Business
Median wages and salaries lower in every Canadian province than in every U.S. state
From the Fraser Institute
There’s a growing consensus among economists that the federal government and several provincial governments over the past decade have not enacted enough policies that encourage economic growth. Consequently, Canadians are getting poorer relative to residents of other countries including the United States. In particular, their ability to purchase essential goods and services such as housing and food—in other words, their standard of living—is declining relative to our neighbours to the south.
In fact, according to our new study, among the 10 provinces and 50 U.S. states, median employment earnings—that is, wages and salaries— in 2022 (the latest year of available data) were lowest in the four Atlantic provinces, followed by Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. So, the median employment earnings of workers were lower in every Canadian province than in every U.S. state.
Were Canadian provinces always in the basement? Pretty much. In 2010, while only 12 U.S. states reported higher median employment earnings than Alberta, the other nine Canadian provinces ranked among the bottom 10 places. However, the important point is that from 2010 to 2022, Canadian provinces have fallen even further behind as many low-ranking U.S. states substantially improved.
In 2010, the per-worker earnings gap (in 2017 Canadian dollars) between Louisiana, a middle-ranking state, and the nine lowest-ranked Canadian provinces varied from $4,650 (in Saskatchewan) to $15,661 (Prince Edward Island). By 2022, a typical mid-ranking state such as Tennessee was out-earning all provinces by a range of $6,770 (in Alberta) to $16,955 (P.E.I.). In other words, by 2022, not only were workers in all U.S. states out-earning workers in all Canadian provinces, the gap had grown.
Another example—Alberta and Texas are the two largest oil-producing jurisdictions in their respective countries, yet Albertans, who out-earned Texans in 2010, saw their lead of $3,423 per worker become a deficit of $5,254 by 2022.
It’s a similar story for B.C. and Washington, which are geographically proximate and have similar-sized populations. While B.C. experienced strong growth in median employment earnings per worker over this period, it still lost ground relative to Washington—the gap grew from $10,879 in 2010 to $11,311 by 2022.
The change between Ontario and Michigan is even more striking. Again, they are geographic neighbours, have similar-sized populations and share a large auto sector, with Michigan’s lead over Ontario growing from $2,955 per worker in 2010 to $8,661 by 2022. The trends are similar when comparing Saskatchewan to North Dakota or the Atlantic provinces to the New England states; the gaps have only grown larger.
So, why should Canadians care?
Of course, everybody wants to make more money, so Canadians should want to know why workers in Mississippi and Louisiana make more than workers here at home. But there’s also a broader problem—people and capital can move relatively freely across the Canada-U.S. border, meaning this growing divergence in employment earnings has significant ramifications for the Canadian economy.
It could spur the ongoing migration of highly productive individuals, including high-skilled immigrants, who choose to move south. And encourage domestic and foreign firms to invest in the U.S. rather than in Canada. If these trends continue, they will exacerbate the earnings gaps between the two countries and potentially make Canada an economic backwater relative to the U.S. There’s also a significant risk these trends could worsen if the next U.S. administration increases tariffs on Canadian exports to the U.S., effectively abrogating the North American free trade agreement.
Clearly, to mitigate this risk and reverse the ongoing divergence in employment earnings—which largely determine living standards—between Canada and the U.S., the federal and provincial governments should implement bold and sweeping growth-oriented policies to make the Canadian economy more competitive. When Canada is more attractive to business investment, high-skilled workers and entrepreneurs, all workers will reap the rewards.
Authors:
From the Fraser Institute
Do economic rivalries between Texas and California or New York and Florida feel like yet another sign that America has become hopelessly divided? There’s a bright side to their disagreements, and a new ranking of economic freedom across the states helps explain why.
As a popular bumper sticker among economists proclaims: “I heart federalism (for the natural experiments).” In a federal system, states have wide latitude to set priorities and to choose their own strategies to achieve them. It’s messy, but informative.
New York and California, along with other states like New Mexico, have long pursued a government-centric approach to economic policy. They tax a lot. They spend a lot. Their governments employ a large fraction of the workforce and set a high minimum wage.
They aren’t socialist by any means; most property is still in private hands. Consumers, workers and businesses still make most of their own decisions. But these states control more resources than other states do through taxes and regulation, so their governments play a larger role in economic life.
At the other end of the spectrum, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Florida and South Dakota allow citizens to make more of their own economic choices, keep more of their own money, and set more of their own terms of trade and work.
They aren’t free-market utopias; they impose plenty of regulatory burdens. But they are economically freer than other states.
These two groups have, in other words, been experimenting with different approaches to economic policy. Does one approach lead to higher incomes or faster growth? Greater economic equality or more upward mobility? What about other aspects of a good society like tolerance, generosity, or life satisfaction?
For two decades now, we’ve had a handy tool to assess these questions: The Fraser Institute’s annual “Economic Freedom of North America” index uses 10 variables in three broad areas—government spending, taxation, and labor regulation—to assess the degree of economic freedom in each of the 50 states and the territory of Puerto Rico, as well as in Canadian provinces and Mexican states.
It’s an objective measurement that allows economists to take stock of federalism’s natural experiments. Independent scholars have done just that, having now conducted over 250 studies using the index. With careful statistical analyses that control for the important differences among states—possibly confounding factors such as geography, climate, and historical development—the vast majority of these studies associate greater economic freedom with greater prosperity.
In fact, freedom’s payoffs are astounding.
States with high and increasing levels of economic freedom tend to see higher incomes, more entrepreneurial activity and more net in-migration. Their people tend to experience greater income mobility, and more income growth at both the top and bottom of the income distribution. They have less poverty, less homelessness and lower levels of food insecurity. People there even seem to be more philanthropic, more tolerant and more satisfied with their lives.
New Hampshire, Tennessee, and South Dakota topped the latest edition of the report while Puerto Rico, New Mexico, and New York rounded out the bottom. New Mexico displaced New York as the least economically free state in the union for the first time in 20 years, but it had always been near the bottom.
The bigger stories are the major movers. The last 10 years’ worth of available data show South Carolina, Ohio, Wisconsin, Idaho, Iowa and Utah moving up at least 10 places. Arizona, Virginia, Nebraska, and Maryland have all slid down 10 spots.
Over that same decade, those states that were among the freest 25 per cent on average saw their populations grow nearly 18 times faster than those in the bottom 25 per cent. Statewide personal income grew nine times as fast.
Economic freedom isn’t a panacea. Nor is it the only thing that matters. Geography, culture, and even luck can influence a state’s prosperity. But while policymakers can’t move mountains or rewrite cultures, they can look at the data, heed the lessons of our federalist experiment, and permit their citizens more economic freedom.
From the Fraser Institute
By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari
According to Steven Guilbeault, former environment minister under Justin Trudeau and former member of Prime Minister Carney’s cabinet, “Switching to an electric vehicle is one of the most impactful things Canadians can do to help fight climate change.”
And the Carney government has only paused Trudeau’s electric vehicle (EV) sales mandate to conduct a “review” of the policy, despite industry pressure to scrap the policy altogether.
So clearly, according to policymakers in Ottawa, EVs are essentially “zero emission” and thus good for environment.
But is that true?
Clearly, EVs have some environmental advantages over traditional gasoline-powered vehicles. Unlike cars with engines that directly burn fossil fuels, EVs do not produce tailpipe emissions of pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide, and do not release greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide. These benefits are real. But when you consider the entire lifecycle of an EV, the picture becomes much more complicated.
Unlike traditional gasoline-powered vehicles, battery-powered EVs and plug-in hybrids generate most of their GHG emissions before the vehicles roll off the assembly line. Compared with conventional gas-powered cars, EVs typically require more fossil fuel energy to manufacture, largely because to produce EVs batteries, producers require a variety of mined materials including cobalt, graphite, lithium, manganese and nickel, which all take lots of energy to extract and process. Once these raw materials are mined, processed and transported across often vast distances to manufacturing sites, they must be assembled into battery packs. Consequently, the manufacturing process of an EV—from the initial mining of materials to final assembly—produces twice the quantity of GHGs (on average) as the manufacturing process for a comparable gas-powered car.
Once an EV is on the road, its carbon footprint depends on how the electricity used to charge its battery is generated. According to a report from the Canada Energy Regulator (the federal agency responsible for overseeing oil, gas and electric utilities), in British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario, electricity is largely produced from low- or even zero-carbon sources such as hydro, so EVs in these provinces have a low level of “indirect” emissions.
However, in other provinces—particularly Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia—electricity generation is more heavily reliant on fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, so EVs produce much higher indirect emissions. And according to research from the University of Toronto, in coal-dependent U.S. states such as West Virginia, an EV can emit about 6 per cent more GHG emissions over its entire lifetime—from initial mining, manufacturing and charging to eventual disposal—than a gas-powered vehicle of the same size. This means that in regions with especially coal-dependent energy grids, EVs could impose more climate costs than benefits. Put simply, for an EV to help meaningfully reduce emissions while on the road, its electricity must come from low-carbon electricity sources—something that does not happen in certain areas of Canada and the United States.
Finally, even after an EV is off the road, it continues to produce emissions, mainly because of the battery. EV batteries contain components that are energy-intensive to extract but also notoriously challenging to recycle. While EV battery recycling technologies are still emerging, approximately 5 per cent of lithium-ion batteries, which are commonly used in EVs, are actually recycled worldwide. This means that most new EVs feature batteries with no recycled components—further weakening the environmental benefit of EVs.
So what’s the final analysis? The technology continues to evolve and therefore the calculations will continue to change. But right now, while electric vehicles clearly help reduce tailpipe emissions, they’re not necessarily “zero emission” vehicles. And after you consider the full lifecycle—manufacturing, charging, scrapping—a more accurate picture of their environmental impact comes into view.
Annika Segelhorst
Junior Economist
Elmira Aliakbari
Wayne Gretzky’s Terrible, Awful Week.. And Soccer/ Football.
Western Campuses Help Build China’s Digital Dragnet With U.S. Tax Funds, Study Warns
Surgery Denied. Death Approved.
Common Vaccines Linked to 38-50% Increased Risk of Dementia and Alzheimer’s
-
Bruce Dowbiggin23 hours ago
Wayne Gretzky’s Terrible, Awful Week.. And Soccer/ Football.
-
espionage12 hours ago
Western Campuses Help Build China’s Digital Dragnet With U.S. Tax Funds, Study Warns
-
Focal Points3 hours ago
Common Vaccines Linked to 38-50% Increased Risk of Dementia and Alzheimer’s
-
Opinion21 hours agoThe day the ‘King of rock ‘n’ roll saved the Arizona memorial
-
Agriculture22 hours agoCanada’s air quality among the best in the world
-
Business10 hours agoCanada invests $34 million in Chinese drones now considered to be ‘high security risks’
-
Health1 hour agoThe Data That Doesn’t Exist
-
Economy11 hours agoAffordable housing out of reach everywhere in Canada