Hello Alberta
I was comparing which province's women saw the most roll-back of gains in employment equity due to the pandemic.
It's you guys.
Women's employment rate in 2020 was back at the level it was in 1984.
P.S. More AB women had paid work than anywhere in CDA not long ago
It won't get any prettier, because the AB gov't is focused on balancing its budget, so is cutting the one good source of paid work for women: public service jobs.
Who's next in the pandemic parade?
Ontario.
The share of women with paid work is back at 1993 levels. (BTW this includes full- and part-time work, well paid and crappy jobs.)
Ontario peaked in the share of women doing paid work in 2007.
Overall, the pandemic left the same share of women with paid work in Canada as in 1998.
The economic impacts of the pandemic has rolled back over two decades of hard-won gains in employment equity.
There will be no recovery without a she-covery.
Note: men's employment rate west of Atlantic region is at historic lows. A combination of long term trends - aging/retirement (employment rate is % of pop. aged 15+, no upper limit) - and pandemic-related.
Do I have a black hole where my heart should be for the men? Mais, non!
But the gap between men and women's employment rate that had been closing over the course of decades is now widening again.
This is not a women's problem.
It's a macroeconomic problem. #FutureOfWorkers
No recovery without a she-covery.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"Ironically, admitting more immigrants may be the surest path to a more equitable recovery"
"Though hard to imagine right now, we will soon be looking at widespread labour shortages"
So will every other rich nation dealing with population aging. Expect competition for newcomers!
Recipe for more immigration: More transitioning of temporary residents to permanent residents, please @marcomendocino.
Reverse these trends, that only started mid 2000s, and which defy one of foundations on which Canada became the 10th largest economy in the world: immigration.
An economist tackles the notion that competition law is about protecting consumers.
Notes economics views competition as being predominantly about "efficiency".
"You can't talk about competition without talking about power and dominance"
Keep your eyes on @RobinShaban, people.
Pricing strategies among a small number of players in a market often devolve into collusion. (Think telcomm; grocery stores and bread prices; oil)
Not just abt consumer choice, but standards and scrutiny for incumbents and *new* entrants.
Market structure and market share is part of competition-restricting practices, but proving *illegality* requires proving a merger/accelerating market share leads to price increases or undermines innovation. Hard to show evidence, as allegation is the this is *going* to happen.
The term causes you to think about recoveries differently.
Even if you aren't an economist, you can quickly grasp the meaning of the [desirable] V (a quick rebound), the W [double-dip recession, with rebound followed by another decline] and the Nike swoosh (long slow recovery).
This recession saw the rise in parlance of a new letter/analogy.
The K made you intuitively understand there are different trajectories within one recovery. And that can be dangerous.
The letter K is problematic, tho.
Just to be clear on why immigration levels are the biggest factor when it comes to #cdnecon's future growth:
Economic growth (as measured by GDP, really the only game in town) only comes from three sources in the global system:
+
1. Labour market growth (add people and stir) 2. Productivity growth (do more with less/something that hasn't been done before) 3. Net exports (exports minus imports, which if positive adds to GDP)
+
[yes we love to laugh at The Donald's economic analysis, but net exports have been the secret sauce in the Global North's growth strategy for decades - maybe longer. Mathematically adds to/subtracts from GDP, you love it when it's a positive and worry when it's a negative.]
+
First, I want to say how impressed I am with the work @StatCan_eng has been doing to keep us informed, and help us get *better* informed with regard to policy relevant data.
Today's LFS report was a masterpiece of clarity. www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quoti…
1/n
Second, this report says, near the bottom, about 1/5th of all Canadian households are having difficulty meeting basic household financial needs (rent or mortgage payments, utilities, groceries), and it's been about 1 in 5 since April. That's 2.5 MILLION households! YIPES
2/n