News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5K     0 

I suspect that Calgary's labour force increasing while Edmonton's has been decreasing is to do with age demographics. Calgary has had higher birth numbers over the past years, and every month a new batch of 15 year olds turn up, that is a higher number than in Edmonton. Also Calgary has traditionally had a smaller population of people in the 60's who are dropping out of the labour force (though I haven't seen those numbers recently)

You are dead on about the numbers for Alberta picking up equalling the drop for Edmonton. Edmonton has a greater relationship with oil and gas jobs in the field and smaller centres. It's really common to se people moving to and from Edmonton from those smaller centres. Last year's stascan estimates showed some of the northern census divisions losing intra-provincial migration while Edmonton gained, that was highly likely a lot of people moving from places like Fort Mac to Edmonton, whereas this last month, is probably a reversal of some of that. I've seen the cycle happen first hand over the years.

Oddball said:
The March LFS is out. The headlines this morning were all about full-time employment growth so I was hoping we might be in on that. Sadly it wasn't to be. Things were pretty flat for us.

View attachment 139390

The city still grew based on the estimates, but we lost employment and gained unemployment. Both by fairly small margins. The result was a fairly substantial bump in the overall unemployment percentage back above 8%. It hasn't been that high since October. There are a few faint silver linings I guess. The participation rate remained where it was and based on the unadjusted numbers, most of the employment losses might have been part-time rather than full time. Though there were losses for both.

Pretty blah month all told. I wonder if the weather played a part? Golf courses and agriculture related businesses are probably getting started late.

Edmonton's story is pretty similar to last month unfortunately for them. The unemployment rate dropped, but so did the labour force as a whole. The continued to lose jobs while improving their unemployment rate. This is actually their 3rd consecutive month of employment decreases since peaking back in Decemeber.

Alberta as a whole looks a little brighter. The labour force shrank, but equal to the amount that Edmonton did interestingly. Employment was up, unemployment was down and the unmployment rate declined, but so did the participation rate. More good than bad in there I'd say. The number I always want to see the most is Employment trending in the right direction and it is, at least provincially.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
If I recall correctly, Edmonton is the only major city in Canada with a younger average age than Calgary. I'll go looking for some stats to back that up in a bit, but we can draw some pretty significant conclusions from the LFS data.

upload_2018-4-6_13-9-29.png


If you cast your eyes to the purple section which is Calgary's numbers less Edmonton's numbers, and look at Population (%), you can see that Edmonton has had a persistent, if shrinking, advantage in the 15-24 years population as a proportion of their overall population. As you can also see, it does look like they show more in the 45+ age group by the end, but it's barely any more. Edmonton generally speaking appears to be younger than Calgary.

What might support your theory though is the widening gap in 45+ participation. They begin the set nearly tied, but in 4 months Calgary pulls to almost 4% ahead. This is in part because of growth in participation of that age group in Calgary and decreases for Edmonton. That does however mirror the overall changes for all populations by and large. So it's hardly a "Eurika!" moment. If there's anything that really sticks out in the data for me it's Edmonton's larger and generally more participatory youth cohort.

I think it's correct to say that you're likely correct to some degree SP, but that that is likely more of a macro-trend impacting the entire country. I don't know if there would really be any reason to expect and drastic changes driven by retirements in the last few months alone. If anything, the province announced salary freezes and they've probably been taking other staff related cost cutting measures and that's probably hitting Edmonton harder.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-4-6_13-9-29.png
    upload_2018-4-6_13-9-29.png
    95.1 KB · Views: 363
From what I remember Edmonton has always had a larger amount in the 15-24 age group, largely due to the post secondary student population which is much larger than Calgary's. It would be interesting to compare the populations aged 15-18 for example as those would be people just newly arrived into the workforce. The other factor is population over 65, as Edmonton has always had a larger population (or percentage for sure) in that area, which would be people newly departing the workforce.

Oddball said:
If I recall correctly, Edmonton is the only major city in Canada with a younger average age than Calgary. I'll go looking for some stats to back that up in a bit, but we can draw some pretty significant conclusions from the LFS data.


If you cast your eyes to the purple section which is Calgary's numbers less Edmonton's numbers, and look at Population (%), you can see that Edmonton has had a persistent, if shrinking, advantage in the 15-24 years population as a proportion of their overall population. As you can also see, it does look like they show more in the 45+ age group by the end, but it's barely any more. Edmonton generally speaking appears to be younger than Calgary.

What might support your theory though is the widening gap in 45+ participation. They begin the set nearly tied, but in 4 months Calgary pulls to almost 4% ahead. This is in part because of growth in participation of that age group in Calgary and decreases for Edmonton. That does however mirror the overall changes for all populations by and large. So it's hardly a "Eurika!" moment. If there's anything that really sticks out in the data for me it's Edmonton's larger and generally more participatory youth cohort.

I think it's correct to say that you're likely correct to some degree SP, but that that is likely more of a macro-trend impacting the entire country. I don't know if there would really be any reason to expect and drastic changes driven by retirements in the last few months alone. If anything, the province announced salary freezes and they've probably been taking other staff related cost cutting measures and that's probably hitting Edmonton harder.
Click to expand...
 
Here's some stats from 2016. Calgary definitely has a larger population of people 19 uears olf and younger, but you see the spike in population for Edmonton at the student age, and then Calgary spikes again.

Edmonton does have a larger population in the 65+ category, but not in the 60-64 category which would affect numbers leaving the labor force.

What ages are considered labour force, 15 -65? Another question is whether students are counted as labour force numbers?
pop.jpg
 

Attachments

  • pop.jpg
    pop.jpg
    307.3 KB · Views: 329
Last edited:
I don't believe students are counted unless they are working or actively looking for work. Don't ask me how they track the latter. I have no idea. These students would fall out of the labour force and would be a member of the group (Population - Labour Force). As you can see, the participation rate for 15-24 year olds is a lot lower than average for the city. I bet if you moved the bar down to 15-21 or 15-18 it'd be a heck of a lot lower.

Ages for the labour force I believe are 15+. While it isn't the norm there are still people who work into their 70s and even their 80s and are thus still part of the labour force.

The only workers uncounted are those 14 year old kids pulling shifts' at their parents' restaurants.

bobs_burgers.0.jpg
 
Last edited:
Oddball said:
The Globe & Mail's editorialists released an uncharacteristically blunt assessment of the Kinder Morgan Trans-Mountain Saga. It's nice to read a motion of support from a periodical which usually prides itself on finding the "middle" position matters.
Click to expand...

Flawless. Every person in Canada needs to read that article.
 
There is a stirring debate going on in the Provincial Economies II thread of SSP on the subject of TMP. It is heartening to read supportive and objective opinions from all over the country. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, what I don't understand is why 'anti-TMP' people think that the demise of this project would be a good thing for Canada. They obviously don't understand or care about the stark realities facing this country.
I think this is a watershed moment in the life of our energy industry. If this pipeline fails then there is every reason to believe future proposals will as well. That would make further investment in the oilsands highly questionable. We need volume and maximum capacity to offset the high cost of production.What oil companies will take that risk when investment in other countries looks far more attractive and less risky? Without continual investment, the energy economy in this country will slowly dwindle away as we won't be competitive. With that prospect in mind, I would like the naysayers to identify what goods and services we have in Canada today or tomorrow, that will replace fossil fuel energy products as a percentage of the overall Canadian economy.
 
JonnyCanuck said:
There is a stirring debate going on in the Provincial Economies II thread of SSP on the subject of TMP. It is heartening to read supportive and objective opinions from all over the country. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, what I don't understand is why 'anti-TMP' people think that the demise of this project would be a good thing for Canada. They obviously don't understand or care about the stark realities facing this country.
I think this is a watershed moment in the life of our energy industry. If this pipeline fails then there is every reason to believe future proposals will as well. That would make further investment in the oilsands highly questionable. We need volume and maximum capacity to offset the high cost of production.What oil companies will take that risk when investment in other countries looks far more attractive and less risky? Without continual investment, the energy economy in this country will slowly dwindle away as we won't be competitive. With that prospect in mind, I would like the naysayers to identify what goods and services we have in Canada today or tomorrow, that will replace fossil fuel energy products as a percentage of the overall Canadian economy.
Click to expand...

There is one universally assured force for evil in this country, the BC NDP. They're the destructive willpower of Vancouverite Glass-Box Enviro-Social Crusaders made manifest. They're slogan may as well be "Harm BC, but first Harm Canada."

The Federal Government should crack the Empire of the Lower Mainland's monopoly on Canada's Pacific Coastline once and for all. Let Vancouver and the Island be one Province where they're free to destroy their own economy in an isolated sandbox forevermore. Then split the rest of it in half at about the 52nd parallel. With Prince George, Prince Rupert and Haida Gwaii forming one province and Kamloops, Kelowna and the South Eastern Interior forming the other. That way no one province can hold a monopoly in the future.

Map for Fun/War Aims:

upload_2018-4-10_14-35-0.png


Course if jurisdictional pyrotechnics are the name of the game we should probably take a few sticks of dynamite to Ontario while we're at it. ;)
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-4-10_14-35-0.png
    upload_2018-4-10_14-35-0.png
    162.7 KB · Views: 323
Last edited:
What are people's thoughts on the probability of TMX getting built? I hear lots of people saying it will get built but will take longer, and others saying it's probably dead.
 
I think it all depends on Kinder Morgan. They are a U.S. company and I am sure they have plotted a course of action that will determine whether this project is a 'go' or 'no go' for them. My concern is that the business climate in the U.S. is now the complete opposite to Canada. The Republicans are pro-business evidenced by lower taxes, fewer environmental constraints, less foreign competition. I am sure Kinder Morgan is looking at Canada and saying ... we have better things to invest in, that are less costly, less risky and won't take forever and a day to see a return.
 
I think this issue might outlive Kinder Morgan's involvement. Apparently their Canadian subsidiary is already publicly listed and 77% Canadian owned and both the Federal and Alberta Provincial governments have indicated they're willing to purchase stakes if the Americans get cold feet. In this case I can't really say I blame them, who goes into business then through no fault of their own inadvertently creates a constitutional crisis and would want to stick it out. As bad a message it sends to foreign investors, it's probably better if they step away anyway. Removing the American angle removes a rhetorical arrow from Horgan's quiver.

From what I've read it sounds like the worst case right now would be if the issue actually receives a supreme court referral. Which, from what I've read would almost certainly come out in favour of the federal government being able to enforce the rules. So I don't think @darwink constitutional worst fears are necessarily well founded. The main reasons for wanting to avoid this are that it could take a while and that at least from the federal perspective they know they're already in the right so having to defer to the court on the matter would be something of a blow.

This could all be over if Justin could find cojones and step up and lead the country. I think the pipeline is going through one way or another, but the fact that it has been so difficult up to now is largely falling on him. He only seems eager to lead in easy times. Snapping selfies, cutting cheques from future generations and hobnobbing with international grandees. When it comes to actually have to do things that have any profundity or consequence he vanishes. Right now all we get are his ministers and they're rapidly looking flat footed and uninformed. I don't think it should really take so much effort to out-maneuver a BC minority government which is acting both hypocritically and unconstitutionally. Horgan has a bad hand and he isn't even playing i particularly well, the trouble is that his putative counterpart doesn't wanna play and is allow his opponent to win by default. :/
 
JonnyCanuck said:
I think it all depends on Kinder Morgan. They are a U.S. company and I am sure they have plotted a course of action that will determine whether this project is a 'go' or 'no go' for them. My concern is that the business climate in the U.S. is now the complete opposite to Canada. The Republicans are pro-business evidenced by lower taxes, fewer environmental constraints, less foreign competition. I am sure Kinder Morgan is looking at Canada and saying ... we have better things to invest in, that are less costly, less risky and won't take forever and a day to see a return.
Click to expand...


We've slipped to 14th place in global competitiveness. Love Harper, or hate Harper, we were in the top 10 not too long ago.

http://reports.weforum.org/global-c...017-2018/countryeconomy-profiles/#economy=CAN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Competitiveness_Report#2011–2012_rankings
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top