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.
