Quote:
Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois
There's another cliche that says a rising tide floats all boats. Virtually everyone in the public service in Alberta in 1993 would probably not agree that they are immune to hard times.
If you were right, everyone in public service would be stampeding to newfoundland - or even rural alberta where relatively speaking it's much more advantageous.
I'll agree that if you are rich enough, a recession is irrelevant. No one still working for a living is that rich.
|
I think you're missing the point. Sure, I will conceed in absolutes that no man is an island, but it's all about relativity. During a boom time, "everyone" does well, but some much MORE than others. So who is truly better off? Those who did better than the others, which in this case is not the health care sector. Conversely during hard times, "everyone" does poorly, but some much LESS than others. So who is better off? Those who fell minimally (if even at all), which in this case is health care. When you have separate sectors benefiting inversely, it's completely relevant to the economic cycle.
It doesn't matter what the absolute amount of dollars floating around is, it's about who has more, relative to the others. This is the essence of spending power.
And I disagree about public servants stampeding elsewhere during hard times, as there is much more to ones decision of where to live than income. Not to mention up front prohibitive factors such as moving costs/loss of family proximity...etc
________
THE CIGAR BOSS