• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

9 out of 10 Jobs created in Canada in 2020-2021 were in the Public Sector

Well, any competitor that can subsidize its costs can afford to beef up its employees' knowledge and qualifications and still charge customers less, making "faster, cheaper and more reliable" hard to compete with. When we compare private and public, there's no point throwing millstones around the next of private and then exclaiming how inferior they are.
 
It's a caution that private does not always come out cheaper and better. The majority of those Inspectors also had other tasks to do as well, so even if the Societies get some of the businesses, the Inspectors are still busy. It used to be that Public Service offered 75% wages of Private, but more stability and benefits. Most of the Inspectors came from Deep Sea ships so they could have made way more afloat, but eventually that lifestyle wear you out.
 
The view of the public sector bloat from BC:

Where are the private sector jobs in B.C.?​


In April, the total number of people working in B.C. inched ahead by just 2,000, following no job gains the previous month.

Over the past year, monthly job creation has weakened and annual job growth has decelerated from 4.5% last April to a subpar 1.3% in April 2023.

The reason for the slowing is that job creation across much of the provincial private sector economy has completely flatlined. In fact, B.C. stands apart from other provinces in this regard – a situation that doesn’t bode well for household income growth and per capita prosperity in the coming months.

The number of private sector employees in B.C. rose and fell over the past year; last month, it stood roughly 6,000 lower than in April 2022. This is despite ongoing population growth fueled by record levels of international in-migration.

In sharp contrast, over the same period, public sector payrolls in B.C. swelled by 5.4%. The jump in public sector hiring is the only reason overall employment crept higher over the past year.


 
When Site C, LNGCanada and Coastal Gaslink finish up, it's going to be a trade job wasteland.
 
SiteC I get, but hasn’t convicted criminal Steven Guilbault essentially influenced a stop-drop on LNG and Coastal?
 
SiteC I get, but hasn’t convicted criminal Steven Guilbault essentially influenced a stop-drop on LNG and Coastal?

No... bad BC leadership means that we're doing it to ourselves - yet again:


Opinion: Why is B.C. holding back on LNG?​

Shipping LNG would generate tens of billions of dollars, reduce carbon emissions and provide reconciliation to First Nations


“Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?” the detective asked. “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time,” replied Holmes. “The dog did nothing in the night-time,” answered the detective. “That was the curious incident,” said Holmes. — Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


This exchange from the Sherlock Holmes adventure “Silver Blaze” has become famous for highlighting that what is not said or done may ultimately reveal more than what is.

In British Columbia we recently had such an incident. Not surprisingly, it passed without much fanfare: it’s hard to headline what hasn’t been said. In the third week of January, leaders from the province’s natural resources sector gathered in Prince George for the annual B.C. Natural Resources Forum. CEOs and other important players were there from all the resource sectors that make B.C.’s economy tick: mining, B.C. Hydro, forestry, oil and others.

In his keynote address to this gathering of industry heavyweights, newly minted B.C. Premier David Eby talked about hydrogen and the need for sustainability and low carbon — multiple times — though without ever specifying what he actually meant. But Premier Eby mentioned B.C.’s — and indeed the world’s — new star commodity, liquefied natural gas (LNG), precisely zero times. The dog, as it were, did not bark.

Royal Dutch Shell wants to expand the LNG Canada terminal currently set to begin shipping liquefied gas from Kitimat in Northern B.C. in 2025. The expansion would double the project’s capacity to 28 million tonnes of LNG annually and could be ready by 2028 if approved. No doubt Shell’s desire to expand the project follows from its projection that without further investments there will be a worldwide shortfall of LNG supply by the end of the 2020s. Two main drivers of that forecast are Europe’s turning away from Russian gas and increased Asian demand for LNG as a low-carbon alternative to coal.

LNG produces between 50 and 65 per cent fewer emissions than coal, which makes it an ideal transition fuel. China, Germany and others are signing huge, long-term contracts with any country willing to take advantage of the opportunity. Several countries, including Germany and Japan, have in effect come begging to Canada asking us to develop our natural gas and sell it to them. Our response has been to offer them hydrogen instead.

B.C. should be hammering down the door of every federal cabinet minister to say it insists on developing its LNG resources and opening itself for business. At current prices, each LNG ship leaving Kitimat will be carrying gas worth around US$100 million. Current plans call for one ship a day. If they frustrate Shell’s proposal to double LNG Canada’s capacity, B.C. and Ottawa are in effect saying no to sales of $36 billion a year.

The provincial budget released last week underlines the financial importance of LNG to British Columbia. With its deficit of $4.2 billion, the budget funds many laudable services. But how will it be paid for? Tables 4.8 and A.9 of the Budget and Fiscal Plan indicate that gas royalties will contribute more than $2 billion a year. Why are we shy about attempts to double this?

Because the power used to liquefy it comes from hydro B.C.’s LNG is some of the cleanest gas in the world. By comparison, in 10 years of operations, the Golden Pass LNG project in Houston will emit 30 million more tonnes of carbon than LNG Canada. Replacing dirtier gas, let alone coal, with B.C.’s cleaner gas would reduce world carbon output.

The economic opportunity that LNG offers First Nations communities is also beyond compare. The First Nations LNG Alliance recently wrote to Premier Eby to highlight what B.C. would be losing by not taking advantage of its LNG windfall.

In sum, David Eby has been handed a generational economic opportunity for B.C. and, indeed, for Canada. Shipping LNG from B.C. would generate tens of billions of dollars in economic activity, reduce global carbon emissions and provide real economic reconciliation to First Nations. So why is this dog not barking?

Motive is often mysterious, as Holmes taught. But in this case the premier’s silence strongly suggests the B.C. NDP has been captured by an eco-ideology that either can’t — or refuses — to understand that LNG offers a real, lower-carbon transition today, while hydrogen is mainly a far-off possibility for the future.

If Japan’s and Germany’s leaders had stamped their foreheads with “LNG! ASAP! Please!” they could not have sent us a clearer message. David Eby, what on earth are you waiting for?

 
No... bad BC leadership means that we're doing it to ourselves - yet again:


Opinion: Why is B.C. holding back on LNG?​

Shipping LNG would generate tens of billions of dollars, reduce carbon emissions and provide reconciliation to First Nations


“Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?” the detective asked. “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time,” replied Holmes. “The dog did nothing in the night-time,” answered the detective. “That was the curious incident,” said Holmes. — Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


This exchange from the Sherlock Holmes adventure “Silver Blaze” has become famous for highlighting that what is not said or done may ultimately reveal more than what is.

In British Columbia we recently had such an incident. Not surprisingly, it passed without much fanfare: it’s hard to headline what hasn’t been said. In the third week of January, leaders from the province’s natural resources sector gathered in Prince George for the annual B.C. Natural Resources Forum. CEOs and other important players were there from all the resource sectors that make B.C.’s economy tick: mining, B.C. Hydro, forestry, oil and others.

In his keynote address to this gathering of industry heavyweights, newly minted B.C. Premier David Eby talked about hydrogen and the need for sustainability and low carbon — multiple times — though without ever specifying what he actually meant. But Premier Eby mentioned B.C.’s — and indeed the world’s — new star commodity, liquefied natural gas (LNG), precisely zero times. The dog, as it were, did not bark.

Royal Dutch Shell wants to expand the LNG Canada terminal currently set to begin shipping liquefied gas from Kitimat in Northern B.C. in 2025. The expansion would double the project’s capacity to 28 million tonnes of LNG annually and could be ready by 2028 if approved. No doubt Shell’s desire to expand the project follows from its projection that without further investments there will be a worldwide shortfall of LNG supply by the end of the 2020s. Two main drivers of that forecast are Europe’s turning away from Russian gas and increased Asian demand for LNG as a low-carbon alternative to coal.

LNG produces between 50 and 65 per cent fewer emissions than coal, which makes it an ideal transition fuel. China, Germany and others are signing huge, long-term contracts with any country willing to take advantage of the opportunity. Several countries, including Germany and Japan, have in effect come begging to Canada asking us to develop our natural gas and sell it to them. Our response has been to offer them hydrogen instead.

B.C. should be hammering down the door of every federal cabinet minister to say it insists on developing its LNG resources and opening itself for business. At current prices, each LNG ship leaving Kitimat will be carrying gas worth around US$100 million. Current plans call for one ship a day. If they frustrate Shell’s proposal to double LNG Canada’s capacity, B.C. and Ottawa are in effect saying no to sales of $36 billion a year.

The provincial budget released last week underlines the financial importance of LNG to British Columbia. With its deficit of $4.2 billion, the budget funds many laudable services. But how will it be paid for? Tables 4.8 and A.9 of the Budget and Fiscal Plan indicate that gas royalties will contribute more than $2 billion a year. Why are we shy about attempts to double this?

Because the power used to liquefy it comes from hydro B.C.’s LNG is some of the cleanest gas in the world. By comparison, in 10 years of operations, the Golden Pass LNG project in Houston will emit 30 million more tonnes of carbon than LNG Canada. Replacing dirtier gas, let alone coal, with B.C.’s cleaner gas would reduce world carbon output.

The economic opportunity that LNG offers First Nations communities is also beyond compare. The First Nations LNG Alliance recently wrote to Premier Eby to highlight what B.C. would be losing by not taking advantage of its LNG windfall.

In sum, David Eby has been handed a generational economic opportunity for B.C. and, indeed, for Canada. Shipping LNG from B.C. would generate tens of billions of dollars in economic activity, reduce global carbon emissions and provide real economic reconciliation to First Nations. So why is this dog not barking?

Motive is often mysterious, as Holmes taught. But in this case the premier’s silence strongly suggests the B.C. NDP has been captured by an eco-ideology that either can’t — or refuses — to understand that LNG offers a real, lower-carbon transition today, while hydrogen is mainly a far-off possibility for the future.

If Japan’s and Germany’s leaders had stamped their foreheads with “LNG! ASAP! Please!” they could not have sent us a clearer message. David Eby, what on earth are you waiting for?

I always found BC a peculiar place when I lived there.

It's blessed with immense wealth and opportunity but is unable to fully exploit it for whatever reason. It's usually not the 3rd/4th generation or Indigenous (frequently scapegoated) holding it up either.

Most of the trouble seems to come from 1st generation imports of the granola munching, champagne socialist, urban environmentalist variety.
 
Last edited:
I always found BC a peculiar place when I lived there.

It's blessed with immense wealth and opportunity but is unable to fully exploit it for whatever reason. It's usually not the 3rd/4th generation or Indigenous (frequently scapegoated) holding it up either.

Most of the trouble seems to come from 1st generation imports of the granola munching, champagne socialist, urban environmentalist variety.
Yep, there is a small number of vocal FN's and that's mainly as the hereditary chiefs and Elder Councils don't get control of the revenue from the pipelines. I do get the concerns about habitat fragmentation from the FN impacted by drilling. But the companies are willing to adapt their practices to help mitigate that, like they have by vastly reducing water usage.
 
I always found BC a peculiar place when I lived there.

It's blessed with immense wealth and opportunity but is unable to fully exploit it for whatever reason. It's usually not the 3rd/4th generation or Indigenous (frequently scapegoated) holding it up either.

Most of the trouble seems to come from 1st generation imports of the granola munching, champagne socialist, urban environmentalist variety.

There are ongoing issues with the regulatory framework and practises too, resulting in a loss of trust. Unchecked, industry will always tend to take the cheapest route, which is not always the best route ;)

Report calls for major fixes to oversight of B.C.'s natural resource sector

Industry groups slam call for government body to oversee professional reliance system​

The B.C. practice of requiring natural resource firms to hire their own consultants for environmental impact studies needs more oversight, a new report argues.

The independent review, written by Forest Practices Board general counsel Mark Haddock, calls on the province to create a new provincial office that would oversee all of the professional organizations that regulate the experts who do that assessment work.

That's just of one of 121 recommendations in Haddock's report, which has prompted backlash from industry groups, but is being praised by longtime critics of the system known as professional reliance.

 
There are ongoing issues with the regulatory framework and practises too, resulting in a loss of trust. Unchecked, industry will always tend to take the cheapest route, which is not always the best route ;)

Report calls for major fixes to oversight of B.C.'s natural resource sector​

Industry groups slam call for government body to oversee professional reliance system​

The B.C. practice of requiring natural resource firms to hire their own consultants for environmental impact studies needs more oversight, a new report argues.

The independent review, written by Forest Practices Board general counsel Mark Haddock, calls on the province to create a new provincial office that would oversee all of the professional organizations that regulate the experts who do that assessment work.

That's just of one of 121 recommendations in Haddock's report, which has prompted backlash from industry groups, but is being praised by longtime critics of the system known as professional reliance.

I found that “professional reliance” was code for “foxes guarding the henhouse”.

It didn’t help that in a lot of these professional associations, if a government professional took an industry professional to task, the government professional could face sanction from the association for criticizing the professionalism of the industry professional.
 
I found that “professional reliance” was code for “foxes guarding the henhouse”.

It didn’t help that in a lot of these professional associations, if a government professional took an industry professional to task, the government professional could face sanction from the association for criticizing the professionalism of the industry professional.

I once watched a forest company relieve one of their foresters for trying to play a little too 'fast and loose' with the Professional Reliance thing.

Once word gets out, it can really damage a corporate reputation.

As with any other kind of business, it's mainly about how well the leadership does its job.
 
I had an environmental monitor tell me basically that his power flowed from my authority as getting the onsite crews working with him was better than getting a stop work order from me.
 
Depressing…

Public and Private Sector Job Growth in the Provinces during the COVID-19 Era

Summary


  • An analysis published by the Fraser Institute in 2022 broke down job-creation data from recent years to compare net job creation in the public and private sectors. That study found that nearly all net job creation from pre-pandemic levels had occurred in the public sector and that there had been minimal private sector job growth.
  • This bulletin updates and extends that analysis by examining job market developments at the provincial level to June 2023, comparing the rate of job creation in the public and private sectors in each province.
  • Net job growth in the public sector between February 2020 and June 2023 was 11.8 percent in the public sector and just 3.3 percent in the private sector (including self-employment).
  • In all ten provinces, the rate of job growth was faster in the public sector than in the private sector, including self-employment. In four provinces, private sector net job creation expressed in this way was negative.
  • The provinces vary widely in the extent of public and private sector job growth. Of the four largest provinces, British Columbia had the fastest rate of public sector job creation (22.6 percent) and the slowest rate of private sector job creation (0.3 percent), while Alberta had the lowest rate of government sector job growth (8.9 percent) and the fastest rate of private sector job growth (6.2 percent).


Public and Private Sector Job Growth in the Provinces during the COVID-19 Era | Fraser Institute
 
So if you look at their dataset: nationally, private sector job creation was greater than public sector job creation. (Table 1, page 4).
 
Depressing…

Public and Private Sector Job Growth in the Provinces during the COVID-19 Era

Summary


  • An analysis published by the Fraser Institute in 2022 broke down job-creation data from recent years to compare net job creation in the public and private sectors. That study found that nearly all net job creation from pre-pandemic levels had occurred in the public sector and that there had been minimal private sector job growth.
  • This bulletin updates and extends that analysis by examining job market developments at the provincial level to June 2023, comparing the rate of job creation in the public and private sectors in each province.
  • Net job growth in the public sector between February 2020 and June 2023 was 11.8 percent in the public sector and just 3.3 percent in the private sector (including self-employment).
  • In all ten provinces, the rate of job growth was faster in the public sector than in the private sector, including self-employment. In four provinces, private sector net job creation expressed in this way was negative.
  • The provinces vary widely in the extent of public and private sector job growth. Of the four largest provinces, British Columbia had the fastest rate of public sector job creation (22.6 percent) and the slowest rate of private sector job creation (0.3 percent), while Alberta had the lowest rate of government sector job growth (8.9 percent) and the fastest rate of private sector job growth (6.2 percent).


Public and Private Sector Job Growth in the Provinces during the COVID-19 Era | Fraser Institute
Nobody wants to work in the private sector, everyone in Canada wants a cushy Govt job with a DB Pension.

You gotta want to risk it for the biscuit if you go to the private sector.
 
Depressing…

Public and Private Sector Job Growth in the Provinces during the COVID-19 Era

Summary


  • An analysis published by the Fraser Institute in 2022 broke down job-creation data from recent years to compare net job creation in the public and private sectors. That study found that nearly all net job creation from pre-pandemic levels had occurred in the public sector and that there had been minimal private sector job growth.
  • This bulletin updates and extends that analysis by examining job market developments at the provincial level to June 2023, comparing the rate of job creation in the public and private sectors in each province.
  • Net job growth in the public sector between February 2020 and June 2023 was 11.8 percent in the public sector and just 3.3 percent in the private sector (including self-employment).
  • In all ten provinces, the rate of job growth was faster in the public sector than in the private sector, including self-employment. In four provinces, private sector net job creation expressed in this way was negative.
  • The provinces vary widely in the extent of public and private sector job growth. Of the four largest provinces, British Columbia had the fastest rate of public sector job creation (22.6 percent) and the slowest rate of private sector job creation (0.3 percent), while Alberta had the lowest rate of government sector job growth (8.9 percent) and the fastest rate of private sector job growth (6.2 percent).


Public and Private Sector Job Growth in the Provinces during the COVID-19 Era | Fraser Institute
It's almost like there is a correlation between a healthy economy, less bloated government, and policies that encourage people to turn their ideas into start-ups...

Plus Alberta is slated to post a surplus this year. All without a PST... Hmmmmmmmm 🧐
 
1694628071061.png
For some reason the x-axis didn't reproduce. It is scaled in decades from 1950 to 2020.

One thing that comes to my mind is wondering how many people left "service" in the post-WW1 era. All those big houses on the big estates were full of people supplying nursing, catering, maintenance, security, admin and entertainment to the few. Those people, including games keepers and farm managers, stable hands and field labourers took their opportunity at freedom and left service to find manufacturing jobs.

Manufacturing has become more productive - fewer people necessary to produce more goods - so the unemployed are now going back to service jobs. But instead of serving the few they are now serving the many by way of the government.

The only problem is that before the recipients of the services had direct control over the services they received. The new system inserts a third party into the negotiation. The servant gets whatever the government bureaucrat decides is appropriate. The recipient of the service gets whatever the government bureaucrat decides is appropriate.

 
Meanwhile, in the UK...


Jeremy Hunt wants to fix Britain’s public-sector productivity​

AI and hybrid working might help, but how quickly?​

For more than a decade economists have been debating Britain’s “productivity puzzle”. Which is an alliterative way of noting that British productivity growth has been peculiarly weak since 2008. The problem is especially chronic in the public services (see chart). Although private-sector productivity growth was at least healthy before 2008, public-service productivity grew by just 0.2% a year on average between 1997 and 2019, according to data released by the Office for National Statistics (ons) on November 17th.

There are plenty of reasons to expect productivity growth to be weaker in the public than what the ons calls the “market” sector (broadly, the private sector). The activities that the state engages in are disproportionately labour-intensive. Private firms always have the option to exit low-productivity lines of business; the state cannot decide that is getting out of, say, criminal justice. That leaves the public sector particularly exposed to “Baumol’s cost disease”, a phenomenon first identified by William Baumol, an American economist, in the 1960s. The need to recruit and retain staff who have the option to work in more productive, better-paid industries causes wages to rise by more than underlying productivity, pushing up costs.

Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, has made it a priority to improve this grim record. A review of the problem was announced in June; the first update is expected at the autumn statement on November 22nd. For Mr Hunt, improving public-sector productivity is not only a worthwhile aim in itself but also seems to offer a way to square the circle of weak public finances, Britons’ dissatisfaction with public services and the desire for pre-election tax cuts. Improving productivity tends to be a slow process, however. The standard solutions focus on improving management quality or increasing the stock of capital available to each worker. That takes time, and money upfront.

One particular affliction of the public sector since 2010 has been a shortage of administrators. With budgets squeezed by a decade of tight spending, the onus has been on cutting back-office staff and protecting services. This has in turn led to supposedly front-line staff spending ever more time form-filling. A government report found that some public servants are spending up to one day a week on admin.

The government is hoping that better technology can fill the gap left by fewer support staff. A review of police productivity, released on November 20th, claimed that a combination of new technology and reduced bureaucracy could free up over 38m policing hours per year. The government reckons that it can cut the admin burden on teachers by five hours a week over the next three years. But excited talk about artificial intelligence jostles with the reality of glitching government it systems; and many public-sector workers are sceptical that better tech can substitute for actual people.

There is one area where changes can be made more quickly: hybrid working. Home-working has taken a firmer hold in the civil service, where over a third of staff have a hybrid workweek, than in private-sector firms, where the proportion is more like a quarter. Treasury officials reckon that these public servants typically spend more days at home each week than hybrid workers in the private sector. Although research suggests that hybrid work does not generally dent productivity, it may hurt performance in jobs that involve lots of face-to-face work or where there is a lot of turnover. Mr Hunt is likely to announce a target of all public workers being in the office at least three days a week.

Even so, don’t expect surging efficiency. Improving the productivity of the public services is a vital task. Like most such tasks it is not conducive to easy fixes.

Jeremy Hunt wants to fix Britain’s public-sector productivity (economist.com)
 
One of the major drains on public sector productivity is the enhanced reporting and transparency requirements compared to the private sector.

It's a difficult square to circle.
 
Back
Top