Alberta is where the work is

[on-hold]

April and May are the months when you are sick of winter, but instead of a nice prolonged spring there is instead a muddy season when the snow melts and it stays about 1-5 degrees above freezing. Wind howls in from the West and picks up giant clouds of all the sand that was dumped on the roads over the last 6 months. It still freezes and snows every other week or so; no grass grows, and Easter is a foul, bitter, holiday spent in a mall. Then in mid-May there is about a week of spring, everyone plants their garden, and one week later it's hot and muggy and huge swarms of starving mosquitoes fill the air.

There's no 'advantage' to looking for a job here -- it's just the difference between looking for work in a place with good employment, and a place with stagnant employment. Of course, Alberta has traditionally gone through booms and busts, and you don't want to be here if it turns into the latter. During a bust everyone hunkers down and the people who are busted are the ones who, for whatever reason, have unstable or seasonal employment.

 

[david1697]

That's what I consider to be an advantage: looking for an employment where employment is good.

Btw,let me clarify, just because employment is good (in my opinion) it doesn't mean chances to be employed are good as well.

We have some places in US where employment is supposedly "good" (lots and lots of jobs advertised), but job market sucks , because for each vacancy there are literally dozens of or hundreds of people applying. Place gets a Nationwide coverage (CNN News: "This is top 10 employment place in US, hurray!") , and next thing you know half of the US is there desperately looking for a job. No one thinks of inevitable fall of wages and scarcity that will result if EVERYONE goes to where the jobs are.

So I am thinking that may be due to "bad" climate of Alberta fewer people decide to move there,and if so then there would be less of workforce available, thus less competition among the labor force. This would be a great thing if it was true. I could be wrong of course and it could be that too many people from all over Canada move to Alberta despite "bad" climate, thus there is no advantage at all in terms of labor force competition. In which case there would be no reason of moving to look for a job in Alberta vs elsewhere with number of jobs hiring. I could as well do the same in Ontario where I don't have to survive over extended winter and a muddy spring.

But whatever it is, this forum is a gold, I should have frequented it and kept reading it since we landed in CA.
I also monitor RFD (as recommended by mrbeachman), and see what's going on in job market around Canada.
Soon we will have to make a tough choice, to move or not to move and give up PR.
Hopefully these forums will help us to make the right decision and look in right places to live and work if we ultimately decide to move.

 

[Jinuvik]

Yeah that s right.

One thing to remember about southern Alberta. It barely rains, it is way more sunny than Ontario et the cold is dry not wet so it is much nicer.

Oil price may be falling but the province has no debt and is able to face a major break down in the oil price.

 

[on-hold]

That's what I consider to be an advantage: looking for an employment where employment is good.

Btw,let me clarify, just because employment is good (in my opinion) it doesn't mean chances to be employed are good as well.

We have some places in US where employment is supposedly "good" (lots and lots of jobs advertised), but job market sucks , because for each vacancy there are literally dozens of or hundreds of people applying. Place gets a Nationwide coverage (CNN News: "This is top 10 employment place in US, hurray!") , and next thing you know half of the US is there desperately looking for a job. No one thinks of inevitable fall of wages and scarcity that will result if EVERYONE goes to where the jobs are.

So I am thinking that may be due to "bad" climate of Alberta fewer people decide to move there,and if so then there would be less of workforce available, thus less competition among the labor force. This would be a great thing if it was true. I could be wrong of course and it could be that too many people from all over Canada move to Alberta despite "bad" climate, thus there is no advantage at all in terms of labor force competition. In which case there would be no reason of moving to look for a job in Alberta vs elsewhere with number of jobs hiring. I could as well do the same in Ontario where I don't have to survive over extended winter and a muddy spring.

But whatever it is, this forum is a gold, I should have frequented it and kept reading it since we landed in CA.
I also monitor RFD (as recommended by mrbeachman), and see what's going on in job market around Canada.
Soon we will have to make a tough choice, to move or not to move and give up PR.
Hopefully these forums will help us to make the right decision and look in right places to live and work if we ultimately decide to move.

You're thinking yourself into knots. The job market is good in Alberta, its economy is the best in Canada, and people are moving here because there are jobs. What is this gibberish about places where the job market is good but there are hundreds of job applicants for every job? That makes as much sense as saying you love shopping in Moscow, it's got a lot of great stuff to buy but the aisles are full of people and the shelves are empty.

Canada has places where the job market is good: Alberta, SK, maybe NWT
Canada has places where the job market is not so good: Toronto, Vancouver, MB
Canada has places where the job market is awful: everything else

As you go down the list, it gets harder to find a job. That's the extent of the analysis you need. If you work in a particular industry and are determined to do that in Canada too, then that affects the calculation. Since you have the ability to convince yourself that what you want to do is the best course, why don't you just go where you want to live and see if you find a job there?

 

[david1697]

First, what I stated is not a gibberish.

Where I live now we ALWAYS had lots of job. As far as I can remember there were J-O-B-S where I am now. There were always A LOT of jobs where I am now.

BUT!

Job market has changed here DRASTICALLY since 2008.

It's EXTREMELY DIFFICULT to land a job here NOW.

There are still JOBS, a LOT of jobs, perhaps even MORE JOBS here now than there were in 2008 or anytime before.

So, WHY had it become SO DIFFICULT to land a job here, when there are SO MANY JOBS?

ANSWER: Because, after post 2007 collapse people all around the country got a word that this place is where the jobs are.
And NIGHTMARE happened: now HALF THE USA IS HERE ,desperately looking for a job.

Jobs are still here, but your ability to land one in a short run plummeted from 100% to near ZERO.
In the long run, if you are very persistent (as many of us learned to be), you do get a job, but not the one you would get 6 years ago and with real wages LOWER today than they were a decade ago (all because of such a huge mindless influx of desperate job seekers from all over the US who also bring real wages down).

It is not in my plans to go anywhere where such a job market condition exists. I would rather go to a place with so-so job market but with less labor force to compete with, than go to a place where there are a lot of jobs but also 100 times more candidates for each vacancy open.
I hope Alberta is not the latter and that's what I was referring to in my earlier post.

Regarding the second part of your question, why I just don't jump into a river but contemplate instead on how to swim and where I can get a boat first.

The answer is simple: I am not a college kid, times when adrenaline rush from adventures was keeping me happy, even when I had no idea where I would stay next night with my stomach running empty are over. I am mature now. I don't have parents house I can fall to if things get real tough. But I have family of my own for which I carry full responsibility.I have kids that I want to give the best opportunity they can get. It's not just me anymore.
And I don't want to play around with that.

20 years ago what would I care? Few of you would have taken risks and would have dared to do things I did when I was very young.
But today, it's plain silly and stupid for me to do things I would do as a youth. Different age, different perspective, different priorities.
I don't want to just go anywhere and then start to figure out what am I going to do next.
I would prefer to prepare carefully, get all the facts straight and make sure the move is overall beneficial to our family (even if not to me personally), or not move at all.

 

[on-hold]

Awesome, your choice is easy then. Alberta is one of those nasty places where there are lots of jobs and people come to do them -- so you want to go to the places where those people came from, like New Brunswick. There are probably about 100-200 jobs in the entire province, and most of the able-bodied people have already moved out West, so you'll only have to compete with a few broken-down old coots.

 

[david1697]

Wrong answer.

If I was to take your advise literally and applied to US, you are suggesting me to go to West Virginia (or some other , similar part of US), where economy is really depressed and young people run out from in droves.

But why do that when we have places in US, like Mid West, where you can find a decent job rather quickly, where job market is doing good (not as many jobs as where I am now, but also a lot less labor force competition because not many people want to go to Mid West, for whatever reason)? Now that would be a right place to point me if I was to stay in US and not move to Canada. In fact, that's where I will go if we don't move to Canada.

Notice that I didn't say I want to go to where economy is depressed, I said if I had a choice to go to someplace like where I am now (lots of jobs but also way too many desperate job seekers for each open vacancy), OR to a place where so-so job market exists (not depressed,rather doing ok but not super awesome ), but with lesser labor force competition, I would prefer latter. Of course, the best place to be would be where I am now but before 2008, when there were nearly as many jobs as now but a lot less labor competition. But those times are gone and I don't know if equivalent place exists in Canada today.

Overall, it all depends on variables and what is available now.

 

[on-hold]

I'm going to explain something that will hopefully make your choice simpler and save your family a lot of trouble.

When people talk about 'jobs' or 'lots of jobs' or 'no jobs' they are talking about a RATE. The rate is the number of jobs divided by the number of people looking for them. This means that the number of people looking for a job is ALREADY FACTORED INTO the most commonly used figure, unemployment. 'Unemployment' is the only figure you are going to get (no one is going to tell you, 'there are 500 jobs in Saskatoon') -- and that means that an unemployment figure of 4% for Edmonton and 4% for Prince George indicates your level of competition (# of people looking for each job) is EXACTLY THE SAME, regardless of population. If the unemployment rate is 8% in Prince George it means that there are twice as many people looking for each job; they are your competition. The population of the city does not matter.

What I wrote about New Brunswick was obviously a joke -- the fact that you took it seriously, and the fact that you don't understand the difference between numbers and rates, suggests that instead of doing research, you need to figure out how things are measured, first. If you don't understand that, all the research in the world is just going to get you into a muddle.

Or let me put it another way. When Canadians need jobs, they come to Alberta. Do you know something they don't?

 

[david1697]

I'm going to explain something that will hopefully make your choice simpler and save your family a lot of trouble.

When people talk about 'jobs' or 'lots of jobs' or 'no jobs' they are talking about a RATE. The rate is the number of jobs divided by the number of people looking for them. This means that the number of people looking for a job is ALREADY FACTORED INTO the most commonly used figure, unemployment. 'Unemployment' is the only figure you are going to get (no one is going to tell you, 'there are 500 jobs in Saskatoon') -- and that means that an unemployment figure of 4% for Edmonton and 4% for Prince George indicates your level of competition (# of people looking for each job) is EXACTLY THE SAME, regardless of population. If the unemployment rate is 8% in Prince George it means that there are twice as many people looking for each job; they are your competition. The population of the city does not matter.

What I wrote about New Brunswick was obviously a joke -- the fact that you took it seriously, and the fact that you don't understand the difference between numbers and rates, suggests that instead of doing research, you need to figure out how things are measured, first. If you don't understand that, all the research in the world is just going to get you into a muddle.

Or let me put it another way. When Canadians need jobs, they come to Alberta. Do you know something they don't?

I intentionally avoided reference to Unemployment Rate. Part of the problem with Unemployment statistics is that it throws out of the pool people who are jobless, after the passage of certain period of time. It counts only those who are actively looking for a job and who receive unemployment benefits or such, it doesn't count those who fell off the radar for being unemployed for too long (X months or longer). It also doesn't count those who are underemployed (work part time , though want to work full time, or earn minimum wages or wages that are too low in comparison to cost of living).

Therefore, Unemployment Rate you refer to is not exactly useless data,note that I don't suggest that, but it can be misleading to a degree that makes the use of it impractical in certain cases.

Case in point, we have a LOW UNEMPLOYMENT RATE where I am located now . It's also LOW in Mid West, but there is a huge difference in terms of real rate of unemployment , and also in terms of real wages and standard of living. Family of four earning middle income by standards of Mid West can afford to buy a single brand new house, in a nice neighborhood . The same family in a similar income bracket (adjusted regionally, so in numbers at least higher than in Mid West) living where I live now pays more than the cost of a mortgage of a house in Mid West while not able to afford anything bigger than one or two bedroom condo. House is a luxury here (as opposed to Mid West), with many properties fetching for $700K-$800K or more. That's rather a high cost of real estate by US standards. And jobs are very hard to come by. All the while we have LOW UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, one of the lowest in Nation.

As you can see there is more to it than Unemployment Rate. I gather that you are a young fine man with may be somewhat limited experience of real life out there , so you may rely and overestimate what you know , and not realize how much you don't know and what it is that you don't know.

In any event, I wish you lots of luck and happy life ahead of you. Thank you for sharing your views, it's very much appreciated.

Best regards.

 

[on-hold]

So you want a job, but you don't want to use the figure that measures exactly how much competition there is for someone looking for a job? The figure that excludes the people not looking for jobs, or who have fallen off the radar? The unemployment rate? Got it! Your experiences in life have really honed your analytical skills.

Again, when Canadians want a job, they come to Alberta. Alberta has the lowest unemployment rate in Canada and the highest per capita income. It takes real brains, plus real experience, to ignore those facts. You're one of a kind!

 

[david1697]

So you want a job, but you don't want to use the figure that measures exactly how much competition there is for someone looking for a job? The figure that excludes the people not looking for jobs, or who have fallen off the radar? The unemployment rate? Got it! Your experiences in life have really honed your analytical skills.

Again, when Canadians want a job, they come to Alberta. Alberta has the lowest unemployment rate in Canada and the highest per capita income. It takes real brains, plus real experience, to ignore those facts. You're one of a kind!

I didn't say that. Above is your interpretation, which stems from I don't know exactly what, but it doesn't reflect what I stated.

People who statistically "fell off" of what considered "actively looking for a job" do not just procrastinate out there, many in fact look actively for jobs, but aren't counted as such. Also, those who work lower wages , who are underemployed , work part-time etc. , many of those are constantly looking for a better job ( I know an Engineer who currently works in used car dealership, you can bet he is looking for any job that's better than selling used cars; and there are many more who have professional degrees but work in positions that can be filled by high school dropouts, you bet they actively look for better jobs as well, but none counted as "unemployed". And there are still others in "hidden unemployment" category that add to competition in labor force).

So, what good does it do to me that there are many jobs here and unemployment rate is low, when you consider factors mentioned above?
And why would I want to go to a next place which has similar job market, just because unemployment rate there is low as well?

You sound somewhat confrontational >>>("..What is this gibberish", "it takes real brains... to ignore facts... you are one of a kind!" ., "..if you don't understand that...")<<< those are your words , and it may be due to some unresolved issues you may have with yourself and may not be aware of, but whatever it is I certainly do not want to take part in it.

So, good luck to you and all the best.

 

[Katayoon]

Job market nowadays is depending mostly on luck. Whether you will get a job depends on the person who interviews you (specifically, his belief in your potential to succeed) and on who competes against you that day. You can get a job in the most awful job market and you can as well spend one year with no interviews in the most booming market. The best way to inrease your chance to get a job is to increase the geographic span of your applications, keep applying all around the country and wait for that one man/woman who will decide to give you a chance.

 

[Jinuvik]

Maybe we could help more if we knew what was your profession.

One of my best buddy works in the 3d game design industry. He would never moved to Alberta, he is located in Montreal, he found a job in a week and currently earn 85k/year compare to 45k/year in his home country (France).

Alberta is great for trade/engineering/surveying/horse&farm job. It is not great for everything. There is a high competition for labour work and other white collar work.

 

[fdk511]

Wrong answer.

If I was to take your advise literally and applied to US, you are suggesting me to go to West Virginia (or some other , similar part of US), where economy is really depressed and young people run out from in droves.

But why do that when we have places in US, like Mid West, where you can find a decent job rather quickly, where job market is doing good (not as many jobs as where I am now, but also a lot less labor force competition because not many people want to go to Mid West, for whatever reason)? Now that would be a right place to point me if I was to stay in US and not move to Canada. In fact, that's where I will go if we don't move to Canada.

Notice that I didn't say I want to go to where economy is depressed, I said if I had a choice to go to someplace like where I am now (lots of jobs but also way too many desperate job seekers for each open vacancy), OR to a place where so-so job market exists (not depressed,rather doing ok but not super awesome ), but with lesser labor force competition, I would prefer latter. Of course, the best place to be would be where I am now but before 2008, when there were nearly as many jobs as now but a lot less labor competition. But those times are gone and I don't know if equivalent place exists in Canada today.

Overall, it all depends on variables and what is available now.

To provide a different perspective, relevant jobs is a more appropriate descriptor for what you are going for. Chemical engineers like myself, for example, can probably find a job in Toronto or Vancouver or Montreal. But the options will be severely limited in scope, salary and growth opportunities. If you are a trades-person, why wouldn't you move to Alberta (current situation notwithstanding)?

So as far as I am concerned, if an area of the country has a ton of jobs, but I don't qualify for a majority of them, then it will probably not factor in my research.

I am with you btw, on not moving or taking chances when I have a family to support. In fact I did not move immediately after landing either, but only once I had secured a job, which was in Manitoba - not a province one would associate with chemical/process engineering. I accepted the offer not based on variables of unemployment in Manitoba, or if there were opportunities to buy a brand new single home. I accepted the offer because it paid well, had good benefits and I was able to land it before moving permanently.

Frankly, based on your posts elsewhere, you will have to make a decision sooner rather than later because time might be running out for you soon. And as others have noted, it is hard to provide help on these forums without knowing your profession. And the reason to ask is simple: is your profession regulated? Because if it is, then there is a whole process you have to follow to get yourself registered with the appropriate regulatory body.

If your profession is NOT regulated (for instance, office support staff), then there might be a lot more competition and you will really have to stand out from the crowd.

And yes, there are always variables. It is good to consider variables when you are starting on the journey of becoming a Canadian. But the window of eligibility to maintain PR status is now shrinking.

 

[david1697]

To provide a different perspective, relevant jobs is a more appropriate descriptor for what you are going for. Chemical engineers like myself, for example, can probably find a job in Toronto or Vancouver or Montreal. But the options will be severely limited in scope, salary and growth opportunities. If you are a trades-person, why wouldn't you move to Alberta (current situation notwithstanding)?

So as far as I am concerned, if an area of the country has a ton of jobs, but I don't qualify for a majority of them, then it will probably not factor in my research.

I am with you btw, on not moving or taking chances when I have a family to support. In fact I did not move immediately after landing either, but only once I had secured a job, which was in Manitoba - not a province one would associate with chemical/process engineering. I accepted the offer not based on variables of unemployment in Manitoba, or if there were opportunities to buy a brand new single home. I accepted the offer because it paid well, had good benefits and I was able to land it before moving permanently.

Frankly, based on your posts elsewhere, you will have to make a decision sooner rather than later because time might be running out for you soon. And as others have noted, it is hard to provide help on these forums without knowing your profession. And the reason to ask is simple: is your profession regulated? Because if it is, then there is a whole process you have to follow to get yourself registered with the appropriate regulatory body.

If your profession is NOT regulated (for instance, office support staff), then there might be a lot more competition and you will really have to stand out from the crowd.

And yes, there are always variables. It is good to consider variables when you are starting on the journey of becoming a Canadian. But the window of eligibility to maintain PR status is now shrinking.

Dear fdk511,

Conditions on the grounds are more delicate and less precise than news reports, sound bites and "quick assessments" make it appear.
It's not just about jobs or you qualifying for them (at least one of us has a specialty occupation that is in shortage in Canada, according to NOC and FSW guidelines), there are additional factors that play role on the actual outcome in the real world situations observed.

I have tried to explain, as clearly as possible, the reason why I would not want to move to a place which has job market similar to what we have where I am now. I do not think it would be a good idea to repeat myself once again.

I am fully aware of RO, unfortunately it's something totally out of our control. Whether we like it or not, we can either move and retain our Canadian PR or not move and have it taken from us next time we go to Canada.

I am gathering as much knowledge as possible and ultimately what we decide will depend on what options we have in the end.

Best regards!