Angry in the Great White North

a heat-seeking missile in the Conservative arsenal

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics, part of the United States Department of Labor, some interesting numbers to contrast the United States from France, and to suggest where Canada is going.

The numbers concern manufacturing costs, in particular, productivity vs labour costs, and how they've changed through 2003-2004.

In the United States, output per hour improved 4.7%, while unit labour costs drop 2.4%. Unit labour costs in the US are lower in absolute terms as well, as the United States provides only a minimal state-sponsored safety net and cluster of social programs, the costs of which are borne in large part by employers. Moreover, firing workers is relatively straightforward in the US. This has the effect of make US industry nimble and able to invest in profitable ventures. That means improved productivity, lower labour costs, higher profits, more investiments, and an unemployment rate of 5.5% in 2004.

In France, output per hour improved by 3.5%, while unit labour costs skyrocketed by 8.8%. Unit labour costs in France are high because of the need to support a generous state-sponsored safety net, the costs of which are borne in large part by employers. This, as well as strict labour laws that make it difficult to fire employees, discourages employers from hiring new workers. This stagnant labour pool has to support a growing number of retirees and their generous government pensions. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate in France averaged 10.1% in 2004, nearly double that of the US. Of course, we know that unemployment among the immigrant Muslim population and their families is nearly 100%.

Canada, as always, muddles somewhere in between.

In Canada, output per hour improved by an anemic 2.9%, while unit labour costs jumped by 4.4%. Unit labour costs in Canada are high for the same reasons they are in France, but not quite as high, as our social programs are not as generous in all areas. Our labour laws are more akin to the American model, which helps. One problem in Canada is transfer payments. In the US, an area can undergo economic stagnation, prompting people to move to areas where the economy is better. That pushes down land values in those areas being depopulated which kickstarts a recovery. In Canada, the government takes vast amounts of money and moves it out of healthy economic areas (Alberta and Ontario) and moves it to less healthy areas (everywhere else), thus interfering in the natural corrective mechanism. Unemployment rate in Canada averaged 7% in 2004, fitting halfway between the United States and France. Of course, we know that unemployment among the aboriginal population and their families is nearly 100%.

There are lots of factors in play in France that are not in play in Canada that has made France the target of riots, quite probably being instigated, if not managed, by Islamist forces abroad. Nevertheless, Canada seems too close to the French model for my liking.

And one more thing:
* United States: 2.08
* France: 1.85
* Canada: 1.61

That is a comparison of the fertility rate -- the number of children born to women. The socially unsophisticated United States with all their religion has a healthy replacement rate.

France has actually seen an improvement in its fertility rate, having been alarmed by the downward trends in recent years and responding by removing economic and social barriers to having children.

Canada lingers behind. In fact, the government provides funding so that pro-abortion groups can attack the Roman Catholic Church as part of a policy of supressing criticism.

Canada is trending the wrong way, which makes me wonder if something like what is happening in France is in our future.

[Some statistics from the CIA World Factbook]

[Michelle Malkin notes that France is implementing the classic French solution: throw more government money at the problem. Who doesn't think Canada would do exactly the same in the same situation. Like in Kashechewan.]