« Canada, Australia, and New Zealand; does the Zero Lower Bound matter? | Main | The corporate tax on workers and consumers »


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

Two thoughts:
- In the vein of no longer classified as goods-producing, is it possible that a number of people who lost long-term manufacturing jobs later found short-term service jobs, and when their contracts ended because classified as service workers?

- Any chance that there are different surveys with different definitions of service sector? I would consider everyone at my engineering and surveying company to be service workers, but if construction is part of goods production, then some portion of our work may be classified differently. Same thing at drilling companies, as drilling companies are generally considered "oilfield services," but they are actually constructing wells, so a tangible good is produced. There's probably some other industries like that that I'm forgetting.

This is highly informative material. With almost two-thirds of the jobs lost among the 10 percent of the labour force in the manufacturing sector, that suggests Southern Ontario has taken most of the hit, and, of course, it has the largest proportional population size, so the unemployed become less visible.
When Newfoundland lost the cod fishery, it was said at the time the impact was as if Ontario had lost auto. The cod have not come back, what are the prospects for auto (and steel) ?

On the subject of the StatsCan budget - where was the urgent need for these new economic data statisticians over the past 10 years? How did StatsCan neglect to hire them during the largest increase in the public service in a generation?

I guess all their new hires were in the "special pleadings" division.

I recall last summer that the Labour Force Survey recorded a significant shift into self employment among men aged 55+. At the time, I assumed these people were financial services or professional/sci/tech workers. But maybe many were former manufacturing types?

Also, I've only been watching LFS numbers through the NAICS codes based view, but maybe the occupation (NOCs) code perspective would shed some light on your question?

That's a thought. Ideally, we'd want both the NAICS and NOC, but apparently you have to pay for that.

I'll take a quick look. Thanks.

Nope. At the monthly level, they only have 10 or so occupations, such as "Occupations unique to processing, manufacturing and utilities". At the annual level they break it down more, but it's harder to extract the business cycle out of that. In any case, the 2009 numbers aren't out yet. I'll try to remember to get back to this.

Another idea (related to previous suggestion): the Labour Force Survey records what industry people were working in, not what they did. Is it possible that among those laid off in "manufacturing" were accountants or bookkeepers, or supply clerks, or administrative? That is, many laid off manufacturing workers had skill sets that were more universal and thus were able to shift into another industry type.

I have some older NOC vs NAIC numbers -- I'll take a look and see if there is anything to learn.

I just looked at the manufacturing related series for both, for the Toronto CMA (what I have) to April 2009 (last time I downloaded NOCs). From 2004 to 2009, the NAICS code employment levels went from 500,000 to 360,000 meanwhile the NOCs code "occupations unique to manufacturing etc." went from roughly 275,000 to 150,000. If my math is right, this suggests that 15,000 of those laid off "manufacturing workers" actually did something not "unique to manufacturing" which may mean they found employment elsewhere.

I think there are still a lot of "missing" manufacturing workers.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this site

  • Google

Blog powered by Typepad