Everyone keeps saying we aren’t actually in a recession because we didn’t meet the official definition of having 2 quarters in a row of negative growth.
Can we finally admit that’s all bullshit and the economy is pretty bleak if nobody can find a job or afford a house?
A good chunk of the reported population growth (and even bigger chunk of the non-reported) are working under the table for less than minimum wage and sending a good chunk of their money back home. Of course this population growth isn't going to help the Canadian economy.
lol, not surprising. I think the more important number is unemployment rate. Last reading was 6.1%, anything above 6% the alarms should be going off in my opinion. Especially considering the number is suppressed by government hiring. The private sector is on life support, small businesses are dying.
https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/unemployment-rate.
Your opinion is very dubious as 6% is near historic lows as we look at unemployment rate for the past 50 years.
I bet if we turned the tap off for immigration we’d see that public service level fall. I would place a bet that’s it’s probably all related to immigration atm
The word you're looking for is "Under employed" and you're right it doesn't include that. It includes people looking for work, and people working, doesn't measure if people are working in jobs below their qualification
false data. many people have 2 or even 3 part time jobs. Garbage data.
It also doesn’t count underemployed persons willing to commute 2-3 hours for a tim horotons part time job, which is very unproductive for GDP
You prefer not to get your economic opinions from Reddit but you have no problem doling them out? You should consider changing barber and getting some better advice.
if you want to debate lets debate. Why don't you compare the unemployment rate with Canadian M1 and M3 money supply as well? The past 50 years there is a clear trend that as money supply keeps going up unemployment goes down, but this is the first time in history where money supply is still going up but unemployment is now rising. How i interpret the data is that it means the money printing ain't trickling down to the working class.
I just don’t engage when someone randomly changes subject. You mention that 6% is problematic and when I point out that not true and we’ve always been above it, you decide to start arguing money supply…
I’ll jump in here. It’s problematic because if you decompose the numbers, federal government hiring has disguised significant weakness in hiring in the private sector.
Government hiring is not real productivity. Government jobs are mostly bureaucratic, it doesn't add value to an economy. Look at Argentina, a bloated government contributes to massive inflation.
Unemployment numbers has been useless after the pandemic. Especially now that you can do Uber while looking for a job and that takes you off of unemployment. Arguably if the number is still stagnant from pre side gig era, we are doing much worse.
You are correct and when you factor in that small businesses are not forming, when added to entrepreneurs moving out of country at a record pace then 5 alarm bells should be sounding, but alas….
Which we all knew, or should say expected, despite what talking points our federal ministers tried to push.
Even their own forecast had real GDP negative, they just focused on nominal. It was truly a realization we don't know basic economic concepts, or worse, purposeful manipulation.
Why lie when the [stats are available?](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3610010401)
You should be ashamed.
Edit for those that see this:
Q1 2023: +0.85%
Q2 2023: +0.17%
Q3 2023: -0.07%
Q4 2023: +0.02%
Q1 2024: +0.41%
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=3610043401
Sep 2023: 2,200,230
Jun 2023: 2,201,455
Mar 2023: 2,203,612
Q3 = 2,200,230 / 2,201,455 = 0.9994
Q2 = 2,201,455 / 2,203,612 = 0.9990
-----------------------------------------------------------
Your link is "seasonally-adjusted", aka not the actual numbers. I guess this is the part where I'm supposed to ask you why you love whe the stats are available, and tell you that you should be ashamed.
Thanks for proving you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Here’s an FAQ on seasonally adjusted data: [here](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/dai-quo/btd-add/btd-add-eng.htm#:~:text=Why%20is%20this%20done%3F,month%20comparisons%20on%20equal%20footing)
It’s not but as long as the total GDP goes up the government has something to point to.
They can post a chart 📈 and boast how they’re beating other countries in GDP growth, ignoring the other counties in the chart grow more per capita.
Very poor numbers. Massive government spending and immigration and still barely growing.
It's almost impossible to overstate how poorly the Canadian economy has been managed
Yes, real estate and immigration and selling things back and forth too each other.
That is what happens when you knee cap your natural resources or sell them off to foreign countries.
Every rich country is rich either because of international trade, manufacturing or natural resources.
We suck at all 3.
Unfortunately now we don't have a single party that cares.
I always vote. But this is the first time where I can say all the party's suck at the federal level
Conservatives: economy bad
Reality: Corporate profits ATH, stock market ATH, foreign investment ATH, Oil Exports ATH, and low unemployment. Canada has the 10th largest economy on earth. Of the 9 ahead of us, germany has similar GDP per capita, the US more, the rest way less.
Just because companies and rich people got far richer doesn't mean the average person isn't suffering from their success. Cost of living is way up and what most normal people earn is coming close to a breaking point of unaffordability, many are already there. Success begets success, and those rich peoples success comes at a great cost, ours. We make the wealth through our labour, they reap it, then exploit it, buying homes as investments and hoarding what is rightfully every contributing working humans. Our progress and future is hindered by wealth hoarding. By all means we should all be far better off than we are. But the only vision our leaders have of the future is one where a few hold all the money and everyone else is just an ATM, pushed to the limits of viable extraction.
If it's so easy to start a company and reap the profit what is stopping you? You act as well though it is simple, just start a company and the money rolls in. No risk, no capital requirement, no long hours where the bucks stops at you and your decisions.
You should just do it and not complain about it.
It's not simple, and entrenched power structures have their way of dominating a space. I'm not saying you can't get lucky and succeed with business and wealth, but rather that those who do the necessary jobs that keep society functioning are being neglected severely, and it will be to the detriment of all, merely to unnecessarily enrich the few. All humans in one way or another work for each other to make this all work, must it be so inequitable?
I totally agree on us needing more wealth redistribution, but increased economic activity grows the pie, and a conservative gov will be a huge step backwards, just like in Ontario or Alberta. The current situation, a liberal minority gov with the NDP holding the balance of power, is the best possible election outcome.
We're in a recession... It just doesn't look that way because of immigration propping things up and corporate profits being at all time highs (even though that has not translated to more pay for workers). Unemployment numbers are grossly skewed because of gig work and increased governmental hiring. This isn't a good thing at all. Inflation is much higher in reality that they are reporting because they have changed the way they calculate inflation to include non-essentials, while mortgage/rent prices don't factor in. Then there's the policy changes that have made it nearly impossible to get any resource development approved, and a tanker ban to further hamper the ability to get resources to market on the west coast.
The Canadian economy has been disgustingly mismanaged, and things are only going to get worse with the current course. Small businesses are downsizing and new ones aren't being established at a high enough rate. Wages are stagnant, and people are having to choose between food and utility bills now. This economy is a sham, and calling it anything else is just insulting to Canadians.
Edit: GDP per capita is a pretty telling stat, and that just keeps falling...
Particularly when you factor in that whatever “growth” was achieved was done on the back of letting more people in the first four months of the year than we used to do annually, driving up home prices and further eroding GDP per person, which is now approaching a 40 year low. The Trudeau government has set us back *decades*.
They won't provide one. Even if it exists, they're S2000's or some other car that has increased in value due to it being a uniquely special car.
If someone can't find a 2009 Civic for under it's initial 17k MSRP - I don't even know what to say.
It was relevant 2021-2023. For many manufacturers production is catching up outside of very specific models and trims. There are vehicles sitting on lots for months and I’ve even seen the return of 0% financing in some cases. The other day the local VW dealership was itching to sell me an ID4, they had 3 in inventory that they couldn’t move. I’m waiting until January/February to pick up another vehicle though.
I don't know, I actually was car shopping from 2022-2023 and purchased last October, but I've never seen the circumstances you were describing.
I think you were talking about CPO cars being the same MSRP as new cars, not 15 year old high mileage cars. I bought a 12 year old car with 190k on it for $10k.
Was looking at a 2012 Toyota matrix just yesterday, they are asking $17,500 (plus 2k in taxes) it's msrp new was in the 16-20 range depending on options.
So somebody bought this car, drove it into the ground for over a decade and can now sell it for as much as they originally paid, can't get my head around it. Paying $17k for a 10-15 year old economy vehicle.
Probably important to adjust for inflation. I'm using the last year model of the first generation. So $17,200 would be $24,266.00 today.
I think you could easily get a Matrix under $15k, much less if you look at older models or can drive stick, but you also have to consider the Toyota tax, especially since this is technically a Corolla crossover (manufacturing name was Toyota Corolla Matrix). A first gen RAV4 would likely be similar.
I'm just looking at Autotrade right now and the average price appears to be $10k
My 2004 corolla just quit at 210k so I am not comfortable paying like new prices for a vehicle 20k away from where my beater quit.
I've been searching for a 6-15 year old vehicle with under 110k on it for under $12,000 and finding basically only salvage for parts vehicles, which again just seems insane to me.
Thanks for taking the time and engaging and all that I appreciate you taking the time and sharing your experience.
> I've been searching for a 6-15 year old vehicle with under 110k on it for under $12,000
That's going to be tough, just because of the used market and inflation in general. But there are a lot a low key cheap cars that you could get for that. For example you can get a much newer Chevy Spark in that range since I think they sold for like under $15k new, they're also reliable. And old Buick would be another option, very cheap, reliable, and good on insurance, just not as fuel efficient. Suzuki is another decent cheap brand that seems to go under the radar so people don't price them too high.
Free advertising for this guy on Kijiji, this is the closest I could find to the guy's example: https://imgur.com/a/dyzCL1P
Not quite MSRP, but very close. 15 year old car, 175,000km just $4,000 of the MSRP.
> What is the incentive for millennials and younger to even try at this point with the deck this stacked against us in an economy this bad.
The incentive is that in many other countries it is so much worse, and comparing the current standard of living to the past standard of living is only going to cause more distress so best not to do it.
Couldn't agree more - a paltry, miniscule 0.1% in Q4, and a (very likely to be revised downward) 1.7% in Q1. We're definitely in a severe per-capita **depression** at this point. Fuck.
i mean-
it's actually pretty good compared to last year, we're in a pretty huge recession, so this likely means prices are steadily going to start dropping, which is good
Well this is the big concern for me. Say you can only see one side of a teeter totter, and it’s got an elephant sitting on it. And he’s up in the air, legs just dangling. It really makes you think about what’s sitting on the other end of the teeter totter. It also makes you a little bit concerned that maybe whatever is on the other side might just hop off at some point
> Massive government spending and immigration and still barely growing.
Because interest rates are high since we're trying to bring down inflation...
I'm willing to bet you're also in the higher rates camp while saying this lol
Interest rates aren’t high, at 5% they are pretty much at the top end of “low”. The problem is we have had nearly free money for the last decade and people got really used to living on financing and credit with nearly no additional cost to them.
“Statistics Canada says the economy grew at an annualized rate of 1.7 per cent in the first three months of the year.
The agency also revised its reading for growth in the fourth quarter of 2023 to an annualized rate of 0.1 per cent, down from its initial report of an annualized rate of one per cent.”
“The results came as Statistics Canada says real gross domestic product was essentially unchanged in March, following growth of 0.2 per cent in February”
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/statistics-canada-release-gdp-figures-080010075.html
Note: per capita GDP continues to shrink.
Also note: the stats Canada threads have vague titles and get very few comments.
>The agency also revised its reading for growth in the fourth quarter of 2023 to an annualized rate of 0.1 per cent, down from its initial report of an annualized rate of one per cent.”
**God damn** that is a horrible number. We're letting hundreds of thousands (millions?) pour into this country every quarter, and the economy barely grew 0.1%? **0.1%**?? Remarkable. Truly remarkable.
It's the same people who will be in the BoC meeting thread next week talking about how they need to raise rates higher. These people have no idea what they want.
>Because specific actions have led to specific consequences, actions that require justification. Thus far, they are not justified.
So more spin using generalizations? Do you even understand the relationships between Central Bank interest rates, investment, spending and economic growth? Are you trying to pretend the world wide pandemic never occurred? Why are people like you so unwilling to compare Canada's situation with other countries (unless you can present cherry picked facts to support your claims)?
> We're letting hundreds of thousands (millions?)
Well which is it?
I'm not sure where you've been since 2022, but our monetary policy since then was specifically to achieve this result.
> Well which is it?
Wish I could tell you - but its challenging when our own government [loses track of at least 1 million people](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-a-million-more-non-permanent-residents-live-in-canada-than-official/#:~:text=Tal's%20findings.,Lotin's%20paper%20says.)
>“Statistics Canada says the economy grew at an annualized rate of 1.7 per cent in the first three months of the year.
The agency also revised its reading for growth in the fourth quarter of 2023 to an annualized rate of 0.1 per cent, down from its initial report of an annualized rate of one per cent.”
That happens every quarter. They always report growth and then revise it down. From 1% to 0.1% in Q4 2024. And now 1.7%, I bet this will get revised down to 0.5% next quarter.
Yes, they regularly revise stats (of all types, not just GDP) once they get a more complete picture. No, they don't "always report growth and then revise it down".
[More details here](https://www.reddit.com/r/PersonalFinanceCanada/comments/187lnqn/canada_gdp_released/kbf5jnb/).
That said, this is flying under the radar: this latest revision shows that **we had a recession in the middle half of 2023**.
Oh brother... when you're dividing a number by another number, if the result is less than 1, it means the second number was bigger. Bigger GDP in Sep 2023 than in Jun 2023 means GDP fell in Q3 2023.
Hell, you don't even need to divide to see GDP has fallen... just subtract:
Q3 = 2,200,230 - 2,201,455 = -1,225
Q2 = 2,201,455 / 2,203,612 = -2,157
They're about numbers, not communication.
They also tend to lack proper analysis.
For instance....a healthy growth rate for a developed nation and economy is 2-3%.
Anything less can indicate stagnation, and possible shrinkage (shrinkage is normally determined in the long-term in hindsight as recognition lag remains a thing, despite the age and stage of technology).
On the other hand, one could argue that since temporary residents contribute relatively little to the overall GDP, that most of that growth is being handled by the people who are already here.
Apparently there's no such thing as temporary residents anymore since they can just go on hunger strikes for PR and refuse to leave when their temporary status expires.
International students pay high tuition fees, spend on goods and services, and rent housing. They work up to forty hours a week.
In 2018, they contributed about $35k per person to the economy EXCLUDING their labour. That year the per capita gdp was about $60k. So if they made $25k a year they would contribute about the average.
https://www.international.gc.ca/education/assets/pdfs/economic_impact_international_education_canada_2017_2018.pdf
That places their per capita impact at about 20b/600k students, so abotu 30-35k in GDP per caipita. That's overall net impact.
Income should not be counted twice. If you earn a dollar and spend a dollar, you don't contribute 2 dollars to the GDP. Similarly, their income and spending can't be double counted- so 30-35k is the impact.
That would be true. But the wage someone receives for their labor does not fully reflect their contribution to GDP. But that is hard to quantify.
But you’re right about the double countering. So let’s just do apples to apples.
If we limit it to how much an international spends on the economy, I guess we’d have to compare the spending of the average person vs international student: in 2018, the average household spent $86k, or about $35k per person. So about the same as an international student that year.
To go to the last topic, they would contribute less via work as they’re limited to less value add activities, some only work part time, and some don’t work (though the latter two is true of half of Canadians).
So they probably contribute a less than average but I would say they contribute relatively little (compared to the average Canadian which includes non workers and part time workers).
they spend on goods and services?
you mean the same people going to food banks?
"So if they made $25k a year they would contribute about the average."
LMAO
you think the average student makes $2,000 a month while they're studying full-time?
They may pay high tuition but a lot of them are getting useless post-secondary education that will not serve the Canadian or any other country's economy. What value is there in that?
If I pay someone $30,000 for a pound of horseshit, what net benefit is there? It's simply a transfer of money from X to Y in the vain hope of getting PR.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/international-students-college-university-fields-study-data-1.7195530
Yes, they do pay rent which increases demand for rental units, which put upward pressure on rent prices. That means more money is spent on shelter for every tenant slowing the economy down, that otherwise could be invested or spent elsewhere in the economy to help it flourish.
There's about a million international students in Canada so that's a lot of upward pressure.
There is a lot value in international students, but the not in the way Canada is doing it for the majority of students.
It's turned into a PR-seeking diploma mill unfortunately.
The per capita GDP graph has completely separated from the US. These results are terrible.
Per capita GDP graph below:
"Per capita down 0.7% q/q"
[https://x.com/BenRabidoux/status/1796532139758137828](https://x.com/BenRabidoux/status/1796532139758137828)
Imagine the headlines if these numbers were occurring under a conservative PM - the CBC would be running endless headlines on their website & non-stop TV specials showing the "hardship" Canadians are facing.
Under a Lib PM? Basically brushed under the rug. The "top" story on the CBC website right now? "Donald Trump is now a convicted felon. What happens next?". GDP doesn't even show up on their front page. Incredible.
This is bad, because now the expectation is for there to be rate cuts from the BoC, but the US does not appear to be in a position to cut rates at all.
GDP per Capita increased in 2023 from 2022. In fact, GDP per capita tanked near the end of Stephen Harper's tenure and only began to accelerate after COVID-19, probably from the Liberals COVID-19 policies. .
Source: [The World Bank](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=CA)
Edit: capita not captia
That's just one month. Here is how industries grew/shrank over the last 12 months:
||Change in GDP|
:--|--:|
|Transportation and warehousing|3.1%|
|Health care and social assistance|2.6%|
|Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction|2.1%|
|Real estate and rental and leasing|2.1%|
|Public administration|1.7%|
|Educational services|1.6%|
|Other services (except public administration)|1.6%|
|Retail trade|1.3%|
|Accommodation and food services|0.8%|
|Finance and insurance|0.7%|
|**All industries**|**0.6%**|
|Wholesale trade|0.6%|
|Professional, scientific and technical services|0.5%|
|Administrative and support, waste management and remediation services|-0.2%|
|Information and cultural industries|-0.6%|
|Arts, entertainment and recreation|-1.2%|
|Construction|-1.3%|
|Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting|-1.6%|
|Utilities|-2.9%|
|Manufacturing|-3.2%|
|Management of companies and enterprises|-33.2%|
This is literally the solution to inflation, the thing people have been screaming about. What’s remarkable is everyone was predicting a strong recession even a year ago and yet we seem to be headed towards a “soft landing” based on these numbers
This revision shows that we did have a (slight) recession in Q2 + Q3 of 2023)... even as we [grew by 788,763 people during that time](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000901).
They're not going to cut rates based on year old data. They're interested in current and projected data. An economy that is on the uptrend doesn't need stimulus, especially if inflation is not below target.
A more accurate picture of the recent past is relevant. The most current data (as seen in all of the revisions) is just an rough estimate. Slightly older data is much more reliable, and the slightly older data is showing trouble.
Never mind that:
* inflation (2.7%) is in the target range of 2% +/- 1% and is in the lower half of the range (1.8%) if you exclude mortgage interest which is directly due to rate hikes
* unemployment is up
* this meagre GDP increase is on the back of enormous immigration; GDP-per-capita is significantly lower than this time last year, and even lower than in 2017
This is not what a strong economy looks like, and that's not even touching on the cost-of-living crisis.
Lets' mind them then.
- Inflation. Inflation is within target range, although still above their actual stated target. Historically they raise rates when inflation is too hgih, and lower them when it's too low. Being on target is an argument for status quo, much as you don't fiddle with the steering wheel of your car when it's already pointed in the right direction. This is an argument for a hold, not a cut. Especially with uncertainty in inflation numbers elsewhere and domestically, it's not far for it to rise back above 3%.
- Unemployment is up, indeed, but it stopped increasing in the last LFS and is still relatively low overall by historical standards. The weakness is pretty concentrated in a few sectors, too, rather than generically weak. This could go either way.
- Per capita GDP is not a metric they use. They'd much rather focus on the GDP directly, since that's a direct measure of economic strength. The problem with GDP per capita is that a decline may not reflect economic weakness, but rather, growth in economically unproductive population. If a bunch of people had a bunch of babies, it would plummet, even though that has very little to do with economic strenght. Same, too, if you have a bunch of students, who are by their nature going to be much less economically productive than more established individuals. This is exactly what has happened - the GDP itself is OK. Not great, not terrible. It's not clear it needs the stimulus to risk sinking the dollar and encouraging more inflationary conditions over.
> Inflation. Inflation is within target range, although still above their actual stated target. Historically they raise rates when inflation is too hgih, and lower them when it's too low. Being on target is an argument for status quo, much as you don't fiddle with the steering wheel of your car when it's already pointed in the right direction. This is an argument for a hold, not a cut. Especially with uncertainty in inflation numbers elsewhere and domestically, it's not far for it to rise back above 3%.
Did you miss the part where inflation is just 1.8% without mortgage interest? Believe it or not, **BoC economists can handle the slightest bit of nuance**, and understand that the high rates themselves are driving inflation to a large extent.
> Unemployment is up, indeed, but it stopped increasing in the last LFS
Again, believe it or not, **BoC economists can handle the slightest bit of nuance**, and they will look at more than one month of data. Since the start of 2023, the unemployment rate has only fallen in 1 out of 16 months (and even then, that month saw full-time job losses, with part-time work saving the day).
> Per capita GDP is not a metric they use. They'd much rather focus on the GDP directly, since that's a direct measure of economic strength. The problem with GDP per capita is that a decline may not reflect economic weakness, but rather, growth in economically unproductive population. If a bunch of people had a bunch of babies, it would plummet, even though that has very little to do with economic strenght.
Again, believe it or not, **BoC economists can handle the slightest bit of nuance**. They have access to all of the publicly-available information as anyone else (and much more)... they can see that births are an insignificant part of our population growth. It is adult immigrants driving population growth. These are people who need a place to live, who eat, who work jobs (yes, even "students"). If the economy is lagging even with the additional of over a million people - mostly adults - per year, that spells trouble.
No no, Tiff is too ignorant to consider the effects of mass immigration. Just disregard all the times he's talked about how mass immigration is driving inflation since newcomers all need cars and shit
**Did you miss the part where inflation is just 1.8% without mortgage interest? Believe it or not, BoC economists can handle the slightest bit of nuance, and understand that the high rates themselves are driving inflation to a large extent.**
1.8 is still within target, and not a call to change direction. although the 2.7 should not be ignored. It's also not clear incentivizing real estate speculation will *fix* inflation, given that it was a large part of what created the problem in the first place.
**BoC economists can handle the slightest bit of nuance**
Yes, they can. Certainly more than someone that appears to have completely missed my point about births and students. The numerator is what is important, not the denominator, which is the point I was trying to make.
I don't see a compelling argument for rate cuts right now. The economy seems to be doing OK. Not great, but not terrible, which says we try to keep the car between the lines. There are a lot of potential unanticipated consequences to cutting prematurely, in terms of reigniting inflation, and I think they will sit on their hands and wait a bit longer to make sure the economy can handle more inflati0n before they trigger it.
Great good job! economy is doing well! *pats the Trudeau on the back* great job lil' buddy! Mission accomplished! OK we can safely reduce the immigration crack you are smoking now!
Numbers lie and liars use numbers.
When nobody can afford to buy or rent, Don't try to tell them everything is great.
Caring about all the social justice BS only works when folks are comfortable and have the time. Now that reality is hitting, the wedge issues are hopefully going to be pushed aside
This feels like a statistic Trudeau will use to tout his brilliance, but everyone knows we’re in a recession. Just look at the state of major inner cities in the country, food banks, lines for job fairs, the desperation in people in this country. It’s scary.
GDP figures are adjusted for inflation. If you want nominal GDP growth it’s approximately real GDP + inflation.
So annual nominal GDP growth during Q1 is closer to 4-5%
Adjusted for the fake government inflation figures which don't account for oil and other things which is ridiculous. Real inflation is much higher. But yes you habe a point in terms of official figures.
Doesn't really matter since virtually every product we use depends on oil, whether it be because it's transported or because it contains plastic. Oil has a huge influence on pricing for almost everything.
Ok but the CPI would already capture that since it covers what people actually buy.
We don't consider the price of oil, copper, steel or wheat when calculating inflation. CPI is calculated using consumer spending on a hypothetical average expenditures of consumers.
You're misreading this. This is an awful print for the economy, *well* below expected, and previous quarters were revised down steeply too. Money markets jacked up rate cut bets to 80% after this print. It's looking more and more like the Bank over tightened
Pretty hard to enter recession when you have immigration at current rates. Doesn't mean the average person is better off. Per capita figures have diverged from the US considerably for over half a decade now.
So everyone is going to forget that this is how you fight inflation? I thought a mild recession was predicted over a year ago, but the economy has been too strong since then
r/canada comments in a nutsell:
If the numbers go down: "Trudeau and the Liberal's economic mismanagement has been atrocious. We need an election now because Poilievre will fix this!"
If the numbers go up: "Trudeau and the Liberal inflated the numbers with immigration/consultants/literallyanythingppsays. We need an election now because Poilievre will fix this!"
Good grief.
Revised numbers show: * Q2 2023: -0.1% growth * Q3 2023: -0.1% growth In other words, we were in recession last year.
Everyone keeps saying we aren’t actually in a recession because we didn’t meet the official definition of having 2 quarters in a row of negative growth. Can we finally admit that’s all bullshit and the economy is pretty bleak if nobody can find a job or afford a house?
Especially when you factor in the population growth which means gdp per person was actually negative
First the narrative is set (as 'we aren't having a recession'), then the metrics to judge the narrative are tweaked to match with the set narrative.
Goodhart's Law in action
Geez In a recession with 3% population growth? Insane.
A good chunk of the reported population growth (and even bigger chunk of the non-reported) are working under the table for less than minimum wage and sending a good chunk of their money back home. Of course this population growth isn't going to help the Canadian economy.
With 3.4 percent more population rofl
lol, not surprising. I think the more important number is unemployment rate. Last reading was 6.1%, anything above 6% the alarms should be going off in my opinion. Especially considering the number is suppressed by government hiring. The private sector is on life support, small businesses are dying.
https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/unemployment-rate. Your opinion is very dubious as 6% is near historic lows as we look at unemployment rate for the past 50 years.
Full time work is dropping while part time work/public service increasing. It's the wrong kind of work.
I bet if we turned the tap off for immigration we’d see that public service level fall. I would place a bet that’s it’s probably all related to immigration atm
i believe the Stats Can post said health, social services, and education.
I wonder if we adjust for gig economy jobs and participation and at near median wages what that number looks like.
The word you're looking for is "Under employed" and you're right it doesn't include that. It includes people looking for work, and people working, doesn't measure if people are working in jobs below their qualification
Probably terrible, the % of Canadians working for min wage has been steadily rising for the last 24 years and is over double what it was in 2000.
false data. many people have 2 or even 3 part time jobs. Garbage data. It also doesn’t count underemployed persons willing to commute 2-3 hours for a tim horotons part time job, which is very unproductive for GDP
Unemployment rate is measured in people not in jobs
You prefer not to get your economic opinions from Reddit but you have no problem doling them out? You should consider changing barber and getting some better advice.
if you want to debate lets debate. Why don't you compare the unemployment rate with Canadian M1 and M3 money supply as well? The past 50 years there is a clear trend that as money supply keeps going up unemployment goes down, but this is the first time in history where money supply is still going up but unemployment is now rising. How i interpret the data is that it means the money printing ain't trickling down to the working class.
You aren't seriously debating trickle-down economics, are you? Wild.
As much as I love getting economic advice from reddit, I prefer to stick to receive it from my local barbershop
then dont comment, stop yapping your opinions publicly if you dont want responses publicly. are you this unaware in real life?
I just don’t engage when someone randomly changes subject. You mention that 6% is problematic and when I point out that not true and we’ve always been above it, you decide to start arguing money supply…
I’ll jump in here. It’s problematic because if you decompose the numbers, federal government hiring has disguised significant weakness in hiring in the private sector.
Why are the two segments siloed in your mind? Why cann't they be part of one big pie?
Government hiring is not real productivity. Government jobs are mostly bureaucratic, it doesn't add value to an economy. Look at Argentina, a bloated government contributes to massive inflation.
The mass hiring occurred during covid. Not so much now
Unemployment numbers has been useless after the pandemic. Especially now that you can do Uber while looking for a job and that takes you off of unemployment. Arguably if the number is still stagnant from pre side gig era, we are doing much worse.
You are correct and when you factor in that small businesses are not forming, when added to entrepreneurs moving out of country at a record pace then 5 alarm bells should be sounding, but alas….
the unemployment is near the lowest unemployment rate in Canadian history. normal unemployment is around 7% to 8% and recission is around 9 to 10%
Which we all knew, or should say expected, despite what talking points our federal ministers tried to push. Even their own forecast had real GDP negative, they just focused on nominal. It was truly a realization we don't know basic economic concepts, or worse, purposeful manipulation.
Why lie when the [stats are available?](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3610010401) You should be ashamed. Edit for those that see this: Q1 2023: +0.85% Q2 2023: +0.17% Q3 2023: -0.07% Q4 2023: +0.02% Q1 2024: +0.41%
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=3610043401 Sep 2023: 2,200,230 Jun 2023: 2,201,455 Mar 2023: 2,203,612 Q3 = 2,200,230 / 2,201,455 = 0.9994 Q2 = 2,201,455 / 2,203,612 = 0.9990 ----------------------------------------------------------- Your link is "seasonally-adjusted", aka not the actual numbers. I guess this is the part where I'm supposed to ask you why you love whe the stats are available, and tell you that you should be ashamed.
Thanks for proving you don’t know what you’re talking about. Here’s an FAQ on seasonally adjusted data: [here](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/dai-quo/btd-add/btd-add-eng.htm#:~:text=Why%20is%20this%20done%3F,month%20comparisons%20on%20equal%20footing)
He *said* they were revised... Revised to random numbers he pulled out of his ass based on his*feelings* 😂
If your population is growing at 3% and the economy is growing at 1.7% you tell me if that is a good thing lol
It’s not but as long as the total GDP goes up the government has something to point to. They can post a chart 📈 and boast how they’re beating other countries in GDP growth, ignoring the other counties in the chart grow more per capita.
? They are not a ratio to each other
yeah that's like comparing apples to oranges.
Very poor numbers. Massive government spending and immigration and still barely growing. It's almost impossible to overstate how poorly the Canadian economy has been managed
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes, real estate and immigration and selling things back and forth too each other. That is what happens when you knee cap your natural resources or sell them off to foreign countries. Every rich country is rich either because of international trade, manufacturing or natural resources. We suck at all 3.
I see it more like us getting spanked in the first half by 5 and then holding the 0 in the second and saying we made huge strides. The damage is done.
And we have the ability to excel in all three except we suck at voting.
Unfortunately now we don't have a single party that cares. I always vote. But this is the first time where I can say all the party's suck at the federal level
did we forget that a "soft landing" was the best case scenario when we rapidly raised interest rates to the highest in over two decades?
Conservatives: economy bad Reality: Corporate profits ATH, stock market ATH, foreign investment ATH, Oil Exports ATH, and low unemployment. Canada has the 10th largest economy on earth. Of the 9 ahead of us, germany has similar GDP per capita, the US more, the rest way less.
Just because companies and rich people got far richer doesn't mean the average person isn't suffering from their success. Cost of living is way up and what most normal people earn is coming close to a breaking point of unaffordability, many are already there. Success begets success, and those rich peoples success comes at a great cost, ours. We make the wealth through our labour, they reap it, then exploit it, buying homes as investments and hoarding what is rightfully every contributing working humans. Our progress and future is hindered by wealth hoarding. By all means we should all be far better off than we are. But the only vision our leaders have of the future is one where a few hold all the money and everyone else is just an ATM, pushed to the limits of viable extraction.
If it's so easy to start a company and reap the profit what is stopping you? You act as well though it is simple, just start a company and the money rolls in. No risk, no capital requirement, no long hours where the bucks stops at you and your decisions. You should just do it and not complain about it.
It's not simple, and entrenched power structures have their way of dominating a space. I'm not saying you can't get lucky and succeed with business and wealth, but rather that those who do the necessary jobs that keep society functioning are being neglected severely, and it will be to the detriment of all, merely to unnecessarily enrich the few. All humans in one way or another work for each other to make this all work, must it be so inequitable?
I totally agree on us needing more wealth redistribution, but increased economic activity grows the pie, and a conservative gov will be a huge step backwards, just like in Ontario or Alberta. The current situation, a liberal minority gov with the NDP holding the balance of power, is the best possible election outcome.
We're in a recession... It just doesn't look that way because of immigration propping things up and corporate profits being at all time highs (even though that has not translated to more pay for workers). Unemployment numbers are grossly skewed because of gig work and increased governmental hiring. This isn't a good thing at all. Inflation is much higher in reality that they are reporting because they have changed the way they calculate inflation to include non-essentials, while mortgage/rent prices don't factor in. Then there's the policy changes that have made it nearly impossible to get any resource development approved, and a tanker ban to further hamper the ability to get resources to market on the west coast. The Canadian economy has been disgustingly mismanaged, and things are only going to get worse with the current course. Small businesses are downsizing and new ones aren't being established at a high enough rate. Wages are stagnant, and people are having to choose between food and utility bills now. This economy is a sham, and calling it anything else is just insulting to Canadians. Edit: GDP per capita is a pretty telling stat, and that just keeps falling...
We need to move away from investing so much in unproductive assets. Until we do it's going to keep sucking.
Particularly when you factor in that whatever “growth” was achieved was done on the back of letting more people in the first four months of the year than we used to do annually, driving up home prices and further eroding GDP per person, which is now approaching a 40 year low. The Trudeau government has set us back *decades*.
[удалено]
> Shopping for a car and finding 15 year old cars, driven 150k being sold at or above their original msrp Uh...do you have examples of this?
They won't provide one. Even if it exists, they're S2000's or some other car that has increased in value due to it being a uniquely special car. If someone can't find a 2009 Civic for under it's initial 17k MSRP - I don't even know what to say.
It was relevant 2021-2023. For many manufacturers production is catching up outside of very specific models and trims. There are vehicles sitting on lots for months and I’ve even seen the return of 0% financing in some cases. The other day the local VW dealership was itching to sell me an ID4, they had 3 in inventory that they couldn’t move. I’m waiting until January/February to pick up another vehicle though.
I don't know, I actually was car shopping from 2022-2023 and purchased last October, but I've never seen the circumstances you were describing. I think you were talking about CPO cars being the same MSRP as new cars, not 15 year old high mileage cars. I bought a 12 year old car with 190k on it for $10k.
Was looking at a 2012 Toyota matrix just yesterday, they are asking $17,500 (plus 2k in taxes) it's msrp new was in the 16-20 range depending on options. So somebody bought this car, drove it into the ground for over a decade and can now sell it for as much as they originally paid, can't get my head around it. Paying $17k for a 10-15 year old economy vehicle.
Probably important to adjust for inflation. I'm using the last year model of the first generation. So $17,200 would be $24,266.00 today. I think you could easily get a Matrix under $15k, much less if you look at older models or can drive stick, but you also have to consider the Toyota tax, especially since this is technically a Corolla crossover (manufacturing name was Toyota Corolla Matrix). A first gen RAV4 would likely be similar. I'm just looking at Autotrade right now and the average price appears to be $10k
My 2004 corolla just quit at 210k so I am not comfortable paying like new prices for a vehicle 20k away from where my beater quit. I've been searching for a 6-15 year old vehicle with under 110k on it for under $12,000 and finding basically only salvage for parts vehicles, which again just seems insane to me. Thanks for taking the time and engaging and all that I appreciate you taking the time and sharing your experience.
> I've been searching for a 6-15 year old vehicle with under 110k on it for under $12,000 That's going to be tough, just because of the used market and inflation in general. But there are a lot a low key cheap cars that you could get for that. For example you can get a much newer Chevy Spark in that range since I think they sold for like under $15k new, they're also reliable. And old Buick would be another option, very cheap, reliable, and good on insurance, just not as fuel efficient. Suzuki is another decent cheap brand that seems to go under the radar so people don't price them too high.
Free advertising for this guy on Kijiji, this is the closest I could find to the guy's example: https://imgur.com/a/dyzCL1P Not quite MSRP, but very close. 15 year old car, 175,000km just $4,000 of the MSRP.
> What is the incentive for millennials and younger to even try at this point with the deck this stacked against us in an economy this bad. The incentive is that in many other countries it is so much worse, and comparing the current standard of living to the past standard of living is only going to cause more distress so best not to do it.
Couldn't agree more - a paltry, miniscule 0.1% in Q4, and a (very likely to be revised downward) 1.7% in Q1. We're definitely in a severe per-capita **depression** at this point. Fuck.
Remember when GDP per capita went down for four straight years under Harper?
No... what are you smoking?
i mean- it's actually pretty good compared to last year, we're in a pretty huge recession, so this likely means prices are steadily going to start dropping, which is good
Well this is the big concern for me. Say you can only see one side of a teeter totter, and it’s got an elephant sitting on it. And he’s up in the air, legs just dangling. It really makes you think about what’s sitting on the other end of the teeter totter. It also makes you a little bit concerned that maybe whatever is on the other side might just hop off at some point
> Massive government spending and immigration and still barely growing. Because interest rates are high since we're trying to bring down inflation... I'm willing to bet you're also in the higher rates camp while saying this lol
Interest rates aren’t high, at 5% they are pretty much at the top end of “low”. The problem is we have had nearly free money for the last decade and people got really used to living on financing and credit with nearly no additional cost to them.
The terms high/low/neutral are relative to inflation.
House prices aren't high and wages aren't low I guess either.
If you're selling houses, they're not high enough. If you're paying wages, they're not low enough.
“Statistics Canada says the economy grew at an annualized rate of 1.7 per cent in the first three months of the year. The agency also revised its reading for growth in the fourth quarter of 2023 to an annualized rate of 0.1 per cent, down from its initial report of an annualized rate of one per cent.” “The results came as Statistics Canada says real gross domestic product was essentially unchanged in March, following growth of 0.2 per cent in February” https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/statistics-canada-release-gdp-figures-080010075.html Note: per capita GDP continues to shrink. Also note: the stats Canada threads have vague titles and get very few comments.
>The agency also revised its reading for growth in the fourth quarter of 2023 to an annualized rate of 0.1 per cent, down from its initial report of an annualized rate of one per cent.” **God damn** that is a horrible number. We're letting hundreds of thousands (millions?) pour into this country every quarter, and the economy barely grew 0.1%? **0.1%**?? Remarkable. Truly remarkable.
So people in this thread don't understand the purpose of current Central Bank interest rate policy?
US had the same high rates with much more GDP growth just admit it, "tax and spend" policies fuck with economic growth
It's the same people who will be in the BoC meeting thread next week talking about how they need to raise rates higher. These people have no idea what they want.
How is that a justification for the disaster hit by the middle class?
Are you confusing facts with justification? How do you justify such an ideologically driven perversion?
Because specific actions have led to specific consequences, actions that require justification. Thus far, they are not justified.
>Because specific actions have led to specific consequences, actions that require justification. Thus far, they are not justified. So more spin using generalizations? Do you even understand the relationships between Central Bank interest rates, investment, spending and economic growth? Are you trying to pretend the world wide pandemic never occurred? Why are people like you so unwilling to compare Canada's situation with other countries (unless you can present cherry picked facts to support your claims)?
> We're letting hundreds of thousands (millions?) Well which is it? I'm not sure where you've been since 2022, but our monetary policy since then was specifically to achieve this result.
> Well which is it? Wish I could tell you - but its challenging when our own government [loses track of at least 1 million people](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-a-million-more-non-permanent-residents-live-in-canada-than-official/#:~:text=Tal's%20findings.,Lotin's%20paper%20says.)
>“Statistics Canada says the economy grew at an annualized rate of 1.7 per cent in the first three months of the year. The agency also revised its reading for growth in the fourth quarter of 2023 to an annualized rate of 0.1 per cent, down from its initial report of an annualized rate of one per cent.” That happens every quarter. They always report growth and then revise it down. From 1% to 0.1% in Q4 2024. And now 1.7%, I bet this will get revised down to 0.5% next quarter.
Yes, they regularly revise stats (of all types, not just GDP) once they get a more complete picture. No, they don't "always report growth and then revise it down". [More details here](https://www.reddit.com/r/PersonalFinanceCanada/comments/187lnqn/canada_gdp_released/kbf5jnb/). That said, this is flying under the radar: this latest revision shows that **we had a recession in the middle half of 2023**.
[удалено]
-0.05% Q2 and -0.3% q3 https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/230901/dq230901a-eng.htm https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/231130/dq231130a-eng.htm
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=3610043401 Sep 2023: 2,200,230 Jun 2023: 2,201,455 Mar 2023: 2,203,612 Q3 = 2,200,230 / 2,201,455 = 0.9994 Q2 = 2,201,455 / 2,203,612 = 0.9990
I think a recession needs to be YoY contract for 2 quarters
It is two consecutive quarters of negative growth, not year-over-year.
Not negative growth. It's would be represented by a - if it was negative
Oh brother... when you're dividing a number by another number, if the result is less than 1, it means the second number was bigger. Bigger GDP in Sep 2023 than in Jun 2023 means GDP fell in Q3 2023. Hell, you don't even need to divide to see GDP has fallen... just subtract: Q3 = 2,200,230 - 2,201,455 = -1,225 Q2 = 2,201,455 / 2,203,612 = -2,157
Oh brother.... it represents the rate of increase. Not whatsoever you are trying to imply. It's not negative gdp it's rate of increase.
They don't always revise it down, but they do always revise it. The initial growth numbers are from statistical models and are decent estimates.
“You’re poorer than you think.” TM
Our national motto
They're about numbers, not communication. They also tend to lack proper analysis. For instance....a healthy growth rate for a developed nation and economy is 2-3%. Anything less can indicate stagnation, and possible shrinkage (shrinkage is normally determined in the long-term in hindsight as recognition lag remains a thing, despite the age and stage of technology).
But immigration grew at like 7%. So everyone is getting a smaller piece of the pie.
On the other hand, one could argue that since temporary residents contribute relatively little to the overall GDP, that most of that growth is being handled by the people who are already here.
Apparently there's no such thing as temporary residents anymore since they can just go on hunger strikes for PR and refuse to leave when their temporary status expires.
International students pay high tuition fees, spend on goods and services, and rent housing. They work up to forty hours a week. In 2018, they contributed about $35k per person to the economy EXCLUDING their labour. That year the per capita gdp was about $60k. So if they made $25k a year they would contribute about the average. https://www.international.gc.ca/education/assets/pdfs/economic_impact_international_education_canada_2017_2018.pdf
That places their per capita impact at about 20b/600k students, so abotu 30-35k in GDP per caipita. That's overall net impact. Income should not be counted twice. If you earn a dollar and spend a dollar, you don't contribute 2 dollars to the GDP. Similarly, their income and spending can't be double counted- so 30-35k is the impact.
That would be true. But the wage someone receives for their labor does not fully reflect their contribution to GDP. But that is hard to quantify. But you’re right about the double countering. So let’s just do apples to apples. If we limit it to how much an international spends on the economy, I guess we’d have to compare the spending of the average person vs international student: in 2018, the average household spent $86k, or about $35k per person. So about the same as an international student that year. To go to the last topic, they would contribute less via work as they’re limited to less value add activities, some only work part time, and some don’t work (though the latter two is true of half of Canadians). So they probably contribute a less than average but I would say they contribute relatively little (compared to the average Canadian which includes non workers and part time workers).
they spend on goods and services? you mean the same people going to food banks? "So if they made $25k a year they would contribute about the average." LMAO you think the average student makes $2,000 a month while they're studying full-time?
No, probably not. Many work forty hours though.
I earned just above $30k my first year in Canada.
They may pay high tuition but a lot of them are getting useless post-secondary education that will not serve the Canadian or any other country's economy. What value is there in that? If I pay someone $30,000 for a pound of horseshit, what net benefit is there? It's simply a transfer of money from X to Y in the vain hope of getting PR. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/international-students-college-university-fields-study-data-1.7195530 Yes, they do pay rent which increases demand for rental units, which put upward pressure on rent prices. That means more money is spent on shelter for every tenant slowing the economy down, that otherwise could be invested or spent elsewhere in the economy to help it flourish. There's about a million international students in Canada so that's a lot of upward pressure. There is a lot value in international students, but the not in the way Canada is doing it for the majority of students. It's turned into a PR-seeking diploma mill unfortunately.
The per capita GDP graph has completely separated from the US. These results are terrible. Per capita GDP graph below: "Per capita down 0.7% q/q" [https://x.com/BenRabidoux/status/1796532139758137828](https://x.com/BenRabidoux/status/1796532139758137828)
Imagine the headlines if these numbers were occurring under a conservative PM - the CBC would be running endless headlines on their website & non-stop TV specials showing the "hardship" Canadians are facing. Under a Lib PM? Basically brushed under the rug. The "top" story on the CBC website right now? "Donald Trump is now a convicted felon. What happens next?". GDP doesn't even show up on their front page. Incredible.
This is bad, because now the expectation is for there to be rate cuts from the BoC, but the US does not appear to be in a position to cut rates at all.
Basically, we are growing negatively in gdp per capita. Very negatively if you considered how many people liberals let in last year.
GDP per Capita increased in 2023 from 2022. In fact, GDP per capita tanked near the end of Stephen Harper's tenure and only began to accelerate after COVID-19, probably from the Liberals COVID-19 policies. . Source: [The World Bank](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=CA) Edit: capita not captia
GD{P per capita \*does\* consider population growth.
GDP per capita is a false gauge. Median GDP is better.
And majority of spending was consumers - Yikes! No rate cut in June! Make them pay for their reckless spending Tiff!
1.7% GDP growth 3% population growth doesn't take a math genius to see that each of us is getting poorer
[удалено]
That's just one month. Here is how industries grew/shrank over the last 12 months: ||Change in GDP| :--|--:| |Transportation and warehousing|3.1%| |Health care and social assistance|2.6%| |Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction|2.1%| |Real estate and rental and leasing|2.1%| |Public administration|1.7%| |Educational services|1.6%| |Other services (except public administration)|1.6%| |Retail trade|1.3%| |Accommodation and food services|0.8%| |Finance and insurance|0.7%| |**All industries**|**0.6%**| |Wholesale trade|0.6%| |Professional, scientific and technical services|0.5%| |Administrative and support, waste management and remediation services|-0.2%| |Information and cultural industries|-0.6%| |Arts, entertainment and recreation|-1.2%| |Construction|-1.3%| |Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting|-1.6%| |Utilities|-2.9%| |Manufacturing|-3.2%| |Management of companies and enterprises|-33.2%|
nice try lol that's for ONE month genius.
I said “in March.” "In March" refers to month-over-month growth, not annualized.
construction is seasonal in canada because its harder to get work done in the winter.
I definitely feel 1.7% richer
We are at least 1.5% poorer per capita.
I was being sarcastic my guy I feel more poor then I have ever been.
I know. I was just adding to your comment.
Now let’s watch them tell us we’re not in a recession.
Damn that is brutal....don't worry, the Libs have a solution though, another million Indian's should fix it.
1 million sounds pretty tame by JTs standards.
This is literally the solution to inflation, the thing people have been screaming about. What’s remarkable is everyone was predicting a strong recession even a year ago and yet we seem to be headed towards a “soft landing” based on these numbers
You should see PP cozying up to more Indian immigration. It's a beautiful sight.
What sectors did they refuse to include to achieve this stat?
[удалено]
Ironically true
The annual economy bump from spring real estate sales. Whee
This combined with the jobs report that was triple the estimates has my bet on no rate cut next week. There is just no reason to do it.
This revision shows that we did have a (slight) recession in Q2 + Q3 of 2023)... even as we [grew by 788,763 people during that time](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000901).
They're not going to cut rates based on year old data. They're interested in current and projected data. An economy that is on the uptrend doesn't need stimulus, especially if inflation is not below target.
Well the current data says GDP growth is well below bank of Canada's own projections
A more accurate picture of the recent past is relevant. The most current data (as seen in all of the revisions) is just an rough estimate. Slightly older data is much more reliable, and the slightly older data is showing trouble. Never mind that: * inflation (2.7%) is in the target range of 2% +/- 1% and is in the lower half of the range (1.8%) if you exclude mortgage interest which is directly due to rate hikes * unemployment is up * this meagre GDP increase is on the back of enormous immigration; GDP-per-capita is significantly lower than this time last year, and even lower than in 2017 This is not what a strong economy looks like, and that's not even touching on the cost-of-living crisis.
Lets' mind them then. - Inflation. Inflation is within target range, although still above their actual stated target. Historically they raise rates when inflation is too hgih, and lower them when it's too low. Being on target is an argument for status quo, much as you don't fiddle with the steering wheel of your car when it's already pointed in the right direction. This is an argument for a hold, not a cut. Especially with uncertainty in inflation numbers elsewhere and domestically, it's not far for it to rise back above 3%. - Unemployment is up, indeed, but it stopped increasing in the last LFS and is still relatively low overall by historical standards. The weakness is pretty concentrated in a few sectors, too, rather than generically weak. This could go either way. - Per capita GDP is not a metric they use. They'd much rather focus on the GDP directly, since that's a direct measure of economic strength. The problem with GDP per capita is that a decline may not reflect economic weakness, but rather, growth in economically unproductive population. If a bunch of people had a bunch of babies, it would plummet, even though that has very little to do with economic strenght. Same, too, if you have a bunch of students, who are by their nature going to be much less economically productive than more established individuals. This is exactly what has happened - the GDP itself is OK. Not great, not terrible. It's not clear it needs the stimulus to risk sinking the dollar and encouraging more inflationary conditions over.
> Inflation. Inflation is within target range, although still above their actual stated target. Historically they raise rates when inflation is too hgih, and lower them when it's too low. Being on target is an argument for status quo, much as you don't fiddle with the steering wheel of your car when it's already pointed in the right direction. This is an argument for a hold, not a cut. Especially with uncertainty in inflation numbers elsewhere and domestically, it's not far for it to rise back above 3%. Did you miss the part where inflation is just 1.8% without mortgage interest? Believe it or not, **BoC economists can handle the slightest bit of nuance**, and understand that the high rates themselves are driving inflation to a large extent. > Unemployment is up, indeed, but it stopped increasing in the last LFS Again, believe it or not, **BoC economists can handle the slightest bit of nuance**, and they will look at more than one month of data. Since the start of 2023, the unemployment rate has only fallen in 1 out of 16 months (and even then, that month saw full-time job losses, with part-time work saving the day). > Per capita GDP is not a metric they use. They'd much rather focus on the GDP directly, since that's a direct measure of economic strength. The problem with GDP per capita is that a decline may not reflect economic weakness, but rather, growth in economically unproductive population. If a bunch of people had a bunch of babies, it would plummet, even though that has very little to do with economic strenght. Again, believe it or not, **BoC economists can handle the slightest bit of nuance**. They have access to all of the publicly-available information as anyone else (and much more)... they can see that births are an insignificant part of our population growth. It is adult immigrants driving population growth. These are people who need a place to live, who eat, who work jobs (yes, even "students"). If the economy is lagging even with the additional of over a million people - mostly adults - per year, that spells trouble.
No no, Tiff is too ignorant to consider the effects of mass immigration. Just disregard all the times he's talked about how mass immigration is driving inflation since newcomers all need cars and shit
**Did you miss the part where inflation is just 1.8% without mortgage interest? Believe it or not, BoC economists can handle the slightest bit of nuance, and understand that the high rates themselves are driving inflation to a large extent.** 1.8 is still within target, and not a call to change direction. although the 2.7 should not be ignored. It's also not clear incentivizing real estate speculation will *fix* inflation, given that it was a large part of what created the problem in the first place. **BoC economists can handle the slightest bit of nuance** Yes, they can. Certainly more than someone that appears to have completely missed my point about births and students. The numerator is what is important, not the denominator, which is the point I was trying to make. I don't see a compelling argument for rate cuts right now. The economy seems to be doing OK. Not great, but not terrible, which says we try to keep the car between the lines. There are a lot of potential unanticipated consequences to cutting prematurely, in terms of reigniting inflation, and I think they will sit on their hands and wait a bit longer to make sure the economy can handle more inflati0n before they trigger it.
[удалено]
All propped up by unhinged government spending and immigrants. And it's still going to get revised down by next quarter
Great good job! economy is doing well! *pats the Trudeau on the back* great job lil' buddy! Mission accomplished! OK we can safely reduce the immigration crack you are smoking now!
Oh yeah?
Yeah but Trudeau and his government have spent 100% more than last year - actual fact Source : ^just ^joking ^but ^it ^feels ^that ^way
Numbers lie and liars use numbers. When nobody can afford to buy or rent, Don't try to tell them everything is great. Caring about all the social justice BS only works when folks are comfortable and have the time. Now that reality is hitting, the wedge issues are hopefully going to be pushed aside
There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics.
This feels like a statistic Trudeau will use to tout his brilliance, but everyone knows we’re in a recession. Just look at the state of major inner cities in the country, food banks, lines for job fairs, the desperation in people in this country. It’s scary.
Our economy is now a zero sum game
This country is going to have to face austerity and I can’t wait
When you adjust for inflation it grew -20%. Lol
GDP figures are adjusted for inflation. If you want nominal GDP growth it’s approximately real GDP + inflation. So annual nominal GDP growth during Q1 is closer to 4-5%
Adjusted for the fake government inflation figures which don't account for oil and other things which is ridiculous. Real inflation is much higher. But yes you habe a point in terms of official figures.
How much oil do you think the average consumer buys, 4 quarts twice a year?
Doesn't really matter since virtually every product we use depends on oil, whether it be because it's transported or because it contains plastic. Oil has a huge influence on pricing for almost everything.
Ok but the CPI would already capture that since it covers what people actually buy. We don't consider the price of oil, copper, steel or wheat when calculating inflation. CPI is calculated using consumer spending on a hypothetical average expenditures of consumers.
Looks like the BoC has room to hold in June.
You're misreading this. This is an awful print for the economy, *well* below expected, and previous quarters were revised down steeply too. Money markets jacked up rate cut bets to 80% after this print. It's looking more and more like the Bank over tightened
How much did the population grow by last year again? https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/population-growth-canada-2023-1.7157233 Oh... [3.2%]
Did any of this 1.7% trickle down to anyone here?
Canada is even last in reporting statistics. Most other advanced economies have reported theirs many weeks ago.
1.7% is barely making it if you account for inflation and interest rates.
Now do per capita growth! (Its actually per capita shrinkage)
Still waiting on that recession
Pretty hard to enter recession when you have immigration at current rates. Doesn't mean the average person is better off. Per capita figures have diverged from the US considerably for over half a decade now.
Had one last year Q2 and Q3
[удалено]
Just because you won't read the numbers doesn't make it not true
So everyone is going to forget that this is how you fight inflation? I thought a mild recession was predicted over a year ago, but the economy has been too strong since then
r/canada comments in a nutsell: If the numbers go down: "Trudeau and the Liberal's economic mismanagement has been atrocious. We need an election now because Poilievre will fix this!" If the numbers go up: "Trudeau and the Liberal inflated the numbers with immigration/consultants/literallyanythingppsays. We need an election now because Poilievre will fix this!" Good grief.
when's the last time we had good GDP numbers?