As so often happens, it appears that we on the left and you on the right are talking past each other, with little prospect of meaningful and cordial dialog.
So why don’t you guys just shut the fuck up?
I’d agree with that.
However, the specific “bad effect” theory I’m assuming is under discussion here - that the difference in social programs between the US and Canada is strongly correlated to an observed difference in the relative unemployment rates of the two countries over the last thirty years - seems to me positively disproven by the evidence submitted.
I’m not “on the left”. In matters economic, I’m more “on the right”. At least, in Canadian terms.
Yes, but not the raw data in the table. Thanks for pointing out that the graph was corrected.
EP, look at that quote again. I said “higher unemployment.” Your graph shows “higher unemployment with a shrinking gap,” which is still “higher unemployment.”
Luci, we aren’t talking past each other. EP is talking past me in a transparently desperate attempt to refute an obvious point. And, of course, you handwave it all away as just more partisan bickering, which was EP’s goal.
Even if Rand Rover is right about unemployment, I personally would be fine with unemployment being a point or two higher if I knew that the unemployed people weren’t losing their health insurance along with their jobs. To me, by far the most scary part of losing my job would be losing the health insurance that goes with it.
And as for higher taxes, I pay about $2,000 for health care a year right now, so I would be perfectly happy paying all of that and more in higher taxes. My employer tells me they pay over 8 million a year in health insurance benefits, so presumably the government would be welcome to that as well in taxes.
Until the gap turns negative in 2009 and 2010. Then it is “lower unemployment”. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
ETA: Go and read the quote from Mathus. He has put it quite succinctly.
Right, the biggest recession in a while hits the US, making the US unemployment rate reach Canada’s. And you declare victory.
ETA. Yes, Malthus does an excellent job refuting a point I never nade (ie, that every jot and tittle of the iunemployment rate reflects how socialist a country is.
The graph in that link goes up to 2008. We’re in 2010 now right? Or are we handwaving ourselves back a few years. So current data as of Jan 2010 has Canada at 8.2 and the US and 9.7.
Canada at 8.2%
US currently at 9.7%
Essentially, all our socialism has paid off and now we have lower unemployment. You know, you’d be a lot better off blaming all the socialism in the US. You’re on track now for Starving Artist level stupidity. Feel free to start blaming liberals for attacking you “because you’re conservative.”
You should start a new thread “dancing on the grave of Socialist Canada.” How’d that last one work out for you?
The issue is whether there is any correlation, in the example of Canada and the US, between unemployment figures and social programs.
We all know that “correlation does not necessarily imply causation”. Your problem is that the evidence does not even reach that far - there is no proof even of correlation, much less causation.
Certainly, for most of the last 30 years, Canada’s unemployment rates were higher than those of the US - that is true. The issue is why. If the cause were that Canada had more expensive social programs than the US, or even that this was a major factor, you would expect that the unemployment rates would track, at least roughly and generally, the trends in difference in social spending between the two nations. As far as I’m aware, that is not the case.
It is not sufficient to simply state that for the last thirty years on average Canada has had higher unemployment, that Canada has over the last 30 years been more socialist than the US, QED.
Also, note that the downward trend in the “gap” started long before this recent recession.
This needs to be repeated a few times for people to see. The unemployed in Canada still have health care.
If as Starving Artist likes to say, “85% of Americans are happy with their health insurance.” Makes me wonder what portion of that 9.7% unemployed are happy with their current health insurance. Go Cobra!
Thankfully, BOTH of the those points where wrong. Our unemployment rate is now lower, and our taxes aren’t actually that much higher. What’s more important though, is that Canada has had a balanced budget for a while now (dipping into the red during the recession) so our level of taxation represents our level of spending. If US taxes were ever raised to balance the budget, well, I’ll let you finish the sentence.
Notice how the recession “hits the U.S.”; just came out of nowhere, couldn’t be foreseen, these things just happen. It’s an anomaly, pay it no mind.
Ah, but Canada’s unemployment, he knows exactly whose fault that is.
And apparently he seems to think that Canada did not suffer from a recession as well. Does he think we just chugged merrily along, unlike the rest of the entire world?
Actually, if Canada’s social programs must lead to poor economic conditions like he seems to think, how come we did not do even WORSE during the recession?
EP, you could look it up instead of just spouting nonsense. Canada’s recession was less severe than the US’s. Many employers also did things like shorten work weeks instead of lay people off.
I’m on a BB, so no cite, but google’s free for everyone.
Did you know that social programs reduce violent crime? It’s true, just compare the violent crime rates of Canada and the U.S. over the last 30 years.
Yup, the government also regulated the banking industry.
There’s always been this joke that when the US economy sneezes, Canada gets the flu. If you look at that historical chart, Canada’s unemployment tracked the US, but had always been worse. If the US lost jobs, Canada lost twice as many.
Odd that it seems to have stopped. Now when the US loses jobs, Canada doesn’t lose as many. And now as jobs are created, Canada is creating more.
As a fun experiment the next time you have access to Google, look up “bank failures in 2010.” Then check to see the last time Canada had a bank fail.
I guess I can attribute that to Canada’s social programs. Makes just as much sense as your theory.
You sure can beat the shit out of a straw man. I never said that Canada’s higher unemployment rate is due to its social programs. I said that higher taxes caused by large social programs (in any country) have negative economic effects, one of which is higher unemployment. Then comes EP with a graph showing higher unemployment in Canada, which he says proves me wrong, and I’ve shown that it doesn’t.
You’d better keep an eye out for straw men seeking revenge.
Rand Rover, the general sense of the question that I think you’re not answering is: why are Canada’s social programs a ready source of blame for the unemployment numbers, but can’t be credited for other, favorable statistics?
The graph went as far as 2008. Are you not aware of the current values?
Canada at 8.2%
US currently at 9.7%
That proves you wrong. I don’t understand why you would point to old data to suggest that you’re right, when current data proves that you’re wrong. Perhaps facts really do have a liberal bias.
One might conclude that it took Canada’s social programs a generation or two to really make positive effects and eliminate the negative effects of “free market.”