87% of new Jobs across Canada, were in Alberta

[Toma]

Statistics Canada’s latest employment data show that in February, 87% of the new jobs in Canada were created in Alberta, with 18,800 jobs created largely in construction, mining, and oil and gas. In the rest of the country, overall employment fell. "I know this is not a new story but it's becoming extreme," says Bank of Montreal Chief Economist Doug Porter. "In the last 12 months, Alberta is the only province that's seen meaningful growth. They've had job gains of nearly 4% and meanwhile 6 provinces have seen declines and one's been flat."

dun dun dun....

and

As the Statistics Canada report issued Friday showed, Alberta is responsible for almost all the new net jobs generated in the past year -- 82,300 of the 94,700 country-wide, or 87 per cent -- as the province saw employment rise an impressive 3.8 per cent.
By comparison, provinces not called Alberta only gained about 12,000 which, for the purposes of the agency's survey, constitutes a rounding error.


Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/more-than-85-of-new-canadian-jobs-came-from-one-place-alberta-1.1721026#ixzz30WcWJPi3

[dirtsniffer]

You know this is the conservatives fault right?

[rage2]

No way. It's all because of the TFW program that added so many jobs here.

[schocker]

Day taken er jerbssssssssssss

[davidI]

I wish Ontario and Quebec and the Federal Government would recognize that Canadian companies can no longer be competitive in the domestic manufacture of basic goods.

Those provinces really need to begin re-tooling and focusing on manufacturing that either requires skills or equipment that cannot be found in Asia, or manufacturing items that are cost competitive simply due to the cost of shipping raw materials or the finished product itself. They seem stuck in an industrial mindset from over half a century ago...

[frizzlefry]

Best of all these jobs are not for the Harvard educated 1% elite. These are good jobs with great pay that any blue collar fellow can get and make a good living on without needing the government to spend tax money to beg for the work.

[Toma]

https://scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1.0-9/p526x296/10150794_860895260592780_2147263898229669827_n.png

[davidI]

Originally posted by Toma
https://scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1.0-9/p526x296/10150794_860895260592780_2147263898229669827_n.png

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williamdunkelberg/2012/12/31/why-raising-the-minimum-wage-kills-jobs/

[rage2]

Originally posted by Toma
https://scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1.0-9/p526x296/10150794_860895260592780_2147263898229669827_n.png
Hey Toma, you got the date wrong. It doesn't increase to $15 until 2021.

[dirtsniffer]

No, you guys must be wrong. It's a picture with large font writing. It must be right.

[dirtsniffer]

Seattle's mayor announced a plan Thursday to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour over the next three to seven years. The plan is part of a nationwide push to combat income inequality.

Seattle Mayor Ed Murray announced a plan on Thursday to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour over the next three to seven years. It is the first major U.S. city to make a commitment to such a high base wage.

The plan, which was decided by committee, must still be approved by Seattle’s City Council.

A Real Source (http://time.com/85191/seattle-minimum-wage-15-hour/)

[Thomas Gabriel]

And yet Toma thinks we need to tax those bastard oil & gas companies more. That'll really make them want to keep hiring.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by Thomas Gabriel
And yet Toma thinks we need to tax those bastard oil & gas companies more. That'll really make them want to keep hiring. Actually, I kindof agree with Toma on the taxation/royalties thing. I think there's a lot of wealth that's getting transferred out the country via the oilsands. However, I'm no economist so...:dunno:

[davidI]

Originally posted by codetrap
I think there's a lot of wealth that's getting transferred out the country via the oilsands.

Can you elaborate on this?

[Canmorite]

Originally posted by codetrap
Actually, I kindof agree with Toma on the taxation/royalties thing. I think there's a lot of wealth that's getting transferred out the country via the oilsands. However, I'm no economist so...:dunno:


Originally posted by davidI


Can you elaborate on this?

Although very high, Norway seems to have a good handle on royalties. However, Statoil is the major (only?) player there and is state owned.

[Toma]

http://www.alternet.org/economy/robert-reich-7-reasons-why-minimum-wage-should-be-raised-15-hour

and make sure to watch and tell your friends to watch Robert Reich's movie, on netflix, itunes, dvd, on demand etc etc...

https://scontent-b-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/t1.0-9/10338806_786733208005944_752504882582634153_n.jpg

[Toma]

Originally posted by codetrap
Actually, I kindof agree with Toma on the taxation/royalties thing. I think there's a lot of wealth that's getting transferred out the country via the oilsands. However, I'm no economist so...:dunno:


Impossible to disagree with my stand with a little thought.

I mean oil sands driving the boom, population influx, inflation, housing bubble, disintegration of our roads, our environment...

Yet, it's not self sustainable, and what we COULD afford for services when oil was cheap, we no longer can when oil is at $100....

It's like Reagan supporters in the US.... "Oh gee, the economy was great" but reality .... built with deficit spending, corporate subsidy, and massive debt that eventually destroyed the economy.

Some would advocate NO SERVICES at all, cause at least we have "jobs". FUck health, fuck social, fuck infrastructure, as long as a few can have really big credit lines, so they can afford to bay everything privately.

lol :nut:

[davidI]

Originally posted by Canmorite


Although very high, Norway seems to have a good handle on royalties. However, Statoil is the major (only?) player there and is state owned.

I'm not an expert on the topic, but I do not believe Norway even collects royalties. I believe it only taxes companies, which I believe is only possible thanks to its huge Pension Fund...

I agree Norway is the poster child for managing oil wealth but that is in great thanks to its intelligent, productive population.

[Tik-Tok]

With Alberta's refusal to increase the royalties, it's a damn good thing Canada opted out of Kyoto, otherwise we'd be hurtin'.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by davidI
I'm not an expert on the topic, but I do not believe Norway even collects royalties. I believe it only taxes companies, which I believe is only possible thanks to its huge Pension Fund...

I agree Norway is the poster child for managing oil wealth but that is in great thanks to its intelligent, productive population.

The first step in properly managing resource (oil, gas, minerals etc) wealth is to federalize the royalties earned.

[Toma]

Originally posted by sputnik


The first step in properly managing resource (oil, gas, minerals etc) wealth is to federalize the royalties earned.

BLASPHEMY! :poosie:

[davidI]

Originally posted by sputnik


The first step in properly managing resource (oil, gas, minerals etc) wealth is to federalize the royalties earned.

Too bad about the Constitution Act, eh?

[Feruk]

Originally posted by sputnik
The first step in properly managing resource (oil, gas, minerals etc) wealth is to federalize the royalties earned.
So that even more profit from Alberta/BC/Saskatchewan can be sent out east while our infrastructure degrades further? No thanks.

[rage2]

Originally posted by sputnik
The first step in properly managing resource (oil, gas, minerals etc) wealth is to federalize the royalties earned.
Says the guy in Winnipeg who's province took $1.8b in equalization payments this year. :rofl:

[Toma]

Originally posted by rage2

Says the guy in Winnipeg who's province took $1.8b in equalization payments this year. :rofl:

And bad ass RICH Alberta managed to run a $2+ billion Deficit.... with a projected $5+ billion more this year??

Sooooooo

Manitoba ran a $430 million deficit....

What makes us better?

[Toma]

Interesting pattern on Deficit and Public Debt. Our pattern exactly mirrors the US over the past 25 years....

Republicans (Conservative equivalent) bullshit and play lip service to Fiscal Conservatism, but consistently MURDER our bottom lines. The last 3 republican Presidents have on Average EACH doubled the US debt (Reagan tripled it, Bush Senior almost doubled it, Bush Jr. did double it. Carter barely moved it, Clinton managed to balance the budget, and Handed Bush Jr. projected surpluses, Obama despite inheriting the worst US recession since 1929 has yet to double it.

In Canada, the pattern is equally clear. The liberals leave a surplus, the the conservatives eat through it and turn it into deficit. Liberals take over, and turn the patter around after a couple years.... here's the last 25 years in Canada...

Despite the rhetoric, Conservatives run massive deficits, Liberals run surpluses.

Look at the past 25 years for Canada as a whole...

Mulroney (CON)'
1989 -29 Billion
1990 -34 Billion
1991 -32 Billion
1992 -39 Billion

Chretien (Lib)
1993 -38
1994 -36
1995 -30
1996 -8
1997 +3
1998 +6
1999 +14
2000 +20
2001 +8
2002 +6
2003 +9

Martin (Lib)
2004 +1
2005 +14

Harper (CONman)
2006 +14
2007 +10
2008 -6
2009 -56
2010 -33
2011 -26
2012 -26
2013 -19
2014 -16

[codetrap]

Toma, are you sure you're not mixing up correlation and causation? I'm pretty sure there was some pretty significant economic events in tehre that wouldn't have have made any difference which gov't was in power.

[ExtraSlow]

Nope, he's sure.

[rage2]

Originally posted by Toma
And bad ass RICH Alberta managed to run a $2+ billion Deficit.... with a projected $5+ billion more this year??

Sooooooo

Manitoba ran a $430 million deficit....

What makes us better?
The fact that we gave them $1.7b so they can run a $430m and not a $2.1b deficit? :dunno:

[Toma]

Originally posted by rage2

The fact that we gave them $1.7b so they can run a $430m and not a $2.1b deficit? :dunno:

We didn't give them shit. We paid our taxes as normal, took in less than our fair share of royalty as normal, ran up a deficit as normal, incurred debt "financing" for capital projects we "rich Albertan's" could not afford as normal... (so we can give them away to private interests later??)

Or are you working for the Feds now?

[Toma]

Originally posted by codetrap
Toma, are you sure you're not mixing up correlation and causation? I'm pretty sure there was some pretty significant economic events in tehre that wouldn't have have made any difference which gov't was in power.

Yeah, both are correlation, even yours, but I have plotted deficit versus GDP and deficit versus unemployment.

It's a murky picture.

Combined with the "conservative disease" as a whole, including the US and parts of Europe, the pattern favours my conclusion.

[rage2]

Originally posted by Toma
We didn't give them shit. We paid our taxes as normal, took in less than our fair share of royalty as normal....

Or are you working for the Feds now?
I'll just redirect you here: http://forums.beyond.ca/st2/redford-resigns/showthread.php?s=&threadid=380495&perpage=20&highlight=&pagenumber=7


Originally posted by rage2
I think the budget was a perfect storm for failure. Back during peak provincial revenues for AB in 2006, the budgets were built to provide tons of services, with a $10b surplus, and things were great, everyone was happy. When provincial revenues tanked, it was still alright, as we really lost our surplus over the next few budgets, without a reduction in services.

Fast forward to the Redford era, provincial revenues still haven't recovered (it's been flat the last 3-4 years), and we've seen a huge spike in population growth because the rest of the country is falling apart, and you're put in a position where you either cut services and have public backlash, or put together a budget with a massive deficit and have public backlash. I guess the whole surplus with borrowing was a pretty hilarious spin, but also ended in backlash. Honestly, I don't think there was any scenario where anyone else could've looked good in Redford's position, regardless of party.

With that being said, balancing an Alberta budget is probably pretty fucking difficult considering our revenues are completely random/unpredictable, and we have no control over who moves here and sucks more of our revenues dry. There's no one to blame but ourselves, as we are accustomed to peak O&G prices levels of service, and we don't want to pull back even though revenue hasn't improved, and we're inviting more people here for the party.
So I do agree it's our fault, but on the spending side and not the revenue side. Our revenue is tied to global prices which fluctuates. It's also tied to the health of other provinces in equalization payments. If we didn't have to fund Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba, we'd easily be 10b surplus.

[Toma]

Interesting numbers here......

http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp

and don't forget our (Alberta) Sustainability Fund has been raped and robbed from 17 billion 5 years ago, to just around a billion this year.

During a resource BOOM?

So, let's recap.... deficit spending, debt financing of capital projects, raping the fund....

During a BOOOM?

Conservative modus operandi.... "trickle up and out economics".

[Toma]

Originally posted by rage2

I'll just redirect you here: http://forums.beyond.ca/st2/redford-resigns/showthread.php?s=&threadid=380495&perpage=20&highlight=&pagenumber=7


So I do agree it's our fault, but on the spending side and not the revenue side. Our revenue is tied to global prices which fluctuates. It's also tied to the health of other provinces in equalization payments. If we didn't have to fund Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba, we'd easily be 10b surplus.

We don't fund them. The federal government does from federal taxes.

And we get lots of "transfer" money from the fed government, by next year, we will equal BC.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by Toma


We don't fund them. The federal government does from federal taxes.

And we get lots of "transfer" money from the fed government, by next year, we will equal BC.

link (https://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp#Ontario)

Next year we will get 5.2 billion. BC will get 5.8. Not equal but close enough I guess :)

But if you compare some of the payments there is clearly money leaving Alberta taxpayers that goes elsewhere. Despite how much it moves around before that happens.

Alberta gets the equivalent of 11% of our revenue in equalization. Ok. But PEI gets 33%, NS gets 33%, NB gets 32%, QB gets 26%, ON gets 17%, MB gets 24%, Yukon gets 73%, Northwest Territories gets 72%, Nunavut gets 83%.

Every province needs to work within their budgets and revenue to balance their books and Alberta PCs have not done a good job of it. But there is not a single province not running a deficit. You cannot compare us to other provinces and at the same time downplay how much more assistance they get with public spending.

I agree that there has to be equalization so that public services are even across the board. But its not working out that way. "Poor is the new rich in Canada" (http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/news-releases/Poor-is-the-new-rich--Canada-s-equalization-payments-encourage-bureaucratic-bloat-in-the-least-productive-provinces/)


“A university student in Vancouver pays substantially more for tuition than her counterpart in Quebec or Manitoba; a patient in Nova Scotia has easier access to a doctor than a patient in Alberta. Yet in both cases the tax dollars of the British Columbian and Albertan are used to provide those better services,” Milke said.

“Not only are the services unequal at the provincial level – missing the point of the payments entirely -- but individuals in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario are forced to pay for substantially larger government spending elsewhere.”

[Nitro5]

Originally posted by codetrap
Toma, are you sure you're not mixing up correlation and causation? I'm pretty sure there was some pretty significant economic events in tehre that wouldn't have have made any difference which gov't was in power.

And don't forget minority governments were consessions on spending were made. The early Harper terms the Liberals and NDP wanted to spend even more so to lay the deficit spending solely on the heads of the Cons is being dishonest

[msommers]

The additional infrastructure required to accommodation the population increases we've been subjected to does cost quite a bit, and we've had a substantial increase here in Alberta.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-215-x/2012000/t465-eng.htm

But to make the case that there hasn't been a lot of wasteful spending here is kind of laughable.

[rage2]

Originally posted by Toma
We don't fund them. The federal government does from federal taxes.

And we get lots of "transfer" money from the fed government, by next year, we will equal BC.
You realize that the federal taxes come from people in each province right? At the end of the day, more money leaves us than comes back to us. My numbers were adjusted for how much money left the province as well.

[msommers]

http://www.business.ualberta.ca/Centres/~/media/business/Centres/WCER/Documents/Publications/155ElectronicApril2final.pdf

[CapnCrunch]

Originally posted by ExtraSlow
Nope, he's sure.

Its easy to be confident when you ignore anyone who disagrees with you.

[sputnik]

I find it ironic that a province which celebrates its flat provincial tax takes odds with the fact that the federal tax distribution is flat as well.

[themack89]

I have learned 2 things from this thread

Albertan's are relatively selfish, borderline Provincial Nationalists of some kind. Are we not Canadians before we are Albertan's?

and...

The concept of "global economy" appears to escape most.

[Toma]

Robert Reich's Facebook post this morning....

DEPARTMENT OF RIGHT-WING DECEPTION. The three biggest Republican lies about widening inequality:

(1) The rich and CEOs are America’s job creators. Wrong. The middle class and poor are the job-creators, through their purchases of goods and services. If they don’t have enough purchasing power because they’re not paid enough, companies won’t create more jobs and the economy won't grow.

(2) People are paid what they’re worth in the market. Bunk. CEOs who got 30 times the pay of typical workers forty years ago now get 300 times the pay because they control their compensation committees and their stock options have ballooned. Meanwhile, typical workers who earned more forty years ago than they do now (adjusted for inflation) had strong unions bargaining for them then, but don’t any longer (now, fewer than 7 percent of private-sector workers are unionized).

(3) Anyone can make it in America with enough guts, gumption, and intelligence. Baloney. We’ve turned our backs on poor kids, 42 percent of whom will still be in poverty as adults – a higher percent than in any other advanced nation.

Widening inequality can be reversed, but it will require America knows the truth and takes bold political steps: at the very least, higher taxes on the rich to pay for better education for the poor and middle, strengthened labor unions, and a living wage.