Perhaps the very best news for Canada's trade negotiators. Strong evidence that Trump's tariffs are harming the American economy more than the Canadian economy.

America's inflation rate is much higher than that of Canada.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Ahh, yes. If an immigrant takes the low-paying job, he is taking a job from a Canadian. If a Canadian takes the same job, it is a disgrace and shouldn't count because it is so low paying.

You can't make ends meet if you are single-income and minimum wage, but it sure helps the family budget if the minimum wage job is a second income.

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What the ever loving fuck are you talking about?

[–] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca 1 points 15 hours ago

I am talking about a healthy economy with full time high wage jobs for those who want them, and low wage casual employment for those who want this type of employment. A functioning economy requires both, in order for everything to be affordable. If every job is high wage, then the cost of living becomes so extreme the high wage earners are actually in poverty because even with the high wage they cannot afford what they need. Inflation always balances out everything.

[–] DerisionConsulting@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why are you bringing up immigrants out of no where?

"More" jobs isn't always a good thing.

If a full time position gets removed, and is replaced by 3 people who only get 12 hours a week each, that increases the number of jobs, but isn't really a positive thing.

[–] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca 1 points 15 hours ago

Because to a second income earner, those three jobs mean two more are employed. Obviously, there are a lot of people that are quite relieved that they got a job, period. Those full time income earners are, well, greedy and entitled when they deny the other three workers their job. What is 'good' and 'bad' is entirely relative to which side of the income divide you are on. "I am entitled, so I have a right to a full time job over those three people who are happy with a part-time job."

But note those jobs were split between full time and part time, so both sectors were covered. People who want part time casual were employed, and those who wanted full time were also employed.

I brought up 'immigrant labour' because that is the population that was showing growth in Canada until the federal government changed the rules. It is definitely NOT 'out of nowhere', it is a major factor in Canada's employment statistics. The reason why the government clamped down on foreign temporary workers was exactly because of what I said. Those part-time and low-wage jobs have to be filled by someone, or the economy fails. Paying a burgher flipper $60,000 a year means the burgher costs $30, which is non-sustainable so the result is far fewer jobs overall, less disposable income, and even fewer jobs. Inflation eventually balances out everything The trick is to provide enough well-paying jobs for those who need and want them, but at the same time having enough workers who just want and need a casual income and the jobs to cover them. That is a healthy economy. Enough jobs with a living income for those who need it, enough jobs to provide a casual income for those who's income is supplemental.

Demanding that all jobs be high wage full time unfairly leaves out a good segment of the population that just want a casual income. There has to e a balance. All jobs high wage full time or all jobs low wage casual are both symptoms of an unhealthy economy.