Farmland conversion and landfill sites

[ZEBuilder]

Except we don't have a shortage of jobs. Unless something has changed drastically with the economy and I haven't heard about it, the employment rate has been in the typical low range.

This is unlike housing which has had a clear and growing deficit for years.

So we have a crisis in one thing, which we won't fix, and we have no crisis in a thing we'll do anything to fix.

Dan I'm sorry to say but to say there isn't a job shortage is absolutely ridiculous, maybe it is true for other municipalities in Ontario but KW? That's unfortunately a lie, talk to anyone who works in a minimum wage job and you would very quickly find out how absurd that statement is.

I work at a well known box store which had it's job fair a couple of weeks ago and the amount of people who came was ridiculous, it was to the point where some of us couldn't even do our jobs because there was just too many people. The particular store I work at only had 20 positions to fill yet we had literal hundreds of people come in person, not to mention the hundreds of applicants online. The day of the job fair we had people lining up before the store even opened which was more than 2 hours before the job fair started. By the time the job fair started there was easily a line of 50 people if not more. By the time the day was over the rough estimate was there was about 2-4 hundred people who came in for a mere 20 positions. Plus all those online applicants as well. 

So no there is a job shortage and the truth of the matter is that we do need more jobs just as much as we need new housing. They go hand in hand, people need a place to live just as much as they need a place to work.

[danbrotherston]

Except we don't have a shortage of jobs. Unless something has changed drastically with the economy and I haven't heard about it, the employment rate has been in the typical low range.

This is unlike housing which has had a clear and growing deficit for years.

So we have a crisis in one thing, which we won't fix, and we have no crisis in a thing we'll do anything to fix.

Dan I'm sorry to say but to say there isn't a job shortage is absolutely ridiculous, maybe it is true for other municipalities in Ontario but KW? That's unfortunately a lie, talk to anyone who works in a minimum wage job and you would very quickly find out how absurd that statement is.

I work at a well known box store which had it's job fair a couple of weeks ago and the amount of people who came was ridiculous, it was to the point where some of us couldn't even do our jobs because there was just too many people. The particular store I work at only had 20 positions to fill yet we had literal hundreds of people come in person, not to mention the hundreds of applicants online. The day of the job fair we had people lining up before the store even opened which was more than 2 hours before the job fair started. By the time the job fair started there was easily a line of 50 people if not more. By the time the day was over the rough estimate was there was about 2-4 hundred people who came in for a mere 20 positions. Plus all those online applicants as well. 

So no there is a job shortage and the truth of the matter is that we do need more jobs just as much as we need new housing. They go hand in hand, people need a place to live just as much as they need a place to work.

So what is the unemployment rate? I'm happy to entertain the idea, but I need more than anecdotes.

As far as them "going hand in hand"...yes they do in that we should build them together...but that doesn't mean that we always do that. When I left (2 years ago only) we had vastly more jobs than housing, it was ONLY housing that we weren't building...that situation doesn't just flip...housing takes a long time to build. And the home prices also confirm that, I still couldn't afford to move back to the city.

[ac3r]

Unemployment rate is not the same.

[cherrypark]

Unemployment data a short search away...

Ontario unemployment is 6.8% - higher than several years preceding the pandemic and up ~1% over the last year - which I would not deem ideal and trending well in aggregate. Within those numbers is also a continued loss in manufacturing and professional sci/tech, which I don't know the exact nature of this buyer but one can guess based on the land and location needs its not in the retail and financial sectors.

I'm open to the argument that, like our suburban residential, the building standards and sprawl of industry/warehousing could and maybe should be contained. A country of less land availability would need to find ways to innovate and densify those uses too and the lack of ease to incorporate employment lands into transit is an issue to getting more people off the roads.

All that to say that I think Canada has a major challenge ahead in keeping the economic engine running. We've lost a step in growth and competition and accommodating another anchor employer in the region seems good. What would the perspective be 30 years from now, equivalent to the time TMMC has been in the region? There are many businesses and their employees who would count that economic driver as critical to their quality of life and wellbeing, as well as our tax base.

[creative]

I often wonder what the real unemployment rate might be. To my knowledge, we don’t count individuals who have exhausted their unemployment and don’t find work. Are they just considered employed at that point. I fell into that category a number of years ago and never found employment again and just ended up taking early CPP and considering myself retired.

[tomh009]

I often wonder what the real unemployment rate might be. To my knowledge, we don’t count individuals who have exhausted their unemployment and don’t find work. Are they just considered employed at that point. I fell into that category a number of years ago and never found employment again and just ended up taking early CPP and considering myself retired.

Individuals not looking for work are eventually not considered part of the workforce. To an extent, it's a reasonable decision from a statistical point of view as it's very difficult to determine why an individual is not looking for work.

You can address this gap somewhat by looking at the labour force participation rates, but those also include retired people, so then you need to consider the age groups as well. And our population is aging so the overall labour force participation rate is dropping.

Some good discussion on labour markets and employment here:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-qu...0b-eng.htm

[danbrotherston]

Unemployment data a short search away...

Ontario unemployment is 6.8% - higher than several years preceding the pandemic and up ~1% over the last year - which I would not deem ideal and trending well in aggregate. Within those numbers is also a continued loss in manufacturing and professional sci/tech, which I don't know the exact nature of this buyer but one can guess based on the land and location needs its not in the retail and financial sectors.

I'm open to the argument that, like our suburban residential, the building standards and sprawl of industry/warehousing could and maybe should be contained. A country of less land availability would need to find ways to innovate and densify those uses too and the lack of ease to incorporate employment lands into transit is an issue to getting more people off the roads.

All that to say that I think Canada has a major challenge ahead in keeping the economic engine running. We've lost a step in growth and competition and accommodating another anchor employer in the region seems good. What would the perspective be 30 years from now, equivalent to the time TMMC has been in the region? There are many businesses and their employees who would count that economic driver as critical to their quality of life and wellbeing, as well as our tax base.

I mean, 6.8% unemployment is within the normal range, and even low for the past 30 years or so. But certainly it is trending upwards. But that is for Ontario, my impression was that the region was in a significantly better position than Ontario, but I couldn't find local data.

As for challenges to Canada, I think you are right, but I don't think another massive legacy employer actually helps. Our problems are not related to "not enough large multi-nationals", IMO....they're related instead to the cost of housing (which also cannot be solved through massive sprawl)...and a general trend to towards centralization/monopoliation/financialization of the private sector.

FWIW...I hear this same argument in the Netherlands...ASML, the company that makes the machines which manufacture silicon chips, has been rumoured to be thinking of moving parts of their operations out of the NLs along with several other large multi-nationals, and the Dutch government has been scrambling to fix that...among other things, trying to soften their anti-immigrant rhetoric since labour is a major issue for ASML.

And we also all saw how Amazon absolutely burned the cities who were begging them home their new HQ in their city.

So this isn't an Ontario problem...this is a global problem.

I think the region would be better with 10 smaller companies, that would be actual competition.

But like I said, I think there are other issues, like housing and such that are actually the cause of problems...the unemployment data confirms to me that there is no unemployment crisis that we should compromise our values and our farmland to solve. And I say again, it's so telling how willing we are to bend over backwards in this non-crisis, when we have an active housing crisis that we wouldn't (even those of us here who care about and are affected by the crisis) make the same sprawl-related sacrifices for to try to solve.

[danbrotherston]

I often wonder what the real unemployment rate might be. To my knowledge, we don’t count individuals who have exhausted their unemployment and don’t find work. Are they just considered employed at that point. I fell into that category a number of years ago and never found employment again and just ended up taking early CPP and considering myself retired.

Individuals not looking for work are eventually not considered part of the workforce. To an extent, it's a reasonable decision from a statistical point of view as it's very difficult to determine why an individual is not looking for work.

You can address this gap somewhat by looking at the labour force participation rates, but those also include retired people, so then you need to consider the age groups as well. And our population is aging so the overall labour force participation rate is dropping.

Some good discussion on labour markets and employment here:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-qu...0b-eng.htm

That's some weird population data...but the more interesting is the increase in labour participation for older people. That's not a good thing, but it is also in line with the narrative that I hear (admittedly largely from the US) of older people having to work in order to deal with our economic failures. I mean, no doubt, US capitalists would like to go back to the old days where they just work people to death...but the rest of us do not want that.

[cherrypark]

I mean, 6.8% unemployment is within the normal range, and even low for the past 30 years or so. But certainly it is trending upwards. But that is for Ontario, my impression was that the region was in a significantly better position than Ontario, but I couldn't find local data.

As for challenges to Canada, I think you are right, but I don't think another massive legacy employer actually helps. Our problems are not related to "not enough large multi-nationals", IMO....they're related instead to the cost of housing (which also cannot be solved through massive sprawl)...and a general trend to towards centralization/monopoliation/financialization of the private sector.

I can't see a reason the region pulling more than its weight on jobs growth would be bad. We pay taxes and have services provided as a province and a country. 

I also think the comparison to Amazon is a misreading of the potential impact of manufacturing and similar to the region/province. The reason Ontario governments bend over backwards to please Ford, GM, etc. (much as I'm not a fan of the culture of large corporate handouts in Canada) is not because of just the primary jobs at those plants but the enormous supply chain and services network that works around that node. One big goods manufacturer can also create those 10 smaller companies/branches here.

If it's land for another distribution warehouse complex, then sure there is some argument it's just centralizing away. I also don't think working to create attractive land assembly is even in the same universe as the Amazon HQ and tax breaks for Stellantis conversation. The dollar figures between those two are literal orders of magnitude.

[tomh009]

That's some weird population data...but the more interesting is the increase in labour participation for older people. That's not a good thing, but it is also in line with the narrative that I hear (admittedly largely from the US) of older people having to work in order to deal with our economic failures. I mean, no doubt, US capitalists would like to go back to the old days where they just work people to death...but the rest of us do not want that.

Which part of the population data do you think is weird? For sure, the population is aging, so the 60+ age groups are getting bigger. And people are generally (generally!) healthier and able to work longer (and sometimes also need to work longer) so the participation rates are edging up. And at least macroeconomically that is a good thing as it slows down the shrinking of the work force as the population ages.

[danbrotherston]

That's some weird population data...but the more interesting is the increase in labour participation for older people. That's not a good thing, but it is also in line with the narrative that I hear (admittedly largely from the US) of older people having to work in order to deal with our economic failures. I mean, no doubt, US capitalists would like to go back to the old days where they just work people to death...but the rest of us do not want that.

Which part of the population data do you think is weird? For sure, the population is aging, so the 60+ age groups are getting bigger. And people are generally (generally!) healthier and able to work longer (and sometimes also need to work longer) so the participation rates are edging up. And at least macroeconomically that is a good thing as it slows down the shrinking of the work force as the population ages.

The sudden negative swing of the 50-55 age cohort just stood out to me. 

This also misses (or only slightly includes) the significant negative provincial immigration of young people that Ontario has seen lately I think. 

As for the employment data. Yes, working people longer does please the capitalists and the Chicago school economists. But I would like everyone to be able to enjoy a retirement.

[tomh009]

Which part of the population data do you think is weird? For sure, the population is aging, so the 60+ age groups are getting bigger. And people are generally (generally!) healthier and able to work longer (and sometimes also need to work longer) so the participation rates are edging up. And at least macroeconomically that is a good thing as it slows down the shrinking of the work force as the population ages.

The sudden negative swing of the 50-55 age cohort just stood out to me. 

This also misses (or only slightly includes) the significant negative provincial immigration of young people that Ontario has seen lately I think. 

As for the employment data. Yes, working people longer does please the capitalists and the Chicago school economists. But I would like everyone to be able to enjoy a retirement.

It's over the span of five years so that shift in the age groups seems very reasonable to me. And Stats Canada is reliable so I have no reason to doubt it. The numbers are national so individual provincial will not stand out.

A non-trivial number of people actually want to work past 60 or 65. Some people do enjoy their work!

[danbrotherston]

The sudden negative swing of the 50-55 age cohort just stood out to me. 

This also misses (or only slightly includes) the significant negative provincial immigration of young people that Ontario has seen lately I think. 

As for the employment data. Yes, working people longer does please the capitalists and the Chicago school economists. But I would like everyone to be able to enjoy a retirement.

It's over the span of five years so that shift in the age groups seems very reasonable to me. And Stats Canada is reliable so I have no reason to doubt it. The numbers are national so individual provincial will not stand out.

A non-trivial number of people actually want to work past 60 or 65. Some people do enjoy their work!

I’m not questioning the numbers. But questioning why. all other cohorts are stable or rising and only that one is shrinking. I found that odd. 

And yes, many people do want to work past 65, but I don’t see evidence that number is increasing or that it explains the increase in those who do work past 65

[tomh009]

I’m not questioning the numbers. But questioning why. all other cohorts are stable or rising and only that one is shrinking. I found that odd. 

And yes, many people do want to work past 65, but I don’t see evidence that number is increasing or that it explains the increase in those who do work past 65

The reason why the younger cohorts are rising is due to immigration: most of the immigrants are relatively young. About 2M (permanent) immigrants in that five-year period, and while there are old and very young in the mix, 25-40 will be the biggest proportion.

The over-65 participation rate is up only slightly. And I think, anecdotally, at least some of that is due to companies willing to keep older workers on where young people are not available. But that is just my theory ...

[Acitta]

Development in southwest Kitchener threatens drinking water: Region of Waterloo report

Drinking water supplies for current and future residents is threatened by provincial legislation that opens 260 hectares (642 acres) of new lands for development on environmentally sensitive parts of southwest Kitchener, says a Region of Waterloo staff report.

Bill 162 which is expected to be passed into law before Queen’s Park closes for the summer, will allow development where recharge areas for the underground aquifers are located that supply nearly all the tap water for most of the region’s population.

“If development happens in the Regional Recharge area, there will be less water available to shallow and deep municipal supply aquifers of the Waterloo Moraine,” says the staff report released Wednesday.

“This threatens the sustainability of drinking water supply to current and future residents in the cities of Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo, and the Townships of North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich,” says the report.