unemployement, a possible cause.

On a relative basis we have an equally unfavorable balance of trade with Canada, which also has an unfavorable balance of trade with the rest of the world, but enjoys (and jealously guards) an enormous surplus with us . Perhaps we should slap a tariff on cheap imports from Canada while we are at it.

Yeah, sure now who's suggesting protectionism. The same old song and dance eh! George. Blame it on the ******* foreigners.
Blame Canada! This has nothing to do with us, we are a tenth of your population, but whatever floats your boat. We don't run Ford, or Levis, or Nike, or Dell, or any of the other companies who've forsaken your golden shores and taken american jobs south or east. Keep bringing up this same old favourite topic of yours. Sure we have a trade imbalance, we have oil, water, wood, power etc. that ya'll need. We haven't taken your jobs. We haven't stolen your manufacturing jobs. We haven't shipped your industry to the third world. Your capitalists, your government, your industrialists have done this.
We haven't given subsidies to companies who've made obscene profits at your expense. We don't give tax breaks to corporations to farm out your jobs.
When you sink, so will we. Or maybe we'll take our products, our raw materials to nations that will appreciate the gift of taking our products as raw materials and selling it back to us as a finished products at exorbitant prices.
This is your continued response to everything I've every written about the States so I guess I shouldn't be surprised by your response.

Um.... I think he was be facetious with the Canadian import snark.

Good post.

Good post

Another good post... Pick up a gold star on your way to recess...

Not really; new college grads from many disciplines cannot find jobs, because it takes about 150,000 new jobs every month to meet the demand for those trying to enter into the work force from high school or college. 38,000 jobs just isn't going to cut it, because the unemployed will stay unemployed.

No, he throws out this same tired argument any and every time I've mentioned anything about the USA.

Much more so market inefficiencies between employer/employee - employee/employer than your "simply not qualified for the jobs that are available".

Don't know how I missed this. It really illustrates the problem. Thanks

Ceili is correct. I do find the sniping by Canadians here a bit annoying, so I respond in kind. I note that many dish it out with far better grace than they take it.

For all of our many faults, I like this country and still take some pride in it.

I am also dismayed by the shallowness of the arguments here. There are two basic reasons why manufacturing jobs have left the USA;
1. High labor costs and inflexible labor unions.
2. Environmental laws and regulations.

Unfortunately the dialogue has focused on everything else.

I run an environmental consulting & remediation company in the USA. We do an increasing amount of work with a Canadian firm, with which we have an investment - mostly in Alberta, supporting the tar sands petroleum industry. It constantly amazes us how little regulation or limitations on the environmental impacts of industry exists there. Almost none of the methods in use there for the extraction of bitumen from the soils would be permitted here. (Indeed we have geologically similar sites in the U.S., but all undeveloped for precisely that reason - so we import from Canada.)

In fact I'm not being critical - many of our laws and constraints are merely silly and have adverse economic effects far in excess of any environmental benefit that may result. Attitudes in Alberta with respect to these issues are profoundly different than those here. I recognize that folks in Ontario tend to have perceptions more like those here, but the fact is that all of Canada benefits from the economic activity in its western & central regions.

You may need diapers and a dribble-cup should you wish to list the possible. Further you should recall I have the distinct advantage of being Canadian, and thus infallible in my assessment of the US’s socio-economic shortcomings.

Ok, point out where I was snipping at the states..
I was speaking to the unemployment rates in N. America, and yes, I meant the USA and Canada, not Mexico although they've had their fare share of troubles in the last few years. Both countries industrial/manufacturing sectors have been hit hard. You made the first volley in snide comments, with your typical anti-Canada diatribe, not I.

This thread was about possible reasons for unemployment. Nowhere did I insult Americans, and if you think I did, you are more delusional than I thought. You managed to insert all kinds of ideas into my posts, as per usual. I'm starting to doubt you can read.


And who pray tell is responsible for this??? Hmmm. I'm dismayed at your shallowness!
So, here once again, is my take on high unemployment rates. Please try and keep up.

Firstly, manufacturing jobs have dried up. They have been farmed out to the south and to the east. While you may see this as a wonderful thing, try telling that to the people in Detroit and other areas in both countries who used to have high paying jobs and are now either living on unemployment cheques or are working at jobs that barely keep them above the poverty line.
I didn't once mention Unions, you did. That's your beef not mine, but while it seems like you support the move to make goods cheaply in the third world or developing nations because it's great for the multinationals bottom line, it sucks here, (in Canada and the USA).

Now, as an aside, you add environmental laws, and that may very well be, but please don't tar and feather Alberta/Canada to make your point. I think, if your going to go that route you might want to take a really hard look at the laws in your country that have been flounced and ignored by your governments lax attitudes towards other conglomerates, as was the case with BP in the Gulf of Mexico or the EXXON Valdez in Alaska.
While you might think your laws are the paragon of virtue, you might be interested in knowing that you do have tar sands in the States and they are being developed. You do have pipe lines full of oil that are being used to transport oil and gas through very sensitive areas, such as secretly passing laws to do just this in your National parks. And that your government is constantly attempting to run them through delicate areas in Canada as well. Bush and co. consistently put pressure on Canada to achieve this goal and were stymied and yet the debate still goes on.
There are areas of the States that have become eyesores, where whole mountains have been leveled for coal and this coal dust was used to build parks, golf course and fields that children play on, and it is poisoning them.
Then there is the issue of how recklessly American companies have mined African/Middle Eastern nations. Not to mention one of the worlds worst industrial accidents in Bhopal, India. Union Carbide has yet to answer for these crimes.
So, please get off your high horse.
While Alberta ain't perfect, don't kid yourself thinking people here aren't angry or trying to find solutions to the horrible pollution problems that have been done, not just by our government and businesses, but by American companies as well.

So getting back to the issue at hand, unemployment...
I believe that the lack of manufacturing jobs is a big part of the problem. The Banking industry is hugely at fault for playing fast and loose with laws that created a world wide mess. It was Reagan's deregulation that started the ball rolling. But that is another topic altogether.

Getting back to the trade deferential.
Canada has approximately 300 000 000 million less citizens than the USA. Do you think, all things being fair, we should consume 10 times the amount we do to stay on par?
We buy your music, magazines, movies and a myriad of other american goods, our malls and streets are littered with American owned businesses. It's hard to find an orange, pineapple grove up here, for obvious reasons. When I go grocery shopping the vast amount of good are grown in the States. It's difficult to grow broccoli or a tomato in our climate year round.
However... If I go to Home Depot, an American company, the building was built here, by Canadians. It may be designed in the states, but the majority of the products inside are not produced in the states. Instead, like most American owned business or franchises, the idea is conceived the States and this is what Americans have excelled at... But, they are brokers, selling a service and product made elsewhere that once were made here. While the CEO's are raking in fortunes for themselves and shareholders, it does nothing for the average American citizen, unless you consider minimum wage a boon for your society. I don't.
So, if you think I'm anti-american, you've got it wrong. I think we've all been sold short by companies who've taken advantage of the situation but made us all poorer for their efforts.

I sense trouble here...





...who will walk out alive?

(I'm going to remain neutral until someone directly attacks the insurance industry.)

I grew up in Detroit and Washington DC. Manufacturing in Michigan dried up largely because of the intransigence of the United Auto Workers union which resisted productivity improvements at every turn(their last strike against GM was to prevent the automation of two assembly factories in Flint so they could compete with modern Tyota plants in Kentucky). The UAW won that one and the plants stayed as they were. Three years later GM shut them down and everyone lost their jobs.

You are correct though that years ago a high school graduate could earn a good living in Detroit (or Ontario) working in the auto industry or machine shops. Unfortunately for them the world passed that style of manufacturing by - companies, and their workers had to either adapt and compete or see their industry and jobs leave. They refused and the industry and the jobs left the region. However, it didn't disappear altogether - it went to other places where unskilled labor was cheaper and there was less resistence to needed modernization. These industries grew up in Michigan precisely because at an earlier time folks were more flexible and labor costs were lower than they were in other areas. Life has always been competitive everywhere: those who stand still and don't adapt end up losing. I didn't make things that way, but I do recognize how the world works, and try to adapt myself.

I wasn't slamming Alberta at all - indeed I like it up there (except in winter). However I was providing some accurate information in response to your earlier points. Moreover, I believe I offered a far more accurate explanation of the transformation of North American industry than did the authors of the pieces you posted here. My comments about the differences in environmental law were entirely accurate. We don't authorize the processing of tar sands or shale here - though I believe in some areas we should do so. I believe we both are well aware of the tensions and conflict between the provincial government of Alberta and the national government over these issues. I deal with them regularly in my work. I believe Alberta will have to start dealing with the ponds and the residues accumulating near the Athabasca and other sites, but that they can (and likely will) do so effectively.

The world is rapidly changing and the human population increasing (though it is now forecast to start levelling off). Things change continuously, particularly in the area of our economic lives. Those who attempt to resist that change or who merely ignore it usually end up paying a price for their sloth or stubbornness. The wealth and dominance once enjoyed by all on this continent was in major part a consequence of the relative poverty and political chaos that then infected the rest of the world. As those problems are overcome the situation simply becomes more competitive for us. It is no one's fault: merely the result of change.

I do agree with you though about our collective need to worry more about our competitiveness and less about our entitlements.

I believe the consumers are attacking the insurance companies by dropping their high premium insurance. Many more will drop out as our government forces individuals to have insurance or pay a fine. Many small companies will drop health insurance from their benefits by paying the $2,500 fine, and letting the feds take over 100% of the premium. Silly. It's a no-win situation for everybody.

I had a theory that people who did not lose their jobs during the peak stages of the recession were exceptionally competent in their specialities, and companies could not simply afford to lose such workers because of their valauability to them. The less competent ones lost their jobs - some of these were probably good employees but just not the best of the best.

I now think this is only half true.

It's more complicated than that, of course.

Nope… given that the net result of automation / robotics / artificial intelligence is underemployment, a large fraction of the population will not have conventional gainful employment, and thus may well need so-called "entitlements".