Connect with us

Business

Job growth in government exceeded the private sector in 8 out of 10 provinces from 2019-23

Published

8 hours ago

4 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Ben Eisen and Milagros Palacios

In eight of 10 provinces the rate of government job growth has been higher than the private sector, finds a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“Canada’s net job creation in recent years has been disproportionately driven by growth in government employment rather than growth in the private sector, and as of 2019, government employment as a share of total employment in the country is at its highest point since the mid-1990s,” said Ben Eisen, Fraser Institute senior fellow and co-author of Economic Recovery in Canada before and after COVID: Job Growth in the Government and Private Sectors.

The study finds that historically, no other recent era of recession and recovery in Canada have been so dominated by government sector job growth compared to private sector job growth.

During the recession and recovery periods related to the COVID-19 recession (2019-2023), government employment across the country, including federal, provincial and municipal increased by 13.0 per cent compared to just 3.6 per cent in the private sector (including self-employment.)

In every Canadian province save for Alberta and Nova Scotia, employment in the government sector expanded at a higher rate than the private sector. In BC, employment growth in the private sector (including self-employment) rose only by 0.5 per cent during the period compared to 22.0 per cent in the government sector. Ontario’s public sector experienced triple the growth the private sector had, with 14.6 per cent and 4.8 per cent, respectively.

The study also compares the current recession and recovery in Canada to the United States, where the private sector has generated a large majority of all new jobs in recent years. In Canada, the government sector is responsible for 46.7 per cent of total job growth from 2019-203 compared to 16.1 per cent in the United States.

“Canada has seen a much higher rate of job growth in the government sector than the private sector in recent years, which is a concerning trend given that job growth and wealth creation in the private sector are needed to finance the activities of governments,” said Eisen.

  • Several past analyses published by the Fraser Institute have shown that in recent years net job creation in the government sector has dramatically outstripped private-sector job creation.
  • This publication updates these data, showing that during the recession brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic and the following recovery (2019–2023), government employment has increased by 13.0% while employment in the private sector (including self-employment) increased just 3.6%
  • We further expand past analysis by comparing the ongoing recovery from the COVID-19 recession to past periods of economic recession and recovery.
  • We find that the extent to which the current economic recovery is driven by government job growth is historically unusual. We compare the current economic environment to five past economic recessions and slowdowns and find that none of those recoveries were nearly as reliant on job creation in the government sector.
  • We also compare the current recession and recovery in Canada to that in the United States, which differs sharply. In the United States, the private sector has generated a large majority of all new jobs in recent years and the rate of net job creation in the private sector has been nearly identical to that in the government sector.
  • As a result of disproportionately faster growth in the public-sector employment, government’s share of employment post-COVID is higher than at any point since the fiscal consolidations of the 1990s.

Authors:

Ben Eisen
Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Milagros Palacios
Director, Addington Centre for Measurement, Fraser Institute
Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Business / 41 seconds ago

Kamala’s Secret Weapon: The British Operatives Determined to “Kill” Elon Musk’s Free Speech Platform X

Energy / 2 hours ago

Jagmeet Singh’s mythematical numbers

Opinion / 5 hours ago

Female UN expert calls for ban on men in women’s sports, gets accused of ‘demeaning language’

Business

Kamala’s Secret Weapon: The British Operatives Determined to “Kill” Elon Musk’s Free Speech Platform X

Published on October 22, 2024

By

From Reclaim The Net

By Christina Maas

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

Amid the chaos of pre-election America, major information has surfaced, revealing internal documents from the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). This UK-based group, which was founded by British political strategist Morgan McSweeney under the name Brixton Endeavours Limited before being renamed to the Center for Countering Digital Hate in 2019, outlined a clear goal in their agenda: “Kill Musk’s Twitter.” The documents make it clear that the CCDH is targeting Elon Musk’s social media platform with full force. McSweeney, who helped guide Keir Starmer to victory in the UK, is now involved in US politics, advising Kamala Harris as she navigates the upcoming election, raising serious questions about the CCDH’s reach and motives.

CCDH May 31st agenda, above a note about meeting “with [Senator Amy] Klobuchar’s team.”

Now, if you’re wondering why a think tank founded by a man who helped turn Keir Starmer into the British Prime Minister is so dead set on smashing up a social media platform thousands of miles across the pond, you’re not alone. But the CCDH isn’t just any ragtag team of keyboard warriors. These guys are plugged into Washington power circles like an iPhone into a dodgy charger, with ties so tight to the Biden-Harris campaign, that they might as well be writing the tweets. And with McSweeney now advising Kamala Harris, well, let’s just say the plot thickens. 

Related: Behind Closed Doors: The UK and US Plot Global Speech Crackdown

Kamala’s British Wingman

Meet Morgan McSweeney, a political operative you’ve never heard of—unless you’ve been glued to British politics or, for some inexplicable reason, a hardcore Labour Party fan in America. According to a new report from The DisInformation Chronicle and Racket News (which is worth reading in full), McSweeney, the brains behind Starmer’s rise to the UK premiership, is now advising Kamala Harris on how to go from “Where’s she been?” to “First female President.”

According to the report, McSweeney is credited with piloting Starmer’s victory against the Conservatives, beating Rishi Sunak. And McSweeney recently became UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Chief of Staff.

But McSweeney isn’t stopping at Downing Street. No, he’s set his sights on America. And what’s more American than advising Kamala Harris after founding an organization that’s trying to vaporize Elon Musk’s $44 billion free speech project? After all, nothing screams “Democracy!” like a transatlantic political hit squad targeting Musk’s favorite free speech toy.

Musk, Misinformation, and Tax Breaks

Let’s not forget that the CCDH is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit—a status they might want to cling to tighter than a senator to their PAC funding. According to the IRS, CCDH could lose its golden goose tax exemption if “a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation.” And yet, somehow, according to the report, “Trigger EU and UK regulatory action” is the third item on their annual to-do list.

And to make things even murkier, CCDH has hired Lot Sixteen, a firm known for lobbying congressional offices on—you guessed it—“misinformation.” Nothing screams integrity like a supposedly neutral non-profit hiring a lobbying firm to bend the ears of politicians in the world’s most corrupt zip code. It’s almost poetic, if by poetry you mean a collection of contradictory nonsense wrapped in a PR-friendly bow.

A tweet by Elon Musk stating "This is war" above another tweet by Paul D. Thacker about exclusive documents allegedly showing British advisors plotting against Musk's Twitter, with an image of two people speaking.Elon Musk reacts to the new report.

So, what does the CCDH’s fearless leader, Imran Ahmed, have to say about all this? Well, nothing, actually. Despite repeated requests from The DisInformation Chronicle and Racket, Ahmed—another British political operative welded to McSweeney’s Labour Together cabal—has clammed up. You can almost hear the sounds of frantic shredding from CCDH’s London offices.

Meanwhile, Senator Amy Klobuchar, who’s been pushing bills to regulate online “misinformation,” isn’t exactly rushing to answer questions either. And why would she? The CCDH’s plans dovetail nicely with her efforts to wrangle Big Tech under the guise of safeguarding democracy. Who cares if a few pesky details—like the potential illegalities of foreign interference or questionable nonprofit activities—get in the way? We’ve got elections to win here!

It’s almost endearing to see the British influence clawing its way back into American politics. Once upon a time, they tried to impose taxes on tea; now they’re sending think tanks to tackle free speech. If you’re wondering why a bunch of Brits are interested in who gets to say what on American soil, well, let’s just say the empire never really dies—it just switches to online servers.

The CCDH, that shiny bastion of truth-squelching, made headlines when they tried to silence Substack writers like Alex Berenson and Dr. Joseph Mercola, daring to spout the unthinkable—vaccine “misinformation.” In a world where dissent is dangerous, what’s a good digital inquisition without a few heretics to burn at the stake? But Substack threw a wrench into CCDH’s plans with the audacity to say, “No, thanks. We’re not here to take orders from the mob.” Their exact words? “At Substack, we don’t make moderation decisions based on public pressure.”

But the battle’s far from over. If at first, you don’t succeed in turning the internet into a digital police state, try again across the pond. CCDH’s new plan for American soil? Start by dismantling the platforms of opponents like Elon Musk—because if there’s one thing that irks the establishment more than free speech, it’s a billionaire who buys the bird app and starts letting people talk again. To do that, CCDH is deploying the tried-and-true tactic of hitting where it hurts: ad revenues. It’s like the financial version of waterboarding—slow, steady, and guaranteed to make you reconsider your life choices.

But they’re not stopping with the world’s richest troll. CCDH is also pushing for new regulations that would make Europe’s draconian Digital Services Act and the UK’s paternalistic Online Safety Act look like child’s play. Under these laws, an “independent digital regulator” (read: Orwellian overlord) would have the power to decide what counts as “harmful content” and hand out penalties to any platform that steps out of line. Nothing says “freedom” like letting bureaucrats decide what’s dangerous for you to read.

The Lobbying Blitz: CCDH’s Capitol Hill Campaign

Naturally, CCDH hasn’t come to the US to play nice. With Labour Together and McSweeney’s as their comrades in censorship, they’ve launched an all-out lobbying blitz on Capitol Hill. Their shiny new toy? The STAR framework is a friendly-sounding acronym that would essentially give them the ability to enforce platform censorship through government regulation. Because if you can’t silence your enemies with social media bans, why not use Congress as your personal speech police?

And don’t think for a second they’re not riding the wave of the latest moral panic. Following the riots that were oh-so-conveniently blamed on disinformation (because personal responsibility is so last century), CCDH and its allies are positioning themselves as the solution to America’s pesky free speech problem. In fact, across the Atlantic, under the would-be Prime Minister Keir Starmer, UK regulators are already sharpening their knives, threatening severe actions against any platform that refuses to fall in line with their censorship demands. You can almost hear them sharpening the guillotine from here.

Of course, all of this is framed under the noble guise of “safety.” We’ve heard it before: “We’re just trying to protect people from harm.” But when you peel back the layers of sanctimonious rhetoric, what you’re left with is a cold, calculated effort to control the narrative. If it’s not coming from the approved sources, it’s dangerous. If it challenges the establishment, it’s misinformation. And if you don’t fall in line? Well, they’ve got a regulation for that.

The Real Endgame: Speech Control

Let’s not pretend this is about safety, though. This is about power. CCDH’s push for stricter regulations, under the guise of protecting the public from harmful content, is nothing more than a naked attempt to control the flow of information. They’ve already tried it in the UK, and now they’re bringing their act to the US, hoping to use government muscle to do what public pressure alone couldn’t.

And the implications are staggering. If groups like CCDH succeed in shaping US regulations to mirror the Digital Services Act or the Online Safety Act, we’re looking at a future where platforms are forced to police speech in real-time, handing over the power to determine what’s “acceptable” to an unelected body of bureaucrats and activists. It’s not about misinformation—it’s about control. And once they’ve got that control, you can bet they won’t give it up easily.

At the end of the day, the CCDH and its allies are playing a long game. They don’t just want to silence a few Substack writers or take away Elon Musk’s ad revenue—they want to reshape the entire landscape of online discourse.

So next time you see CCDH and their cohorts talking about the dangers of misinformation and harmful content, remember: It’s not about safety. It’s about control. Because in the digital age, whoever controls the narrative controls everything.

Read the full report here.

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

Continue Reading

Artificial Intelligence

OpenAI and Microsoft negotiations require definition of “artificial general intelligence”

Published on October 22, 2024

By

From The Deep View

Ian Krietzberg

 

OpenAI’s bargaining chip 

A couple of relatively significant stories broke late last week concerning the — seemingly tenuous — partnership between OpenAI and Microsoft.
The background: OpenAI first turned to Microsoft back in 2019, after the startup lost access to Elon Musk’s billions. Microsoft — which has now sunk more than $13 billion into the ChatGPT-maker — has developed a partnership with OpenAI, where Microsoft provides the compute (and the money) and OpenAI gives Microsoft access to its generative technology. OpenAI’s tech, for instance, powers Microsoft’s Copilot.
According to the New York Times, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman last year asked Microsoft for more cash. But Microsoft, concerned about the highly publicized boardroom drama that was rocking the startup, declined.
  • OpenAI recently raised $6.6 billion at a $157 billion valuation. The firm expects to lose around $5 billion this year, and it expects its expenses to skyrocket over the next few years before finally turning a profit in 2029.
  • According to the Times, tensions have been steadily mounting between the two companies over issues of compute and tech-sharing; at the same time, OpenAI, focused on securing more computing power and reducing its enormous expense sheet, has been working for the past year to renegotiate the terms of its partnership with the tech giant.
Microsoft, meanwhile, has been expanding its portfolio of AI startups, recently bringing the bulk of the Inflection team on board in a $650 million deal.
Now, the terms of OpenAI’s latest funding round were somewhat unusual. The investment was predicated on an assurance that OpenAI would transition into a fully for-profit corporation. If the company has not done so within two years, investors can ask for their money back.
According to the Wall Street Journal, an element of the ongoing negotiation between OpenAI and Microsoft has to do with this restructuring, specifically, how Microsoft’s $14 billion investment will transfer into equity in the soon-to-be for-profit company.
  • According to the Journal, both firms have hired investment banks to help advise them on the negotiations; Microsoft is working with Morgan Stanley and OpenAI is working with Goldman Sachs.
  • Amid a number of wrinkles — the fact the OpenAI’s non-profit board will still hold equity in the new corporation; the fact that Altman will be granted equity; the risks of anti-trust scrutiny, depending on the amount of equity Microsoft receives — there is another main factor that the two parties are trying to figure out: what governance rights either company will have once the dust settles.
Here’s where things get really interesting: OpenAI isn’t a normal company. It’s mission is to build a hypothetical artificial general intelligence, a theoretical technology that is pointedly lacking in any sort of universal definition. The general idea here is that it would possess, at least, human-adjacent cognitive capabilities; some researchers don’t think it’ll ever be possible.
There’s a clause in OpenAI’s contract with Microsoft that if OpenAI achieves AGI, Microsoft gets cut off. OpenAI’s “board determines when we’ve attained AGI. Again, by AGI we mean a highly autonomous system that outperforms humans at most economically valuable work. Such a system is excluded from IP licenses and other commercial terms with Microsoft, which only apply to pre-AGI technology.”
To quote from the Times: “the clause was meant to ensure that a company like Microsoft did not misuse this machine of the future, but today, OpenAI executives see it as a path to a better contract, according to a person familiar with the company’s negotiations.”
This is a good example of why the context behind definitions matters so much when discussing anything in this field. There is a definitional problem throughout the field of AI. Many researchers dislike the term “AI” itself; it’s a misnomer — we don’t have an actual artificial intelligence.
The term “intelligence,” is itself vague and open to the interpretation of the developer in question.
And the term “AGI” is as formless as it gets. Unlike physics, for example, where gravity is a known, hard, agreed-upon concept, AGI is theoretical, hypothetical science; further, it is a theory that is bounded by resource limitations and massive limitations in understanding around human cognition, sentience, consciousness and intelligence, and how these all fit together physically.
This doesn’t erase the fact that the labs are trying hard to get there.
But what this environment could allow for is a misplaced, contextually unstable definition of AGI that OpenAI pens as a ticket either out from under Microsoft’s thumb, or as a means of negotiating the contract of Sam Altman’s dreams.
In other words, OpenAI saying it has achieved AGI, doesn’t mean that it has.
As Thomas G. Dietterich, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Oregon State University said: “I always suspected that the road to achieve AGI was through redefining it.”
Continue Reading

Trending

X