The vast majority of Canada's growth is fueled by the oil and mining sectors in Saskatchewan and Alberta, making those provinces basically recession-proof unless something happens to resource prices.
Here in Saskatchewan, literally 90% of our GDP comes directly or indirectly from oil or potash/uranium mining, and another 6% is farming.
Yes, during a recovery it would be optimal to be making as many jobs as possible. No argument, but when you consider the size of the stimulus applied to the size of the hole and then a congress that does its UTMOST ability to block any recovery after said problem. I'm amazed he's getting jobs created right now at all considering how much of a cock-block the congress has been.
No argument about resources, thanks to the Oil sands, Western Canada where I live has more certainly not been ailing on the economy issue. Then again, we've kinda always been a resource based economy. The interesting part will be in the next 50 years when we will have to be shifting from that economy to a more information economy with the rest of the G8 countries.
I did not have a problem when the same parameters resulted in negative numbers, why would I suddenly not trust them? What changed?
---------- Post added 2012-10-05 at 06:53 PM ----------
Last edited by Felya; 2012-10-05 at 06:55 PM.
The fact is that the NFP increase is lower than population growth.
The reason the markets didn't respond enthusiastically to the report is that they mostly care about the NFP.
Last edited by Diurdi; 2012-10-05 at 07:06 PM.
If you count all jobs filled as new jobs, you'd be counting all promotions and their fill in, as 2 new jobs. Even though only one new person got hired. The NFP and Household survey differ, because they messure two different things.
---------- Post added 2012-10-05 at 07:06 PM ----------
Anyone else want to explain why the job increase in these numbers should be scrutinize now that they appear to be getting better?
Last edited by Felya; 2012-10-05 at 07:11 PM.
Another exceptional outlier:
Last edited by Diurdi; 2012-10-05 at 07:19 PM.
If the unemployment numbers were fine in the past when they were unfavorable to Obama, then they are fine now when they are favorable to him. Trying to find "problems" in them now makes the arguments ridiculous.
The less you know, the more you believe.
Science has promised us nothing and given us everything, faith has promised us everything and given us nothing.
The one thing I would ask is that instead of arriving at the conclusion and then doing the research, do it the other way around.
An unexpected spike certainly seems weird to me.
the release of unemployment numbers is always the same. one side sings gleefully "i told you so!" while the other discredits the process of obtaining said number. every single time. the only change is if the numbers support a different view than the time before, then offense and defense switch up