« A very simple derivation of the balanced budget multiplier in a very monetarist model | Main | Asking the right question about fiscal policy »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

With that extra bit of evidence, I'm beginning to think it was either sampling error or a data glitch.

Given the number of provinces, and the number of months, and years, there's going to be one outside the 1% level every year on average, and two in a row wouldn't be impossible.

What's the correlation between EI claims and LFS numbers, on a provincial level? Not everyone who says they are unemployed in the LFS is an EI claimant.

Nick: the real problem is not the numbers. It's technical, an interesting toopic among ourselvees.
The technical discussion remains between specialist. In the meanwhile, the usual culprits have their field day. politicians blaming each other and the press going on with their normal incompetence, crass ignorance and proud self-righteousness. Especialy as it concerns Québec, always a subject where rampant idiocy is the norm.

It seems nobody cares about what Wendy noticed in the preciding thread, that Calgary "lost" 7000 jjobs in FIRE in a single year, a development that would surely have been noted in a city of 1 million.( getting your employment ratio down by 1% and no one noticing?)
It is high time specialists speak out.
Anyone heard anything from Stascan?

I wonder if it is simply a bit of regression to the mean, coupled with the winding down of some construction projects. Quebec faced a mild recession compared to other regions in Canada (provincial employment held up during the financial crisis in part due to large construction projects going on at the time). And by looks of the employment charts from your previous post, Quebec was the first region to regain pre-recession employment level peaks, also Quebec's employment gains between OCT 2008 - 2010 are dramatically better than the other regions. I understand the reason for concern but as you suggest it could just be a statistical anomaly.

B.P.: Micro data points to losses in Health care ( 14000) and communications-culture.(10000). Health care is a public sector where such a loss would be made official. Culture is a rather small sector where people would notice. And Montréal is showing losses while regions are gaining while construction show no loss.
And , as has ben noted, since Emplyment is lagging GDP, how come we have no weakening GDP in the fall? Or are GDP data wrong? (Unlikely.)

Late to the party, but there were similar bizarre LFS numbers coming out of Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge in the last few years, specifically in the education sector. Overall it didn't make a huge dent in the numbers, unlike Quebec, but it was still inexplicable. And it wasn't just a seasonal-adjustment anomaly, as the annual numbers show:

2003 - 16,700 jobs in educational services
2004 - 17,700
2005 - 18,600
2006 - 17,700
2007 - 22,000
2008 - 27,500
2009 - 29,000
2010 - 24,200

(CANSIM series v53538492 from table 282-0112 for those following along at home)

10,000 jobs in two years, in an employment base of 250,000?

The MOE in the monthly numbers (v53537827) is of course much higher, but even there we see 19,500 jobs in April 2007 somehow climbing to 30,000 the next April.

So, naturally, after seeing the above, you want to see the occupational numbers for "teachers and professors" (v53540565), and those are similarly unbelievable:

2005 - 9,200
2006 - 10,100
2007 - 13,100
2008 - 18,700
2009 - 20,100

2010 - 13,400

Sampling error or no sampling error, come on Statscan. I spent almost all of these years at Waterloo and they weren't hiring thousands of profs.

We (the City of Kitchener economic development department) tried to get an answer from Statscan when we discovered this in the summer of 2010, but as far as I know that never happened.

(I should probably mention that I used to work for Statistics Canada, albeit briefly and not on anything related to the above.)

Rob Pettapiece: at least, in your case, it probably didn't modify economic policies nor political climate. There are begining to be oplitical consequences here. Stascan owe us an explanation. And in the meantime, specialists ( come on Stephen come on Pierre Fortin) must get out and try to prevent the media idiots from mucking things up even more.
ANd , BTW' Martin Coiteux speaking to Don McPherson from the Montreal Gazette merely confused things even more.

Just to add: the "data " ( such as they are) for the QC North Shore just came in. Our rate is supposed to have doubled from barely 5% to more than 9%( barely believable as the McDonald's just reopened its night shift after receiving a busload of Phillopinos guest workers...).

Stephen, we must occupy StatsCan!

If I get that job in Montreal I'm after, does that mean it will skew the numbers by 1000 people instead of one?

Determinant: you're worth it. And you could do a L'Oréal shampoo commercial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Or%C3%A9al

and create 1000 jobs in the communications-culture sector..

Why thank you Jacques. FWIW that job has hit a snag but I am confident of a successful outcome after some appeal manoeuvres. HR is convinced of a certain result which I believe is totally wrong and is not what I demonstrated to them. I do not wish to say more until the procedural wrangling is done or they see the light.

Actually it's topical because this particular government program believes something about my knowledge and capabilities which is even more ridiculous than the Statscan results we've been kicking around.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this site

  • Google

    WWW
    worthwhile.typepad.com
Blog powered by Typepad