|
|
| Subject: US and Canada Part 2 |
|
|
|
Given that the United States has 10 times the population and a different economic base, it is reasonable to determine that types of available jobs will vary between countries, as well as the quantity of those jobs. Canada is at almost full employment but the fit is not always there for job vacancies and skills which leaves people looking for work and jobs un-filled. This ´fit´ can vary from region to region.
It is reasonable to determine that on a purely numerical scale, there should be 10 times the job positions available in the US than there are in the Canada. This statistic should be balanced by the 10 fold increase in competition for those same jobs.
Most important, is understanding what is in high demand in one part of the country, may not be in another. Vancouver does not need experienced engineers in Oil and Gas exploration. Edmonton is a totally different story. This is true in the US as well. Both Canada and the US are huge countries with pockets of industry that vary from region to region. Jobs opportunities are not equally dispersed.
Add this to a diversity in economies (both US and Canada are strong but in different ways) and lay over top the number of people coming to each country with comparable skills and the ying and yang begins.
It is imperative that while someone waits for that PR request that they do some serious homework. Real life experience is great but limited on this and every other website. 90% of participants are still waiting to land so advice is often second hand. Once people land, they rarely take the time to come back and report their experiences. Each forum attracts people from different home countries. Eg. We rarely see people here from non-english speaking countries, but we have a large membership from South Asia. Does this skew the feedback - perhaps.
The internet is the prospective immigrants greatest tool. Statistics Canada, job sites, Economic Development websites all provide a prospective that will assist anyone with the inclination to do some homework about where is the best chance for success.
[26-11-2007,18:13]
[***.121.220.199]
Sharon |
|
(in reply to: US and Canada Part 2)
And again....
10 times population simply doesn´t warrant 10 times more jobs. It only tell that no. of jobs should be higher too. It could be 8, could be 12.
In general, no. of jobs/ Capita is higher in the States, for professional jobs it is even higher. It doesn´t need any long justification, wise heated speech or any conspiracy theory.
I never understand what´s so wrong in acknowledging this simple well known fact by stewing the matter.
If somone just asks the comparison in job market; there could be 3 possible answer:
1. Same.
2. Canada is better.
3. USA is better.
Simply tell the one you think and that should be it.
[26-11-2007,18:23]
[***.254.208.242]
Departed_Canadian |
(in reply to: US and Canada Part 2)
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Subjects/Labour/LFS/lfs-en.htm
[26-11-2007,18:39]
[***.121.220.199]
Sharon |
(in reply to: US and Canada Part 2)
I agree that the job demands vary by region within the US and Canada, but if a prospective immigrant says (option 1) OK I am ready to go anywhere provided that region will give me the job in my field, then we can take the regional equations out of the argument. This is easier than saying (option 2) OK I am going to change my profession of past 15 years to do whatever is available. You can then compare the 2 countries to find out that if you choose option 1 then which country gives you better chances given all the mumbo jumbo about sizes of the countries/economies etc etc. And you can also ask the question that if option 1 is available for you do you really want to test option 2 ?
Also, there is a misconception about "full employment" which I want to point out. As we all agree, that the immigrant has to take up a temp job so that there is some cash flow in the beginning.... we are considering that person to be employed right ? Is that skewing the employment figures ? Perhaps !
So the statement of full employment has to be taken with a grain of salt. If were to tell someone that you should be able to find a job because Canada has 0% unemployment, I am hiding from the person that many immigrants are doing overqualified jobs. Here is an interesting article about how the unemployment figures can be distorted.... food for thought.
--------------------------------------------
This article attempts to demystify the orthodoxy of government unemployment figures. The central argument is that `official´ unemployment rates are erroneous and mask the overall extent of poverty in Australia and Canada. This article also argues that while jobs are still being created they are not what anyone would classify as `quality jobs.´ Increases in part-time and casual employment have dominated what politicians and economists refer to as employment growth. Moreover, low unemployment rates generally reflect a biased interpretation of statistical data. What about underemployment or homelessness? What have been some of the collateral effects of increased unemployment? Has crime increased? Have the numbers of `welfare´ recipients increased or decreased? These questions are often overlooked and left unanswered. The following analysis will attempt to clarify just how serious the unemployment/underemployment problem is. It will try to construct a more universal and inclusive definition of unemployment to better account for what is happening in Australia and Canada.
Taken at face value, there can be little doubt that the unemployment situations in Australia and Canada are improving. Sustained economic growth since 1994 has had the positive effect of almost halving current jobless numbers--down from a peak of 11-12 per cent in 1993-94, today´s official figures hover somewhere between 6 and 7 per cent. (1) With the exception of a few insightful media bulletins, we rarely see or hear anything negative about job growth and/or employment opportunities. What is more, `[t]he assumption that the rate of unemployment represents the unemployed as a per centage of all working persons cannot be refuted,´ (2) and it cannot it be argued that jobs are not being created when clearly they are. So what then is the problem?
In essence, official statistics and classifications of employment are conceptually indiscriminate. They tend to ignore things like quality pay, underemployment, homelessness, and the true number of workers who want to work more hours. Whether one is employed or unemployed is really just a matter of definition, or even the way the question is asked. (3) For example, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) `classifies an individual as employed if s/he undertook at least one hour of paid work in the survey week or at least one hour of unpaid work on a family farm or family business.´ (4) Conversely, one is considered to be unemployed `if s/he was not employed at all during the survey week, but demonstrated that s/he was seeking a job and was available to take up employment.´ (5) Statistics Canada (StatsCan) measures employment and unemployment in a similar way, but adds that any work--hours are not specified --at a job or business during the reference week can be regarded as employment. (6)
A related methodological flaw shared by StatsCan and the ABS studies is that their survey classifications tend to be obscure and misleading. In the ABS´ 1999 edition of Social Trends, it describes `fully employed´ as those `people who work in full time jobs (35 hours or more per week) and those in part time jobs who did not want to work longer hours.´ (7) It is difficult to determine what the exact meaning of this definition is. Should part time workers be included as part of the `full time´ labour force? If the answer is yes, then what is the point of having a `part time work´ classification? One could argue that this is simply a clever way to artificially inflate `real´ employment figures. (8)
The fact that there are at least three statistical categories that are typically ignored or excluded from media-oriented reports and finalised government publications is also problematic. (9) Individuals who are underemployed, those who are only marginally attached to the labour force and those who are not actively looking for work or have completely dropped out of the labour market (that is, discouraged workers having difficulties finding a full time job) are not usually calculated into total employment/unemployment figures--even though they are given secondary consideration in the final results. However, the total per centage of people not fully employed for whatever reason is significant to the extent that it puts the whole employment and technological displacement issue into perspective. It also highlights the sustained trend of growing unemployment and poverty, overshadowing economic growth. For example, the ABS reported in 1998 that only 64.3 per cent of the total active labour force were fully employed, (10) whereas 35.2 per cent were either underemployed, unemployed, marginally attached or not actively looking for work. (11) Broadly speaking, this means that one in three Australians were not working full time in 1998, but the ratio is actually lower than this.
Overall, it would not be unrealistic to assume that this type of selective deployment of information is consistent with each government´s desire to maintain public consent. After all, they do have to provide a certain degree of justification for pursuing largely anti-social democratic policies. Furthermore, there can be little disagreement that ABS and StatsCan employment figures tend to oversimplify the relationship between quality work and quality pay, and part time work or casual work and minimum wages. Common classifications of employment--and more specifically full time employment--need to...
--------------------------------------------
[26-11-2007,19:07]
[***.242.242.2]
Raj |
(in reply to: US and Canada Part 2)
Excuse me Sharon, the link you sent doesn´t show any comparison about the job market between USA/Canada which was the basic question here by Nidhi who started this today.
Am I missing that? If so, then please help me.
What is Canada´s current unemployment rate doesn´t necessarily mean that it is better than the USA. Does it? As far as I know US market (currently very slow) is still better than the Canadian super high market (30 years lowest!).
Raj,
Your thought about the "Full Employment" is very logical. In fact, if you browse more about the Canadian unemployment rate I can show it has some big holes in it.
[26-11-2007,19:19]
[***.254.208.242]
Departed_Canadian |
(in reply to: US and Canada Part 2)
I thought we were not going to do this any more.
My stats can link was to demonstrate 2 things - the wealth of statistical information out there and the range of opportunities depending on region and skill.
stats and analysis applied to Canada must also be applied to the US. or are the rules different?
[26-11-2007,19:24]
[***.121.220.199]
Sharon |
(in reply to: US and Canada Part 2)
Just read the article that tells you what factors can contribute to compromise the quality of the "wealth of statistical information" provided by StatsCan.
[26-11-2007,19:37]
[***.242.242.2]
Raj |
(in reply to: US and Canada Part 2)
you know something... this is getting stupid.
Raj, DC, is this sport for you? Let´s pick apart absolutely everything and anything Sharon says about the Canadian job market. Government statistics be damned. Rational comparisons, be damned. We are going to bash this issue into the ground.
what is this conversation doing to assist people? Don´t believe the data - believe 2 losers who discovered they couldn´t make it in Canada and now spend every day on a Canadian immigration site bad mouthing Canada and everyone that lives there.
How pathetic.
[26-11-2007,19:41]
[***.121.220.199]
Sharon |
(in reply to: US and Canada Part 2)
I totally agree with your first sentence.
I also have to point out that since you have no argument to counter, you are almost always forced to resort to personal mud slinging ("losers" ? wow, I wonder who actually is) and why this is happening at the end of most posts....
Finally, I agree with the final sentence of your post also.
[26-11-2007,19:48]
[***.242.242.2]
Raj |
(in reply to: US and Canada Part 2)
what are you going to do or say when your US experience turns out like your Canadian experience? Bad data?
[26-11-2007,19:56]
[***.121.220.199]
Sharon |
(in reply to: US and Canada Part 2)
Ha ha.....
I was excatly waiting for this point.
2 Loosersssss.
I don´t know about Raj, I´m currently (likely the greatest loser) employed in one of the pioneer in my field with dignity, with excellent and above expectation evaluation for the past 2 years.
LOL.
I didn´t argue about the Stat Canada report. I can accept that, but can´t understand at all how it helps Nidhi or anybody to compare US/Canada mjob market. IT WAS THE BASIC QUESTION ASKED HERE. None asked the progess curve of job market of Canada. Without any well selected stat anybody can tell that oppurtunities varies from State to State.
There are still some people on the earth who believe that human being really didn´t reach in the moon...may be earth is flat........
LOL.
[26-11-2007,20:04]
[***.254.208.242]
Departed_Canadian |
(in reply to: US and Canada Part 2)
Sharon,
Please don´t keep talking in circles, be very specific about what is being discussed.
You wanted to speak about unemployment rate, I just showed you an article that gives us (as a forum) a different perspective in understanding your article/link and the possible flaws in that. We can discuss that can´t we ?
If you are going to get mad at me for pointing out the flaws in your postings, then I´m sorry you have to live with it, I don´t start the personal attacks, if you do try to berate me though, hey I´m upto the challenge, so my advice to you is to try to refute the article, do not try to argue with me or DC on a personal basis, use the posting to single out the points which you thing are wrong and just discuss it like adults, tone down your language a bit, its not helping anyone.
[26-11-2007,20:08]
[***.242.242.2]
Raj |
|
