Once a
month Statistics Canada releases the Labour Force Survey. This is a report designed to provide insight
into the labour market across Canada and includes a breakdown by province and
various census divisions and subdivisions showing the size of the labour force
as well as the number of people who are employed and unemployed. For most people, the Labour Force Survey is a
way to keep track of how many people do and do not have jobs. What this means in practical terms is that
the media reports a limited subset of the data in the report and that is all
that the average citizen has to go on. While
the media does report increases or decreases to the overall number of jobs, the
most common number that people pay attention to is the unemployment rate. Unfortunately this is the statistic included
in the Labour Force Survey that has the least value and is misused more than
any other figure.
A Mark
Twain quote about how numbers can be misleading comes to mind whenever I think
about the usefulness of the unemployment rate.
You are probably already familiar with the following quote: “There are
three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics”. To understand why paying any attention to the
unemployment rate, allow me to provide to you the official definition
explaining what the rate actually measures:
Unemployed persons are those who, during reference
week:
- were on temporary layoff during the reference week with an
expectation of recall and were available for work, or
- were without work, had looked for work in the past four weeks, and
were available for work, or
- had a new job to start within four weeks from reference week, and
were available for work.
Let’s
consider for a moment the implication of parts b and c of this definition. Imagine a factory worker is laid off due to a
factory closure. Rather than immediately
seek work, this person decides to take a month long vacation and live off of
his severance package. As far as
Statistics Canada is concerned, this person is not unemployed. Now imagine that a year later that same
worker is without work and has had to spend all of his savings in order to pay
the bills. He is tentatively hired for a
seasonal position but will not be able to start work for another two
months. Still, Statistics Canada does
not consider this person ‘unemployed’.
Similarly,
those who are retired are not considered unemployed, those who are in school or
pursuing training are not considered unemployed, and those who are ‘self-employed’
in order to make ends meet (e.g. odd-job-jacks) are not considered
unemployed. That teacher’s college
graduate you know who tutors the kid down the street for $50 a week – employed. The carpenter restoring his neighbour’s
furniture in the garage for $5 – employed.
Ultimately,
there are going to be a number of people who do not have work, but that Statistics
Canada does not consider unemployed. When
we pick up the local newspaper and read that unemployment has been dropping or
rising rapidly, these individuals are excluded.
Over the past few months the London-St. Thomas area has seen
unemployment rates ranging between 6% and 10%.
However, there is a complimentary and much more meaningful figure that
paints a much more accurate picture.
What the
media reports on a much less frequent basis – or at the end of articles and as
a side note – is that there is an ‘Employment Rate’. Now anyone with basic arithmetic should be
able to figure out that a 10% unemployment rate should mean that there is a 90%
employment rate. Not so hasty. The employment rate is calculated separately and
measures those who actually have work.
What may surprise you is that the London-St. Thomas area has enjoyed an
employment rate that has remained virtually unchanged since January 2012. Now to be fair, it has been sitting at around
58% over the past two years with some peaks and valleys and this means that in
actuality 42% of individuals are without work.
That being said, the stability in the employment rate demonstrates that
the downwards spiral suggested by the unemployment rate is purely a creation of
statistics.
More
importantly I think is the fact that the employment rate paints a very
different picture of the region. A focus
on the unemployment rate tells a story of a region mired by job loss and
downturn; where fewer and fewer people have jobs. The employment rate however suggests that
this is not the case. In order for
employment to remain exactly the same it means that for every job lost, another
is created. This indicates that although
there is undeniably job loss in London, there is also very active job creation.
To me, this
indicates that we desperately need to change the song we are singing. If you were buying a new home, would you
choose a city with a reputation for unemployment or the city with a reputation
for opportunity? The answer is
obvious. I suggest to you that businesses
think the same way. Businesses will set
up shop in places with reputation for economic strength. By consistently focussing on the negative stories
we could actually be driving business away.
The message we put out about our local economy needs to be one of
stability and readiness for growth and investment.
Typically
we criticize our media and our politicians for not putting out the message that
we are ‘open for business’. However,
this allows a group of people who arguably have as much – if not more – impact on
the perception of the economy. These
people are the business owners and operators who are already here. This is a group effort. We need local businesses to share their success
stories, their expansions, their grand openings. We need the media to spread these stories as
far as their reach can go. We need the
politicians to point to these stories when they interact with outside
businesses. Most importantly however, we
need the citizens to look beyond the negativity that is permeating most of
Southwestern Ontario and to embrace the Canadian pioneering spirit and try to
seek out whatever opportunities are available.
Once we are
all on-side and start spreading a positive message will the local economies
return to their full strength.
Comments
Post a Comment