[adma]

My issue with Glen is that he continues to moan about the issues surrounding job flight instead of actively showing that he is trying to change the situation. He should be championing proposals like rebalancing the commercial-residential tax rates, getting the issue back into the media spotlight (maybe an article for the Sun?) or even calling Rob Ford.

Methinks Glen is jealous, because all those people moving to Trinity-Spadina are really really exciting, and he's just a dreary, dreary tedious serial internet poster...

 

[Glen]

The real story isn't stagnant employment overall, it's the decline in manufacturing with other sectors picking up the slack. In 1983 22% of the jobs in the city were in manufacturing, now it's less than 10%. That's what's bringing the numbers down.

Downtown employment, at 442,000 jobs, is the highest it's been since they started counting (at least as far as the employment surveys show).

And the DRL was needed a long time ago.

Downtown employment has indeed risen. I am not sure full time employment has reached a new peak though. In 1989 there was 431,400 jobs downtown. That is my point. Despite a very large increase in the number of people living downtown there really hasn't been a large enough increase in employment. Particularly if you consider the demographic makeup of the new residents which would suggest a very high labour participation rate.

Yes there has been some new office development. Unfortunately these new offices frequently consolidate instead of create new opportunities. Often at the expense of other areas of the city. Furthermore, and this is something I rarely see mentioned, is that the downtown employment market is becoming less and less diversified. It has an over-reliance, and precarious one at that, on the Financial sector. A downturn in this sector could spell disaster.

 

[Thanos]

How is this any different then other major cities that have a huge presence in the financial industry???

 

[taal]

I disagree regarding the diversification of employment downtown. I should reword that, you're right, the FIRE industry dominates the core, but, overall the last 10 years that dominance hasn't been increasing, as other industries have been growing.

So if you're going back far enough when there was much more industry downtown, you're indeed correct, there was a much wider range of jobs. But lets just talk about the last 10 years or so. More jobs of surfaced in the technology industry (most related to social media / marketing), actually a recent report was conducting stating Toronto has the 3rd most start ups in this sector in North America (and that number is growing).



I completely agree that the rest of the city suffers, where employment levels have slowly fallen (or remained stagnant) over the last 20 year or so. There are no signs this will change and probably very little that could actually change this at this point. Yes the core may continue to grow but I think the outside of that, not only will Toronto keep losing jobs but those areas will lose more middle class residents as we have been seeing.

 

[Glen]

Between 1999 and 2009, the financial services sector added 69,000 jobs - a cumulative growth rate of 42%, or 4.2% per year on average. ( http://www.toronto.ca/invest-in-toronto/finance.htm#1 ). Now consider that during that period the city only added 30,000 jobs (Toronto employment surveys) and it is clear that there is an increasing dependence to that sector.

 

[freshcutgrass]

How is this any different then other major cities that have a huge presence in the financial industry???

The difference is Toronto's economy is very likely to be far more diversified than any of those other financial centres. And that's despite Toronto's continuous loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector.

Now consider that during that period the city only added 30,000 jobs (Toronto employment surveys) and it is clear that there is an increasing dependence to that sector.

I don't understand the logic of how this is a bad thing. Would we be better off during a future financial sector meltdown and subsequent job loss if we had less financial sector jobs to start with?

The downtown economy has pretty much lost its manufacturing base a long time ago. The retail sector has been, and will probably remain significant in size but stagnant in growth. The hospitality industry is growing, but I wouldn't call those great jobs. There has been good steady growth in both the health industry and educational industry, with significant investment in new facilities downtown.

All this massive and on-going residential population increases in downtown has to translate into more downtown jobs as well.

 

[taal]

Between 1999 and 2009, the financial services sector added 69,000 jobs - a cumulative growth rate of 42%, or 4.2% per year on average. ( http://www.toronto.ca/invest-in-toronto/finance.htm#1 ). Now consider that during that period the city only added 30,000 jobs (Toronto employment surveys) and it is clear that there is an increasing dependence to that sector.

You know were usually on the same page regarding these things but clearly those facts alone are not enough ? : )

I'm referring to the core alone here. The rest of the city has lost jobs and continue to do so, hence only adding 30,000 jobs overall. But if you look at stats that just focus on the core I think you'll see more jobs were added in other sectors as well.

I could be wrong, and we could prove that if we have stats that look at the core (greater core really) alone, but I say this because the recent report I've seen regarding Toronto as a hub in the technology sector for start-ups had stats regarding how many jobs were added to this area (the majority were all in the greater core).

 

[taal]

All this massive and on-going residential population increases in downtown has to translate into more downtown jobs as well.

See that's really a misconception, and Glen's main point ... given how many new residents there are, there are not as many new jobs as you'd expect in the core.


And what about the rest of Toronto ! Which continuously loses jobs (not many, granted, but there is a clear stable outflow from the outer 416 to the core or 905).

 

[W. K. Lis]

Wonder how many of the population increases are young couples without children... at the moment.

When they do have children some will start to look for places with extra bedrooms, which means moving outward if there is no extra bedroom condos available where they are presently.

 

[JohnQCitizen]

With the increasing pressure on Hong Kong citizens to conform by Red China, we should see a welcome influx of wealthy new immigrants to the GTA in the next five to ten years.

 

[Chuck]

30,000 new people is astounding. Milton also grew by 30,000 people between the two censuses and seems to hog the limelight.

Consider this: Trinity-Spadina added the same number of new residents as Milton except during that time:

1. There was no addition in road capacity in that area
2. There was no addition in transit capacity in that area
3. There was hardly any addition in school capacity in that area
4. There was not much addition in water, sewer or other utility capacity - or certainly less than there was in Milton.

That will only hold true for so long. The capacity of each sewer pipe, water main, water filtration plant, the streetcar network in general, and so on is finite. Eventually, that one extra condo will require the $2 billion dollar replacement of a major downtown trunk sewer, or the construction of a new waste water treatment plant. As for those extra office towers, they have already justified building the multiple billion dollar DRL.

A better argument is that downtown growth is less energy intensive. All growth comes with a financial cost relating to upgrading and maintenance of infrastructure.

 

[Just_Chris]

Yes, damn the free market! We should all let the government dictate where and how we should live. Government always knows what's best for me.

 

[allabootmatt]

That will only hold true for so long. The capacity of each sewer pipe, water main, water filtration plant, the streetcar network in general, and so on is finite. Eventually, that one extra condo will require the $2 billion dollar replacement of a major downtown trunk sewer, or the construction of a new waste water treatment plant. As for those extra office towers, they have already justified building the multiple billion dollar DRL.

A better argument is that downtown growth is less energy intensive. All growth comes with a financial cost relating to upgrading and maintenance of infrastructure.

And yet on the 'utility' side, politicians of all stripes seem willing to concede, and voters willing to accept, that users have to pay for improved and expanded infrastructure. Water rates under Ford have gone up very substantially to fund a capital program, with nary a peep of protest from either the right wing of Council or the media. When we get to this kind of realism on transit, we'll be in good shape.