[Bruce_the_vii]

One of the problems with your posts is the amount of incorrect information. The jobs figures are for the CMA, the foreign immigration figures for the entire city region. It's true that newly arrived immigrants work slightly less than average but they probably wanted to work - these third world people don't come with huge savings. Citizens of Toronto may work in Hamilton but the reverse is true, so it's a wash. Your criticisms are, like, random rather than rigorous. They are awful to read. Five armies corps of people unsupported by employment in one city is a social cost. Get with the program, at least as far as arithmetic.

[Khar]

The only real job creation information available IS for the central Toronto region. Otherwise, you have to derive it from an "employment" figure, which you have not provided me the methodology for (and which is not available), so you are making an assertion here you cannot back up. You can't support what that definition is, nor can I confirm what it is.

I went to the table you mentioned for employment, and used the unadjusted values. I found out that in the end of the nineties, employment was at 2388400, and at the beginning it was at 2132400, as your values suggested. Over 250,000 jobs for employment was not expansion? Seasonal adjustment did not change these values much. For a labour force increase of only a slightly larger value. This is why unemployment went down as immigration continued. This is why I am saying you are only using figures from central Toronto -- because the statistics simply do not support what you are saying otherwise, and those are the only real job creation figures available from a search on my end!

In fact, let's look at labour force participation. From the first month of 1990 to the last month of 1999, labour force participation populations increased from 2242300 to 2525800. That's a little over 250,000, just like job creation! From your own source.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt since you were using a terminated series with an inaccessible methodology with incredibly vague measurement in comparison to the monthly values which were actually given by those series. This is still labour force participation in Toronto, does not reflect changes in other cities who may be getting labour from Toronto, and does not follow the actual unemployment figures. The only way that your figures worked is if you were using Central Toronto Data. I erred in that assumption, and apologize as such. It still does not change some of my criticisms.

If you wanted, you should have included series V2067345 and series V2067417, labour force participation population and unemployment population figures for Toronto accordingly. These would have verified what I had posted above and were available from the same table selection.

In other words, employment DID change in that period, according to your OWN source. By over 250,000 jobs, roughly the same level as the actual labour force. Series V2067381 of table 282-0090.

Bruce, I will admit that I was "wrong" in those cases, but that does not mean that it's an ongoing problem. One was an assumption where I assumed you were talking about other data (since that was from my own table and backed up my own statements), and the other I worked hard to make it clear that I was unsure about the source of the data with how I worded my response -- this was a criticism about your inability to provide background information about the research, since the numbers themselves really did NOT say whether or not these immigrants to Ontario were actually foreign. You still did not provide me with the information I requested or the background of the analysis. I had to find it on my own.

It did indeed show that immigration was talking about foreign immigration. It also indicated that intra-provincial and inter-provincial movement was not included in that figure. As I have already shown, the demographics of our immigrants have also improved and were already quite good at the time.

It is not "incorrect information" when you specifically leave out a horde of information and then claim my questioning the veracity of this data's source is an affront.

[Bruce_the_vii]

The point of my post was that the Immigration Department moved in 558,000 immigrants to Toronto without knowing there were no jobs. It's true that by 1999 there was job creation but it there was further immigration, increase internal migration and the job creation did not restore the labour force to the level it was. One thing for sure, the Immigration Department didn't notice, didn't care. It's now 2011 and the City hasn't recovered. Is 20 years short term? These isolated statistics of yours are like economists in the media - they are just for effect. We're doing a little arithmetic here, you're not following along. However thanks for being polite.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Jim is an interesting guy.

Snort, quaff, sniff. Nice of you to say it though.

[Khar]

Bruce, those values show that during this entire period those immigrants were moving in, of which only about half were actually entering the labour force, Toronto's amount of unemployed was reducing. That means that not only were more people being added to the overall amount, the overall population of employment was reducing.

Toronto is a large city, this amount of immigrants would be a smaller portion of Toronto than it would be in other parts of the nation. Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver have all been centers for immigration. We are rapidly approaching how I entered The Seventh Billion thread, where I showed that the impact of immigration on unemployment was negigable. Not only that, evidence shows that from the worst point of 1993 and 1994 on, the labour force of these new immigrants was being absorbed into Toronto on top of those natives which were being absorbed into the labour situation in Toronto.

At the beginning of 1990, 2242300 people were employed in Toronto. At the end of 2010, 3286300 people were employed in Toronto. Over a million people have found work on top of the levels we were at in 1990 in Toronto. How has the city not recovered? Comparing it to when it was at the top of a bubble/boom to when it is coming out of a recession doesn't make sense to me. Historically, the city of Toronto has remained below the national average of unemployment. Only in recent years has it actually matched the national average of unemployment, and exceeded it because of the downturn in 2007-2010. In fact, in portions of the 2000s the total amount of unemployed persons was lower than it was for various periods in the 1990s... and that's the population after the city has added millions on to it's population.

If we had restricted immigration then, could Toronto now have over a million more jobs? Personally, I don't think so. That original 250,000 boost in the labour force was likely followed by more people entering it. I am betting it helped increase the rate of job creation in Toronto. People were moving there, and still the population of unemployed was decreasing as the amount of employed was increasing. People could have worked outside of the city, not just in Toronto, as well. Just because someone lives there does not mean someone works there.

Keep in mind that Toronto's status as the center of Canada's economy has waned with the rise of the West, especially Alberta. While once it was a catchment area which contained much of the manufacturing power of Ontario, that power has waned. This no doubt will have some deleterious effects on Toronto, since Calgary, Edmonton, and other parts of the nation have been rising in prominence this entire period. Other factors could also be negatively impacting Toronto.

This is all from table 2820090. Besides which, immigrants, once inside Canada, do have mobility.

[Bruce_the_vii]

If you look at 282 0090 you will see that the net result over 20 years is the participation in the labour force is down by 4% or so while the unemployment is a high 9% or so. So the effective unemployment maybe 13%. Compared to cities in Alberta pre-recession or the 905 suburbs only in 1990 the figure is even higher. Plus there would be about 2% equivalent unemployment from involuntary part-time given the soft economy. The real unemployment is very high. Why would you let the government off for causing twenty years of recession level of unemployment in the engine of the Canadian economy? And the real question is how much damage have they done to the rest of the country? They certainly don't care. If they get caught, they'll pay for it in voters.

In downtown Toronto, in the skyscraper Banking towers are economists working for the 10 big banks of Canada. None of them know what the real unemployment figure outside the windows of their office is. The above is a little arithmetic to illustrate the point, from table 282 0090 which you downloaded.

If you do the arithmetic becareful to remember that the table figures are from a base of 100% of adults while the percentages, the unemployment, are from the base of the people in the labour force, the 68% and that. So you subtract but then divide by .68 or whatever. The participation minus the employment is divided by the participation, the 68%

[Lemmy]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

In downtown Toronto, in the skyscraper Banking towers are economists working for the 10 big banks of Canada. None of them know what the real unemployment figure outside the windows of their office is.

Bruce, Bruce, Bruce...you're quite mad, you know. Why would the average bank employee need to know unemployment? He'd have little more use for that stat than the check-out girl at the grocery store or guy who shovels feed at the Co-op.

[Bruce_the_vii]

I didn't say bank employee, I said Bank Economist. Economist should know what the unemployment rate in their own city is. Economist know that the participation rate varies but the statistics above indicate it varies a lot - which they don't know.

[Lemmy]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

I didn't say bank employee, I said Bank Economist. Economist should know what the unemployment rate in their own city is. Economist know that the participation rate varies but the statistics above indicate it varies a lot - which they don't know.

Nonesense. There are 30 economists that work in my office and 25 of them wouldn't have a clue what the unemployment rate or participation rate is at any given time. Hell, I'm a labour economist and those stats aren't something even I know off the top of my head. It's not relevent to my research. It's not relevent to most economists' work, and it certainly isn't the sort of thing bank economists would have much use for. They'd have about as much use for those statistics as a cat has for pajamas. There's a reason they don't know it: it's not relevent to their work.

[Bruce_the_vii]

There you go. A labour economist's view of the unemployment statistic. They don't actually know. I figured this out some years ago.

Meanwhile the de facto national economic strategy is to maximize growth with immigration and the annual immigration quota is set depending on the official unemployment. If the official unemployment is not too bad they let it a million, eh - make it millions over a few years. The official unemployment figure is not a good figure. So actually we have a problem, Houston.

[Lemmy]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

There you go. A labour economist's view of the unemployment statistic. They don't actually know. I figured this out some years ago.

You don't get it. There's a reason I (we) don't know: we don't care! It's not part of my work. It doesn't matter to me. I also don't care about the inflation rate or 1000s of other statistics that are irrelevent to my work. If I were a doctor who specialized in cancer treatment, would you expect me to have all the facts regarding human foot funguses at my finger tips? Of course not. You'd consult a pediatrist to look at your feet. Why don't you get this? Are you being intentionally obtuse or are you daft?

Brucey Brucey:

Meanwhile the de facto national economic strategy is to maximize growth with immigration and the annual immigration quota is set depending on the official unemployment. If the official unemployment is not too bad they let it a million, eh - make it millions over a few years. The official unemployment figure is not a good figure. So actually we have a problem, Houston.

Now you're off on a silly tirade. The "defacto national economic strategy" is none of my business. What does any of that have to do with either myself or economists working for the banks on Bay Street?
edit for spelling error.

[ASLplease]

IMO, the 'real unemployment' includes a rainbow of demographics that arent even looking for work. A doctor's housewife and 90year old grandmother should not be influency our evaluation of a 'unemployment vs immigration' appeal to reduce imigration.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Er, Lemmy - there are no economists watching the real unemployment figure. They are doing their own narrow job just as you say. I understand that. I'm saying I noticed this and it's a problem.

ASLplease I use a technical definition of "real unemployment". I have arithmetic that shows people drop out of the labour force and do other things if the labour market is soft. They would rather be working. If you ask them in a poll if they are unemployed the will say they are doing other things. However they would like a job. It's a gray area. There is, as you say, a rainbow of demographics of people not looking for work. You think about it and you'll come up with a list. However the statistic is in Alberta at it's peak the number of people in the labour force was 75% of people over age 14. So there's this 25% that is this rainbow of demographics. It's like that everywhere. 25%. However the gray area is significant as well. Finally I say you can't actually figure it out exactly - so the figure should be tested by finessed immigration movements. The actually money involved nationally is huge.

[ASLplease]

a 14 yr old that stays in school because the labour market is 'soft' is hardly a reason to reduce immigration.

If 25% is significant, then remove him from the numbers that you are quoting.

[Lemmy]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

Er, Lemmy - there are no economists watching the real unemployment figure. They are doing their own narrow job just as you say. I understand that. I'm saying I noticed this and it's a problem.

Ahh, so now my job is "narrow". I see, I see. "No economists"? There are none watching unemployment, eh? You sure about that? I'm just not one of them (and neither are the guys working for the banks that you set as your targer earlier). And even if there really were "no economists watching the real unemployment figure", why would you blame that on other economists? That's like blaming a Metro Toronto police officer for not catching speeders on Highway 417 in Ottawa. The target of your rage needs some serious refocusing, dude.