MONTREAL – As Quebec struggles to recruit enough teachers to fill its classrooms ahead of the new school year, a major union is warning that it’s proving equally hard to find enough suppor...
We’ve never had as many working age people as we do today, even with the upcoming boomer retirement, out population pyramid is a rectangle. The number of workers is ever greater when you consider the increase of women in the workforce over the last few decades. Total work output per worker is also up with automation and industrial-organizational updates.
For example, all industries employment is 19.6 Mn people in 2022, compared to 12.6 Mn in 1992. 2009 and 2020 are the only two years where total employment has dipped, and both times it recovered in two years. (Statscan labour force characteristics)
The question isn’t “why are we short workers in X field?” Or “why are we short workers nationally”
The questions are “why can’t we attract workers into X fields” and the related, but more national, question of “why does a worker, that produces more than ever, have less purchasing power than ever?”
Canada wide, total school enrollment (elementary and secondary) has been between 5Mn and 5.7Mn in all school types for the last 20 years, undulating up and down.
Total workers employed by the education industry (codes 61 and 611) over the same period has increased form 981k to 1,393k.
So about 40% more people in the industry for 14% more school age students.
So what’s going on here? I can think of a few possible explanations:
An increase in part time work. Number of workers go up, but total hours of work go down. Edit: full time has actually been increasing as a percentage. Perhaps just educators are getting a part time squeeze?
Education includes post-secondary. Since post-secondary has become a lucrative business, employees are more likely to favour working there for more compensation.
Since we’ve sold the narrative of post-secondary being a workforce gateway, the number of people going to post-secondary schools, poaching educators from grade schools. Related to point 2, this poaching is likely to be effective. (1.5Mn to 2.1Mn over the last 2 decades).
Increase in overhead. I assume IT requirements have ballooned, but dated buildings may also increase janitorial requirements.
Even with post-secondary included, total students are only up 20%. Teaching has probably become more efficient with IT and other tools. Administration has certainly become more efficient.
All numbers from Statscan, rounding errors abound.
We’ve never had as many working age people as we do today
In absolute numbers that is true, but the workforce has declined relative to the size of the population. If there are two people and one of them is in the workforce, that might be okay. If the population then grows to 100 people and now two people are in the workforce, you’ve doubled the workforce!, but you’re bound to have a bad time.
The questions are “why can’t we attract workers into X fields”
Because the workforce has shrunk, relative to the need for workers. A larger population needs more productive capacity.
but more national, question of “why does a worker, that produces more than ever, have less purchasing power than ever?”
Because we reached peak worker productivity a long, long time ago. Overall productivity is up only because capital has picked up the slack.
Funny thing is, once upon a time we encouraged our youth into university research labs to develop new capital which they could capitalize on, promising a higher income on the back of the productivity of the capital. Curiously, we heard the university part, and we heard the higher income part, but glazed over the rest. For some reason that message turned into people thinking they should go to university to get a job where they can be no more productive than any other person has ever been. And, unsurprisingly, incomes have held stagnant for that segment of the population, to which they now act like we have no idea what’s going on…
the workforce is shrinking relative to the size of the population.
That depends on the range you look at. 51.88% of the population was in the workforce in 2001, increasing to 53.41% in 2023. We did peak at 54.55%. Either way, were talking relatively minor undulations
(Statscan 1 July population estimates and labour force characteristics)
Because the workforce has shrunk, relative to the need for workers. A larger population needs more production.
Your workforce assumption was misinformed, unfortunately negating the rationale. I also drill specifically into industries 61 and 611 to show the number of workers, and number of workers per student, is actually increasing.
Productivity is up only because capital has picked up the slack.
Capital is certainly part of it, but there have also been many improvements in I-O, timekeeping, and digitization.
Either way, were talking relatively minor undulations
We’re not exactly missing that many people. We need around 300,000 people to restore job vacancies to the historical norm. Which, conveniently, is the size of that undulation.
Your workforce assumption was misinformed
Only if Statscan is misinformed, as the numbers come straight from they.
but there have also been many improvements in I-O, timekeeping, and digitization.
Those improvements came from capital, and as such capital gets the reward. If workers want a bigger piece of the pie, they are going to have to figure out how to become more productive themselves (or get their own capital).
I can’t speak to all industries, and we also shifting to a bigger scope. The article in question is about education on Québec.
TL;DR: they have +15.0% students for +40.6% workers in the industry.
So the question is, how are there work vacancies when more people are working to provide services to proportionally fewer people.
Restore job vacancies to the historical norm
Can you help me out here? I can find seasonally adjusted since 2015, but I’m bogged down with quarterly data, nothing annual.
Those improvements came from capital, and as such capital gets the reward
I’m pretty sure people innovate, not capital. But innovation benefit capturing is outside my scope; I just steal them from other organizations and implement them in my own.
Regardless of who owns the rewards, the person years : output ratio should still be trending towards needing fewer workers over time.
The article in question is about education on Québec.
The article is, but the labour market doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s not like some sci-fi program where you are born to be a teacher and can never be anything else. People can do whatever work they want. And it’s not like teaching is going to be exactly high on anyone’s list, so when there are other vacancies to fill…
but I’m bogged down with quarterly data, nothing annual.
Then just average the quarters. Good enough. Problem solved.
I’m pretty sure people innovate, not capital.
Going back to digitization, to use an as example, it is a computer that provides that digitization. The computer is what reaps the rewards. More specifically, the benefactor of the computer. And, indeed, those who have innovated in the computer space have become filthy rich. If you look at the world rich-list, the vast majority of them are there because of their contributions to computing.
So, yes, that is quite right. If one choses to innovate, they can become a benefactor of the capital. Again, that is why university was once promised to provide higher incomes, as it was believed that people would go there to use its facilities to innovate and then attach themselves to the capital that came out of that innovation. Of course, we know how that turned out…
output ratio should still be trending towards needing fewer workers over time.
No, it should be (and is) trending the other way. Capital may relax the need for people in certain existing roles, but it also opens new opportunities. Why do you think women didn’t enter the workplace in any meaningful numbers until automation arrived? That is not a coincidence. That automation created a need for them.
The article is, but the labour market doesn’t exist in a vacuum
Of course not, but we still have relatively more people in 61 and 611 than students requiring the service. I can’t mentally rectify that.
A shortage of arbourist is relatively inconsequential to a shortage of pool maintainers, if you have 40% more pool repairers for only 15% more pools.
Sounds like you found a good enough source but are over thinking it. Don’t do that?
Okay, so the job vacancy rate is 4.7 right now instead of the 3.5 average.
But, all industries are demanding 45.1% population working instead of the average 43.89%.
So I’m seeing a correlation between vacancy and demand for jobs relative to population; and is unrelated to relative population working.
If we use payroll employees from the vacancies table, rather than global employment, percentage of population working is extremely stable around 42.6% ± 1.3%.
Therefore we aren’t short employees because we have fewer workers relative to population, we are short employees because we are demanding more employees relative to population.
I did dump Q4 2020 though Q2 2021, the 3 quarters following the two quarters with no data due to Coronavirus.
[The benefactor deserves the spoils]
Sure, still need less labour hours per output. Edit: as you agreed
I will argue that some in the computer computer space got filthy rich. The people who put their code up as open source, only to have it repackaged as proprietary, not so much. But that’s the same in any industry.
Edit: after reading truncated part
[Women entered the workforce because of automation]
I’m pretty sure they entered the workforce due to the great wars. And each time the soldiers returned there was massive labour upheaval.
The percentage of women in the labour market increases when the CPI increases.
And the population producing goods have remained relatively static since 1946 (3 million), Canadian labour growth has been in services.
Anyways captial not sharing gains always end in the gains being shared regardless. The question is if the capital owners will do it themselves, have it wrested by labour disputations, or have it wrested by war.
I’m full steam on the university production model being a sham. Not necessarily that what they do is bad, but that the economic benefits promised to prospective students is inaccurate, has been for some time, and the narrative has never adjusted.
A shortage of arbourist is relatively inconsequential to a shortage of pool maintainers, if you have 40% more pool repairers for only 15% more pools.
40% more pool repairers are inconsequential if they will only work on residential pools and what you have is a commercial pool. You haven’t dug deep enough into the data yet.
If we use payroll employees from the vacancies table, rather than global employment
I believe we are talking about workers, not employees. A thing you might have heard of that happened over the last few years is said to have been especially hard on workers not categorized as employees. Perhaps they are who disappeared? Either by leaving the workforce or by becoming employees, rebalancing with any employees who left the workforce in the same period?
The people who put their code up as open source, only to have it repackaged as proprietary, not so much.
Obviously. As we have already discussed at length, capital only provides when it works for you. Throwing some code up on GitHub doesn’t put it to work, and if someone else puts it work it isn’t working for you.
Sure, still need less labour hours per output.
Yes, but, as before, need more hours to fill in the new opportunities for workers. Maybe you haven’t noticed, but we aren’t living like they did in the 1800s. If we did, then yes, capital could do most of the work and people could laze around most days, having little to do. But that’s not the choice we made.
40% more pool repairers are inconsequential if they will only work on residential pools and what you have is a commercial pool. You haven’t dug deep enough into the data yet.
That’s my point, the data on why we need more people for the same education isn’t available. The data on why we have fewer educators per child, despite more pers in the industry isn’t available. We’re only told there is a shortage of educators.
That data can generate insight into how to mitigate or reduce the educator to student ratio deficit.
That data could also generate insight into reducing the cost per student, or increasing educator:student ratios at the same cost.
Note: I’m using educator to teacher and support staff, I’m not sure if this is the correct terminology?
Perhaps they are who disappeared? Either by leaving the workforce or by becoming employees, rebalancing with any employees who left the workforce in the same period?
That’s a plausible explanation. Probably doesn’t apply to education. Perhaps we’re seeing reductions in parental volunteerism within education, as a byproduct of increasing cost of living?
capital could do most of the work and people could laze around most days, having little to do. But that’s not the choice we made.
Here in lies my greatest problem. Not necessarily that we made that choice, but the byproduct that we have increased the costs to participate in society. Which comes with the third order effect of increasingly minimizing those who cannot afford that participation cost.
We’ve also reduced jobs/trades that were historically available with a low work : high idle time. For example, farming has historically had high idle time (with backbreaking surge to be sure) but with all the innovations I don’t think anyone doubts the long, year round hours farmers are reporting.
You can play around with the historical tab here:
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/dv-vd/pyramid/index-en.htm
We’ve never had as many working age people as we do today, even with the upcoming boomer retirement, out population pyramid is a rectangle. The number of workers is ever greater when you consider the increase of women in the workforce over the last few decades. Total work output per worker is also up with automation and industrial-organizational updates.
For example, all industries employment is 19.6 Mn people in 2022, compared to 12.6 Mn in 1992. 2009 and 2020 are the only two years where total employment has dipped, and both times it recovered in two years. (Statscan labour force characteristics)
The question isn’t “why are we short workers in X field?” Or “why are we short workers nationally”
The questions are “why can’t we attract workers into X fields” and the related, but more national, question of “why does a worker, that produces more than ever, have less purchasing power than ever?”
Further numbers:
Canada wide, total school enrollment (elementary and secondary) has been between 5Mn and 5.7Mn in all school types for the last 20 years, undulating up and down.
Total workers employed by the education industry (codes 61 and 611) over the same period has increased form 981k to 1,393k.
So about 40% more people in the industry for 14% more school age students.
So what’s going on here? I can think of a few possible explanations:
An increase in part time work. Number of workers go up, but total hours of work go down. Edit: full time has actually been increasing as a percentage. Perhaps just educators are getting a part time squeeze?
Education includes post-secondary. Since post-secondary has become a lucrative business, employees are more likely to favour working there for more compensation.
Since we’ve sold the narrative of post-secondary being a workforce gateway, the number of people going to post-secondary schools, poaching educators from grade schools. Related to point 2, this poaching is likely to be effective. (1.5Mn to 2.1Mn over the last 2 decades).
Increase in overhead. I assume IT requirements have ballooned, but dated buildings may also increase janitorial requirements.
Even with post-secondary included, total students are only up 20%. Teaching has probably become more efficient with IT and other tools. Administration has certainly become more efficient.
All numbers from Statscan, rounding errors abound.
Final numbers, since this is a Québec specific article:
Grade students in QC :
2001: 1,237,980
2021: 1,389,750 (+12.2%)
Post secondary in QC :
2001: 439,857
2021: 539,385 (+22,6%)
Employed in 61 and 611 in QC :
2001: 248,867
2021: 349,925 (+40.6%)
So +15.0% students for +40.6% workers in the industry.
Note: I’m not sure if cégep falls under grade or post-secondary with Statscan’s methodology
In absolute numbers that is true, but the workforce has declined relative to the size of the population. If there are two people and one of them is in the workforce, that might be okay. If the population then grows to 100 people and now two people are in the workforce, you’ve doubled the workforce!, but you’re bound to have a bad time.
Because the workforce has shrunk, relative to the need for workers. A larger population needs more productive capacity.
Because we reached peak worker productivity a long, long time ago. Overall productivity is up only because capital has picked up the slack.
Funny thing is, once upon a time we encouraged our youth into university research labs to develop new capital which they could capitalize on, promising a higher income on the back of the productivity of the capital. Curiously, we heard the university part, and we heard the higher income part, but glazed over the rest. For some reason that message turned into people thinking they should go to university to get a job where they can be no more productive than any other person has ever been. And, unsurprisingly, incomes have held stagnant for that segment of the population, to which they now act like we have no idea what’s going on…
That depends on the range you look at. 51.88% of the population was in the workforce in 2001, increasing to 53.41% in 2023. We did peak at 54.55%. Either way, were talking relatively minor undulations
(Statscan 1 July population estimates and labour force characteristics)
Your workforce assumption was misinformed, unfortunately negating the rationale. I also drill specifically into industries 61 and 611 to show the number of workers, and number of workers per student, is actually increasing.
Capital is certainly part of it, but there have also been many improvements in I-O, timekeeping, and digitization.
We’re not exactly missing that many people. We need around 300,000 people to restore job vacancies to the historical norm. Which, conveniently, is the size of that undulation.
Only if Statscan is misinformed, as the numbers come straight from they.
Those improvements came from capital, and as such capital gets the reward. If workers want a bigger piece of the pie, they are going to have to figure out how to become more productive themselves (or get their own capital).
I can’t speak to all industries, and we also shifting to a bigger scope. The article in question is about education on Québec.
TL;DR: they have +15.0% students for +40.6% workers in the industry.
So the question is, how are there work vacancies when more people are working to provide services to proportionally fewer people.
Can you help me out here? I can find seasonally adjusted since 2015, but I’m bogged down with quarterly data, nothing annual.
I’m pretty sure people innovate, not capital. But innovation benefit capturing is outside my scope; I just steal them from other organizations and implement them in my own.
Regardless of who owns the rewards, the person years : output ratio should still be trending towards needing fewer workers over time.
The article is, but the labour market doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s not like some sci-fi program where you are born to be a teacher and can never be anything else. People can do whatever work they want. And it’s not like teaching is going to be exactly high on anyone’s list, so when there are other vacancies to fill…
Then just average the quarters. Good enough. Problem solved.
Going back to digitization, to use an as example, it is a computer that provides that digitization. The computer is what reaps the rewards. More specifically, the benefactor of the computer. And, indeed, those who have innovated in the computer space have become filthy rich. If you look at the world rich-list, the vast majority of them are there because of their contributions to computing.
So, yes, that is quite right. If one choses to innovate, they can become a benefactor of the capital. Again, that is why university was once promised to provide higher incomes, as it was believed that people would go there to use its facilities to innovate and then attach themselves to the capital that came out of that innovation. Of course, we know how that turned out…
No, it should be (and is) trending the other way. Capital may relax the need for people in certain existing roles, but it also opens new opportunities. Why do you think women didn’t enter the workplace in any meaningful numbers until automation arrived? That is not a coincidence. That automation created a need for them.
Of course not, but we still have relatively more people in 61 and 611 than students requiring the service. I can’t mentally rectify that.
A shortage of arbourist is relatively inconsequential to a shortage of pool maintainers, if you have 40% more pool repairers for only 15% more pools.
Okay, so the job vacancy rate is 4.7 right now instead of the 3.5 average.
But, all industries are demanding 45.1% population working instead of the average 43.89%.
So I’m seeing a correlation between vacancy and demand for jobs relative to population; and is unrelated to relative population working.
If we use payroll employees from the vacancies table, rather than global employment, percentage of population working is extremely stable around 42.6% ± 1.3%.
Therefore we aren’t short employees because we have fewer workers relative to population, we are short employees because we are demanding more employees relative to population.
I did dump Q4 2020 though Q2 2021, the 3 quarters following the two quarters with no data due to Coronavirus.
Sure, still need less labour hours per output. Edit: as you agreed
I will argue that some in the computer computer space got filthy rich. The people who put their code up as open source, only to have it repackaged as proprietary, not so much. But that’s the same in any industry.
Edit: after reading truncated part
I’m pretty sure they entered the workforce due to the great wars. And each time the soldiers returned there was massive labour upheaval.
The percentage of women in the labour market increases when the CPI increases.
And the population producing goods have remained relatively static since 1946 (3 million), Canadian labour growth has been in services.
Anyways captial not sharing gains always end in the gains being shared regardless. The question is if the capital owners will do it themselves, have it wrested by labour disputations, or have it wrested by war.
I’m full steam on the university production model being a sham. Not necessarily that what they do is bad, but that the economic benefits promised to prospective students is inaccurate, has been for some time, and the narrative has never adjusted.
40% more pool repairers are inconsequential if they will only work on residential pools and what you have is a commercial pool. You haven’t dug deep enough into the data yet.
I believe we are talking about workers, not employees. A thing you might have heard of that happened over the last few years is said to have been especially hard on workers not categorized as employees. Perhaps they are who disappeared? Either by leaving the workforce or by becoming employees, rebalancing with any employees who left the workforce in the same period?
Obviously. As we have already discussed at length, capital only provides when it works for you. Throwing some code up on GitHub doesn’t put it to work, and if someone else puts it work it isn’t working for you.
Yes, but, as before, need more hours to fill in the new opportunities for workers. Maybe you haven’t noticed, but we aren’t living like they did in the 1800s. If we did, then yes, capital could do most of the work and people could laze around most days, having little to do. But that’s not the choice we made.
That’s my point, the data on why we need more people for the same education isn’t available. The data on why we have fewer educators per child, despite more pers in the industry isn’t available. We’re only told there is a shortage of educators.
That data can generate insight into how to mitigate or reduce the educator to student ratio deficit.
That data could also generate insight into reducing the cost per student, or increasing educator:student ratios at the same cost.
Note: I’m using educator to teacher and support staff, I’m not sure if this is the correct terminology?
That’s a plausible explanation. Probably doesn’t apply to education. Perhaps we’re seeing reductions in parental volunteerism within education, as a byproduct of increasing cost of living?
Here in lies my greatest problem. Not necessarily that we made that choice, but the byproduct that we have increased the costs to participate in society. Which comes with the third order effect of increasingly minimizing those who cannot afford that participation cost.
We’ve also reduced jobs/trades that were historically available with a low work : high idle time. For example, farming has historically had high idle time (with backbreaking surge to be sure) but with all the innovations I don’t think anyone doubts the long, year round hours farmers are reporting.