Here's what appears to be @OECD source for these @PierrePoilievre statements, which refer to September 2020 unemployment rates
(9 % for Canada and 7.9 % for US)
.@OECD is great for getting comparable statistics, and the unemployment rate is both an important headline indicator but also a tricky one because there are differences in how accepted definitions are operationalized by different statistical agencies
These differences don't usually amount to much, but that may not be the case during #COVID19. @OECD warns that Canada and the US treat those on temporary layoff differently than the European statistical agencies.
.@StatCan_eng and @BLS_gov are more likely to classify individuals on temporary layoff as unemployed, but in Europe they are more likely to be considered employed
In October 2020 the official Canadian unemployment rate was 8.7% and when adjusted to US standards was 7.1%, which was essentially the same as the official US rate of 6.9%.
In September, the time period @PierrePoilievre used, the Canadian unemployment according to US definitions was 7.3%, actually a bit lower than the 7.9% prevailing in the US.
Generally the Canadian unemployment rate is higher than the US unemployment even when statistical differences are corrected. In February 2020 the US unemployment rate stood at 3.5%, the comparable Canadian at 4.7%.
The fact that the Canadian unemployment rate is now in the range of the US numbers, and even lower, suggests we are doing better, just the opposite of the conclusion @PierrePoilievre was suggesting.
I hope this thread helps Parliamentarians to focus on that truth, but that said ... maybe in these times the unemployment is not even the best headline statistic to focus upon.
But that's another story for the next teachable moment.
A "Basic Income" means different things to different people.
At one end there is the @believeinsomeon unconditional cash transfer to selected homeless individuals: should benefits be delivered in-kind with conditions, or as cash with no strings attached?
.@StatCan_eng senior researcher René Morissette has written two very interesting papers on jobs, wages, and work-related benefits, offering insights and a backdrop that will inform our understanding of post #COVID19 jobs.
"at least one-half of long tenure displaced men and women aged 25 to 54 saw their real earnings decline by at least 10% from the year before job loss to five years after job loss."
In one hour @StatCan_eng will release the jobs numbers.
They will refer to one particular week in March, from Sunday the 15th to Saturday the 21st, and are a one-week picture, just a single frame in a movie that has now been running for more than a month.
The employment numbers will be an obvious headline, and there will also be a big jump in unemployment, but both of these statistics needed to be rounded out to capture the full extent of the #COVID19 fallout
.@StatCan_eng classifies someone as "employed" if they have at least one hour of paid work in an employer-employee relationship (self-employment aside), so reductions in hours of work, don't reflected in the employment totals
In a few minutes @StatCan_eng will release 2018 information on incomes and the poverty rate, allowing us to update this picture and inform Canadians about progress toward the poverty reduction targets set by @SocDevSoc@HonAhmedHussen
@StatCan_eng@SocDevSoc@HonAhmedHussen .@StatCan_eng may confirm plans on how the poverty line will be updated, something that hasn't happened in more than a decade and probably leading the official poverty line to under-estimate the extent of poverty in Canada.
.@DavidFrum has probably not characterized some economic research correctly, many models are in fact based upon employment rates and shares, not simply labor force participation rates.
What he does get right is a public exasperation with the management of the policy and the efficiency of government administration, particularly the behavior of employers.