in the HK Bank NOW!
Regards,
Peter B. Macdonald
John Monroe
Karen Gordon (cc...@torfree.net) writes:
>
> (Karen): The stats are available to anyone who wants to take the time
> to get the facts. Here are a few from BC Business - citing the top 100
> companies in that province - which are also somewhere on the upper half
> of the top companies in Canada.....
>
> Rev/Profit % incr. Emp's 1995 Emp's 1996
>
> HONGKONG BANK OF CDA. 1.4 billion 10.3 1,694 1,100
>
This is a bit misleading. The Hong Kong Bank of Canada did not
make $1.4 billion in profits. It might have made $1.4 billion
in revenue.
The publication you quote looks like it should have data for all the banks.
The Hong Kong Bank is at best the 7th largest in Canada. What were the
numbers for the other six? At least one of them, the Bank of Nova Scotia,
showed an increase of over 800 employees over the period you quote.
John Monroe
Robert Sveinson
Barry Gaudet wrote:
>
> Robert Sveinson (rsve...@swdesign.com) wrote:
> : Shannon Mitchell wrote:
> : > Bullets <tric...@mail.direct.ca> wrote:
> : > >Steve Ranta wrote:
> [...]
> : > >> would be more comforting.
> : > >Steve, can you cite a few oligopolies in which the big players have
> : > >increased their share of the markets in which they compete in the past
> : > >10 years while putting workers out on the street?
> : >
> : > How about the oil cartel?
> : >
> : > Shannon Mitchell
>
> : THE BANKS INSTALLING self serve ATMs and reducing their
> : staff because they weren't needed to serve US anymore.
> : Robert Sveinson
>
> employment levelsof the banks, or oil companies? Otherwise your
> assertions are worthless.
Are you unable to see banks closing??
Where are the workers going??
To other overstaffed branches??
>
> -the shambling wreck
>
> While Cost is objective, Worth is subjective.
--
MZ
Barry Gaudet
Karen Gordon (cc...@torfree.net) wrote:
: bga...@uoguelph.ca (Barry Gaudet) says:
: > I'm curious; Do either of you, or does anyone have stats on the
: >employment levelsof the banks, or oil companies? Otherwise your
: >assertions are worthless.
: (Karen): The stats are available to anyone who wants to take the time
: to get the facts. Here are a few from BC Business - citing the top 100
: companies in that province - which are also somewhere on the upper half
: of the top companies in Canada.....
: Rev/Profit % incr. Emp's 1995 Emp's 1996
:
: WESTCOAST ENERGY ...... $18 million 16.4 1,200 900
: BC TEL ................ 2+ billion 6.2 11,403 9,558
: HONGKONG BANK OF CDA. 1.4 billion 10.3 1,694 1,100
: ....and the story is the same and worse for other companies who decided
: to relocate to Mexico (Janzen swim suits) and put over 280 employees out
: of work - permanently.
Three corporations and not a single major oil or bank corporation.... Why
do I suspect your figures are selective to the extreme?
--
Barry Gaudet
Robert Sveinson (rsve...@swdesign.com) wrote:
: Barry Gaudet wrote:
: > : THE BANKS INSTALLING self serve ATMs and reducing their
: > : staff because they weren't needed to serve US anymore.
: > : Robert Sveinson
: > employment levelsof the banks, or oil companies? Otherwise your
: > assertions are worthless.
: Are you unable to see banks closing??
: Where are the workers going??
: To other overstaffed branches??
In other words you have no idea whether employment levels have increased
or decreased at the Big banks. You're just blowing smoke.
Barry Gaudet
: > : Barry Gaudet wrote:
: > : > : THE BANKS INSTALLING self serve ATMs and reducing their
: > : > : staff because they weren't needed to serve US anymore.
: > : > : Robert Sveinson
: > : >
: > : > I'm curious; Do either of you, or does anyone have stats on the
: > : > employment levelsof the banks, or oil companies? Otherwise your
: > : > assertions are worthless.
: >
: > : Are you unable to see banks closing??
: > : Where are the workers going??
: > : To other overstaffed branches??
: >
: > In other words you have no idea whether employment levels have increased
: > or decreased at the Big banks. You're just blowing smoke.
: Prove me wrong if you can.
I dont have to. You made the assertion.
g-man
> > : > >Steve, can you cite a few oligopolies in which the big players have
> > : > >increased their share of the markets in which they compete in the past
> > : > >10 years while putting workers out on the street?
> > : >
> > : > How about the oil cartel?
Banks, retail giants, trust companies, TV broadcasting
Derek Nalecki
In article <33F3C3...@swdesign.com>, Robert Sveinson <rsve...@swdesign.com> says:
>
>Barry Gaudet wrote:
>>
>> Robert Sveinson (rsve...@swdesign.com) wrote:
>> : Barry Gaudet wrote:
>> : > : THE BANKS INSTALLING self serve ATMs and reducing their
>> : > : staff because they weren't needed to serve US anymore.
>> : > : Robert Sveinson
>> : >
>> : > I'm curious; Do either of you, or does anyone have stats on the
>> : > employment levelsof the banks, or oil companies? Otherwise your
>> : > assertions are worthless.
>>
>> : Are you unable to see banks closing??
>> : Where are the workers going??
>> : To other overstaffed branches??
>>
>> In other words you have no idea whether employment levels have increased
>> or decreased at the Big banks. You're just blowing smoke.
>
> Prove me wrong if you can.
A convienient exit for Mr. Sveinson. He posts no facts, no figures to
back his outlandish claims; but if anyone disagrees with those, _that_
person is told to offer proof.
Fortunately those of us who've been longer than a few days, realize that
Mr. Sveinson has never offered any facts to back his claims, and thus
this one can be summarily dismissed as rantings of a diseased mind, along
with all the others.
Of course one of these days, Mr. Sveinson may surprise us, and actually
offer some proof (;-) ;-) it could happen, right after the global
warming and a "hole" in ozone layer ;-).
Then we'll have to take him somewhat seriously. Until then...
BC’s neo-Nazi labour law defeated in round 1.
derek n, RdNck, Pen-Arm of the Righteous, esq.
"Never initiate force against another. _That_ should be the underlying
principle of your life. But should someone do violence to you, retaliate
without hesitation, without reservation, without quarter, until you are
sure that he will never wish to harm - or never be capable of harming
- you or yours again."
(F. Paul Wilson - 'THE SECOND BOOK OF KYFHO; Revised Eastern Sect Edition')
********************* MY OTHER COMPUTER IS A LAP-TOP *******************