Canada Lags in Job Quality
The 2017 OECD Employment Outlook provides an assessment of member country performance in terms of the quantity and quality of employment as judged by a new set of key indicators.
Overall, we do well in terms of job quantity. The employment rate (the proportion of the working age population with jobs) stands at 72.5% compared to an OECD average of 66.4%. However, the Scandinavian countries rank higher for this indicator (eg Sweden, 75.5%.)
It is interesting to note that the employment rate in the United States is, at 68.7%, just a bit above the OECD average. Poor job quality does not provide an obvious boost to jobs.
The gap between the employment rate of prime age men and disadvantaged groups (each of youth, older workers, young mothers, persons with disabilities) is slightly below average in Canada, but well below leading countries.
The annual gender earnings gap in Canada is slightly worse than the OECD average of 39.0% – women earn 39.7% less here than do men, compared to a gap of 24.4% in Sweden. And unlike most other countries, progress in closing the gender gap has stalled.
Where we fare especially badly is in terms of low income. The low income rate for the working age population (percentage with incomes below one half of median annual income) is 12.8% in Canada compared to an average of 10.6% for the OECD, and just 9.4% in Sweden and 6.7% in Denmark.
Canada could and should be doing much better.
http://www.oecd.org/els/oecd-employment-outlook-19991266.htm
1. Jim Stanford: Is Slow “Growth” Inevitable?
http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2016/07/21/is-slow-growth-inevitable/
“New talk of “helicopter money” strategies (whereby a central bank would create new credit and directly inject it into the real economy, to support investment, government programs, or consumption) confirms that if we collectively decide we need it, and enforce our will on our political and monetary leaders, we could create all the money needed to finance real, productive work. So long as millions are languishing without a job, there does not appear to be a good argument against doing so. To the contrary, if it helps us put an end to pollution (including greenhouse gases) and poverty, an all-out war-like mobilization seems like a no-brainer. Living standards would grow, taxes would be paid, the environment would be protected, and real GDP would grow rapidly…..”
2. The Social Enterprise Sector Model for a Job Guarantee
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/01/social-enterprise-sector-model-job-guarantee-u-s.html
“Imagine 25 million people with no income or precarious forms of income. Now imagine 25 million with a decent base wage. The effect on the private for-profit sector would surely be more stable demand, ringing cash registers, increasing profits, growth and, yes, a lot more better-paying private sector jobs.
***
The experience of the New Deal and Argentina’s Plan Jefes shows that such programs can be up and running in 4 to 6 months and useful tasks can be performed even by the least skilled and least educated citizens.”