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.
