andyt andyt:
What is actually says is that
$1:
Ontario’s grade on income per capita has slowly declined since the early 1980s
Ie it's relative position has declined.
It also says this:
$1:
Ontario’s grade for per capita income has gradually declined since the early 1980s, reflecting the changing fortunes of the province’s economy. Ontario earned “A” and “B” grades in the 1980s and “B” grades in the early 1990s, but has subsequently slipped to “C” grades. Ontario’s real GDP growth has slowed since the 1980s as the province has had to deal with the negative impact on the province’s manufacturing sector of unstable U.S. growth, globalization, and a higher loonie. Also, chronically high fiscal deficits and rising debt levels have made it difficult for the province to invest much more in education and innovation—factors that are crucial to productivity growth and an improved standard of living.
But hey, one more dollar means things are increasing and everything is ok,
according to the 'economist' at the Farmer's college.
Shall we do unemployment now ?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... e19562032/$1:
Unemployment rate climbs to 7.1% as Ontario hit hard
Ontario, which lost 34,000 jobs last month, was a sore spot in the report, adding to the pressure on the recently re-elected government of Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne.
Manufacturing in Ontario, which lost another 13,600 jobs, is now at its lowest point on records dating back to 1976, Mr. Porter noted.
Ontario Economic Development Minister Brad Duguid promised to do more for the manufacturing sector in the wake of June’s grim job numbers.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ontario-yo ... -1.1473423$1:
Report: The Young and the Jobless - Youth Unemployment in Ontario
The 2013 unemployment rate for Ontario youth between the ages of 15 and 24 ranged between 16 and 17.1 per cent, higher than the average Canadian range of 13.5 to 14.5 per cent.
In 2012, Ontario's youth unemployment rate of 16.9 per cent was among the worst in the Great Lakes region, rivalling Michigan and higher than rates in Quebec, Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Ontario's monthly youth employment rate – a measure that determines how many young people actually have jobs – fluctuated between 50 to 52 per cent, meaning half of all Ontario youth don't have jobs.
Toronto's youth unemployment rate is 18.1 per cent and its employment rate is 43.5 per cent -- the worst of any region in the province.
Toronto has the widest gap between youth and adult employment in the province, with a difference of 21.8 per cent – the highest it's ever been.
Windsor, Oshawa, Brantford and London are youth unemployment "hotspots," with rates similar to those in the EU, hovering above 20 per cent.
Youth employment rates in Sudbury, Waterloo and Hamilton are above the national rate.
The study argues that these statistics are not simply the byproduct of the 2008 global economic crisis, but instead come from a "strong structural component" within the province's labour market.
What's worse, the report says, there's no sign of these trends abating anytime soon.
"Ontario's youth joblessness problem isn't simply a post-recession hangover -- it's becoming chronic," study author Sean Geobey said in a statement.
Remember, Lamey claimed unemployment hasn't gone up.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... cle651518/You can look for yourself.
And, this beauty:
$1:
Can Canada Prosper without a Prosperous Ontario?
Di Matteo, Clemens, and Palacios
•
Fraser Institute 2014
fraser
institute
.org
Summary
Ontario’s economic struggles, which are most dramatically illustrated by its tran
-
sition to a “have-not” province, have implications far beyond the borders of the
province. For the better part of a decade, and particularly since the recession of
2008/09, Ontario’s economic performance has dragged down that of the national
economy. Due to both the sheer size of Ontario’s economy and its population, as
well as the fact that the Canadian economy is highly integrated, what happens in
Ontario influences our national economy.
The important influence of Ontario on the national economy is borne out
by statistics. For example, if we compare the variation in per-capita GDP growth
for Canada (without Ontario) against the variation in Ontario for the period from
1982 to 2012, we find that the variation in Ontario explains roughly three quarters
of the variation in the rest of the national economy. Simply put, for the better part
of three decades, the success of Canada’s economy was inextricably linked with the
success and failure of Ontario’s economy.
Ontario’s influence is also seen in employment statistics. About two thirds
of the variation in employment growth in the rest of Canada between 1982 and
2012 is explained by the variation in employment growth in Ontario. In other
words, Canada experienced strong employment growth when Ontario experi
-
enced strong employment growth, and vice versa.
Unfortunately, Ontario’s under-performance since the early 2000s—and
particularly since the recession of 2008/09—has been dragging down our nation
-
al performance. Across a whole host of economic indicators, Ontario is simply
not performing at the national average, let alone filling its traditional role as a
foundation for the national economy. From 1981 to 2004, Ontario’s real per-capita
GDP (a broad measure of income) was either above or equal to the rest of Canada.
A slow-down in per-capita GDP growth began in Ontario after 2000 and, starting
in 2005, Ontario’s real per-capita GDP fell below that of the rest of Canada. In
2004, Ontario’s real per-capita GDP was 0.36% higher than the rest of Canada.
By 2012, Ontario’s real per-capita GDP was 5.6% lower than the rest of Canada.
Indeed, in 2012, if data for Ontario were excluded, Canada’s per-capita GDP would
be 2.2% higher.
CKA Uber 
