I hear ya new-guy....I can't go anywhere except sideways as well...That's why the job hunt has begun yet again...

The tech market in our area really stinks sometimes!!

~Andrew

The Corporation:

Excellent movie. Watch it when it comes back...

http://digitalhomecanada.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13051

You don't actually believe Stats Canada do you? For one thing statistics can be manipulated to prove just about any point.

I have heard similar claims many times, but never from anyone with any training at all in mathematical statistics. Deceptive arguments can be made with or without statistics; the former are easier to spot because they can always readily be reduced to mathematics whereas the latter may be less well defined.


Where do they get this info from? Corporations.

Well, no, most of the labour market information Statistics Canada utilizes is from household surveys, such as SLID.


I used to fill out the Stats Can reports at work and believe me the data is not very scientific.

Data are not scientific or unscientific. Interpretations of data are either scientifically credible or they are not. The claim that employment is decreasing and wages falling when these particular data, consistent with information from other sources, show otherwise lacks scientific credibility.

The Corporation is out on DVD. I know that Blockbuster has it if you only want to rent. It's definitely a must see.

I am currently going through it as well... I worked for a telephone company bought up by a big canadian cable giant...

Right now it's all up in the air, I have no idea what is going to happen.

At the same time, one of my first bosses told me "Always look out for number 1", and I do. I'll be fine.

Still, it's not a nice feeling...

When I say stats can prove any point I mean for example:

Poverty has risen in Canada per Stats Can. Doesn't this depend on what you consider poverty to be?

Crime in Toronto has gone down. Sure crime per person has gone down. Wouldn't that be the case if crime went up but the population of the city went up too?

Oracle is buying Siebel and going to lay off 5000 people. Except for shareholders how does this contribute to society in any way?

No I do not think companies owe me a job or anything. I look out for myself too but I really question a lot of decisions by companies and how they affect NA society.

I don't mean to harp on the movie "The Corporation", but once you understand the laws that govern the operation of the corporations, you will never again wonder why they do what they do. They do these things because they are "psychopaths".

We need to implement laws to govern the corporations so that they don't have free reign to export pollution, to layoff workers without appropriate compensation (like in Europe for example where layoffs (without reason) can be far more costly), to not take recycling their goods into account, etc.

I have heard similar claims many times, but never from anyone with any training at all in mathematical statistics.

Well, I have no formal training, but I will give you a few examples:

Last spring there was a Town Hall meeting in Winnipeg to discuss rapid transit. They polled the people leaving the meeting, and found that 60% of them were in favour of Winnipeg getting a rapid transit system. And for days I heard news agencies reporting that 60% of Winnipeggers polled wanted it.

Unfortunately, it was only 60% of the people who were interested enough to attend a meeting on rapid transit were in favour.

It can also be how the question is worded. An extreme example would be:
Do you support the recent same sex marriage bill?
(A)- Yes, I believe in the Charter of Rights
(B) - No, I am too homophobic to support this.

Of course, a differently worded set of questions and answers would give different results.

Please note that the above was just an extreme example, and in no way was intended to offend anybody.

Poverty has risen in Canada per Stats Can. Doesn't this depend on what you consider poverty to be?

Crime in Toronto has gone down. Sure crime per person has gone down. Wouldn't that be the case if crime went up but the population of the city went up too?
True, but these are good examples of why we need to understand statistics so that their meaning isn't abused...not that statistics are a poor argument because they can manipulated. Because people so often misunderstand statistics, they misuse the information contained in them.

Oracle is buying Siebel and going to lay off 5000 people. Except for shareholders how does this contribute to society in any way?
People who own Siebel/Oracle stock in their portfolio/pension funds will see a gain/dividends as a result. This income is then taxed and contributes to our public funds for infrastructure and government (like health care). People spend the net income on goods/services which then employs people who then pay taxes on their income. The layoffs (while bad for those directly involved) theoretically provides the market with additional capacity which may contribute to some other endeavour (say some emerging field).

In the end, not everyone comes out ahead. But, its not the end of the world either.

...We need to implement laws to govern the corporations so that they don't have free reign to export pollution, to layoff workers without appropriate compensation (like in Europe for example where layoffs (without reason) can be far more costly), to not take recycling their goods into account, etc.
I don't necessarily agree with this. I understand that European labour laws have effectively resulted in more and more people unable to find 'permanent' jobs and are being more commonly termed 'contract' or 'temp' in order to bypass some of these laws (which is also a trend seen here). Are taxes in European countries not higher than Canada because of some of these social policies?

I think rather than having laws which 'govern' companies, we need to use our tax system as a mechanism to provide incentives for companies (and people) to take more responsible actions. Understanding that the company is a 'psychopath', let's manipulate the conditions so that it will behave in our best interests?

When I say stats can prove any point I mean for example:

Poverty has risen in Canada per Stats Can. Doesn't this depend on what you consider poverty to be?

Of course it does. Why is this an example of "stats can prove any point" instead of an example of a case where one must reason clearly to understand the implications of a particular statistical argument?


Crime in Toronto has gone down. Sure crime per person has gone down. Wouldn't that be the case if crime went up but the population of the city went up too?

Another good example of the advantage I previously noted of statistical arguments providing clarity of expression. If someone told you "crime has gone down" and you tried to translate that into a statistical argument, you'd immediately confront the problem that you need to know how "crime" is being measured. Is it absolute number of crimes? Is is per-capita crime? Which "crimes" are being counted, by whom, and in what circumstances?


Oracle is buying Siebel and going to lay off 5000 people. Except for shareholders how does this contribute to society in any way?

This isn't a statistical statement in any sense. (The answer, incidendentally, is that those 5,000 people will go off and do something else, and if the market is working more or less as it should they will be more productive in those other tasks.)

Notice that you have not provided any examples of "stats proving any point." As I said, any argument, statistical or otherwise, can be deceptive. The former are easier, not harder, to reveal as wrong because statistics and mathematics are so closely related.

Well, I have no formal training, but I will give you a few examples:

Last spring there was a Town Hall meeting in Winnipeg to discuss rapid transit. [...]

It can also be how the question is worded. [...]

Please note that the above was just an extreme example, and in no way was intended to offend anybody.

The first example is an example of a phenomenon called "sample selectivity bias." The second is an example of a "framing effect." Both are commonly discussed in first-year statistics courses. Neither shows that "stats can prove anything," rather they illustrate that one must think carefully about what any particular statistic means. (Aside: journalists are not renowned for their keen ability to correctly interpret statistics.)

People who own Siebel/Oracle stock in their portfolio/pension funds will see a gain/dividends as a result. This income is then taxed and contributes to our public funds for infrastructure and government (like health care). People spend the net income on goods/services which then employs people who then pay taxes on their income. The layoffs (while bad for those directly involved) theoretically provides the market with additional capacity which may contribute to some other endeavour (say some emerging field).

If the income is in an RRSP it will not be taxed. People may spend the money on goods not made by people in Canada. What emerging field? People always say people will get jobs somewhere else. I don't see that happening. I am glad I'm not 23 and just out of school in today's climate.


In the end, not everyone comes out ahead. But, its not the end of the world either.No it's not.

I think rather than having laws which 'govern' companies, we need to use our tax system as a mechanism to provide incentives for companies (and people) to take more responsible actions. Understanding that the company is a 'psychopath', let's manipulate the conditions so that it will behave in our best interests?Taxes are "laws". Agreed, let's manipulate those "conditions". Corporations used to pay much more tax than now. Now individuals carry a huge tax burden.

If the income is in an RRSP it will not be taxed. People may spend the money on goods not made by people in Canada. What emerging field? People always say people will get jobs somewhere else. I don't see that happening. I am glad I'm not 23 and just out of school in today's climate.
This is really pushing the limits of what I learned in ECON101, but here it goes:

Yes, if its in an RRSP, it is sheltered, but eventually, it needs to be withdrawn and when it does, it will be taxed. Its in the Government's best interest to see that people have as much growth as possible in their RRSPs because when it comes time to withdraw the money, the larger the total value, the larger the minimum withdrawal will be and hence, the greater the tax income. Also, (something which is not obvious to many) income withdrawn from an RRSP is taxed as income, regardless of whether gains were made from capital gains, or dividends. So, from a tax treatment standpoint, having the money grow in an RRSP can be beneficial to the government. In exchange for this, they allow us an immediate deduction on our current year's income. [Because of this, some financial planners say that an RRSP is not the best retirement investment vehicle available.]

Now what happens if people spend the money on non-Canadian goods? As long as they used Canadian dollars to buy them, no problem, because that non-Canadian company will still need to spend those dollars in Canada. There is no such thing as a currency exchange. If you have $1M CDN and you need US $, you need someone who will 'buy' your Canadian $ and give you US $ as payment. If there is a sudden glut of Canadian $ on the market, the 'price' of the Canadian dollar would fall (a la supply/demand), much to the detriment of those who sell non-Canadian goods in Canada. And even if those $ are sold, the person who bought them would still need to use the money in Canada (perhaps to pay Canadian wages or buy goods/services in Canada). This is exactly why Free Trade is principally a good thing for both sides. You might remember in the 80's there was a fear that the large Japanese mega-corporations were going to own large chunks of the US. Here we are, 25 years later and the US is still largely intact (less some sections of the gulf coast).

Now, you say you don't see the next emerging field. No one ever does. Do you think Bell (Alexander Graham that is) knew that telecommunications would be the mega-industry it is now. When we discovered the electron, there was no practical application of it all. Today, we have an entire economy that is reliant on it. The next emerging field isn't obvious until it is already happening. That may not give you any reassurance, but it is what has repeatedly happened over time.

Lastly, I agree there are challenges for those who are just starting out today. But not unlike the challenges for people who grew up during the Depression or war times or during recessions. Our society has endured much more challenging circumstances than those at present. What we need to do as a society is to best prepare our kids for those challenges ahead so that when the time comes, they are ready for it. I see a lot of kids complain that going to University was a waste because they can earn more money as waiter or driving a cab. What they don't say is that they got a degree in English or Geography because that's what they wanted to do or that had the easiest course load, etc... I am in a position where I hire a lot of new grads and a large proportion of them (say one in three) ultimately quit because they say they don't want to work that hard (this is in IT). If that's the attitude coming out of our young people, what are their chances of succeeding at anything. [On a side note, those who do know how to work hard and try their best are exceptional workers and you can see that some of them will succeed no matter what.]

I am in a position where I hire a lot of new grads and a large proportion of them (say one in three) ultimately quit because they say they don't want to work that hard (this is in IT). If that's the attitude coming out of our young people, what are their chances of succeeding at anything. [On a side note, those who do know how to work hard and try their best are exceptional workers and you can see that some of them will succeed no matter what.]
The guys that work hard are the idiots. They sell their lives for some extra change in their pockets. They will be finished by the time they are 35, especially in IT. But I agree, from the point of view of the big corporation that hired them, they are "exceptional" workers (unless they fake the hard work, which a lot of guys in IT are doing).

The guys that work hard are the idiots. ...
Well your view is a little jaded for my taste but to each his own. IMHO, there's a lot to be said for people willing to work hard at their jobs (no matter what the job is). No doubt, there are those who take advantage of that effort and even more who probably abuse it. But I don't think that validates telling people they are idiots for working hard.

BTW, there are still huge opportunities for people in IT. Its just not like the 90's where salaries were escalating out of sight.

Per Gordon Geco, Wall Street, "Greed is good."

;)

Well your view is a little jaded for my taste but to each his own. IMHO, there's a lot to be said for people willing to work hard at their jobs (no matter what the job is). No doubt, there are those who take advantage of that effort and even more who probably abuse it. But I don't think that validates telling people they are idiots for working hard.

BTW, there are still huge opportunities for people in IT. Its just not like the 90's where salaries were escalating out of sight.

To clarify, I meant that people who work hard for a corporation are idiots. The corporation takes all the profits when things go well, and the employee gets kicked off when the growth rate goes down.
In IT there are still huge "opportunities", but the large profits are going in the hands of a few CEOs, while the people who actually create the products get some crumbs in exchange for their "hard work".

Not entirely true. We benefit from the corporate paid training we get that we can use in the next job! Really, I have no use for anybody that dogs it. Which is my major beef with unions. At the same time, I agree that there are way too many senior level managers getting paid ridiculous amounts of money and bonuses for doing what consultants tell them. Might as well fire them and call the consultants whenever we need a decision!