It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
i don't believe that.... the obviously made the number higher than what it really is... and i agree with a comment made here... what kinda jobs, jobs where people are getting paid min wage. A job where you flip burgers all day....
An increase in self-employment= Folks could not find work and have decided to start their own business.
"Unemployment rate falls and new jobs added" Real explanation: EI runs out = people have to go back to work = higher employment figures
What kind of jobs? $5.00 an hour jobs. It is hard to believe. Many of my neighbours do not have jobs, so where are these jobs?
"MC Donald's, Tim Horton's, Walmart, yes, Great Jobs and if you are lucky enough to pay the Rent, Gas and Ontario Car Insurance................"
Did you bother to read the piece? Did you understand it? Are the companies you mentioned considered "public sector?" How does your "analysis" jibe with this quote from the article:
Self employment increased by 38,000. Any economist will tell you these jobs created are to be taken with scepticism. These are people starting there own businesses, if you look at the failure rate for start up businesses it is extraordinarily high. This is actually a bad sign for our economy. With failure rate as high as it is for self employment we will see these jobs lost within a year. The conservatives are giving businesses tax cuts hoping they hire. There is no incentive to hire. This government talks about economics like its a science, its not, its a guessing game.
Beyond the eye-popping headline number, the employment details "were much softer and more mixed in the report than the headline suggests on multiple counts," Scotiabank economist Derek Holt noted.
Many of the jobs came from public sector job growth, while the private sector lost almost 15,000 jobs.
Self-employment rose by 38,900, "and we always treat this category with skepticism," Holt said.
And despite the job growth, the actual number of hours worked declined by 0.3 per cent. That's a troubling sign for GDP, since it's calculated based on the number of hours worked times the productivity of the labour force, Holt noted.
Economists had expected employment to be positive last month mostly due to a seasonal hiring spree in the education sector as schools returned to session. About 38,000 education employees were hired.
Holt said the start to the school season always distorts the numbers.
"It's not like there was a sudden rush to hire teachers and related workers," he wrote.
"The sector has posed a problem to StatsCan for years. The seasonal adjustment factors have been distorted by contract shifts in the education sector over recent years as we've long argued."