Driving around for work – interesting stuff

One of the more interesting data sets from the 2011 National Household Survey is the commuting data.  It compares where people work to where they live and you get some very interesting trends.  Take the example of Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe.  These may be three separate political entities but they are highly integrated from an economic and workforce perspective.

More people are working in Dieppe who live in Moncton than those who live in Dieppe itself.   But that balances itself out because almost twice as many Dieppenamese work in Moncton than actually work in Dieppe.

Even Riverview, ships over 610 people every day to feed the labour market needs in Dieppe.  While only 195 Dieppenamese work in Riverview, nearly 1,200 Monctonians make the long commute over to Riverview every day for work (tongue firmly implanted in cheek).

Live in Riverview and work in Dieppe: 610
Live in Dieppe and work in Riverview: 195
Live in Dieppe and work in Moncton: 6,295
Live in Moncton and work in Dieppe: 3,645
Live in Dieppe and work in Dieppe: 3,525
Live in Moncton and work in Riverview: 1,195
Live in Riverview and work in Moncton: 5,600

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Driving around for work – interesting stuff

  1. It would have been interesting to see ‘Live in Moncton and work in Moncton’.

  2. peter piper says:

    Mr. Campbell,

    Just caught your article on Detroit in the TJ and, with respect I have to admit to being terribly disappointed. For possibly the only cogent columnist in the paper, I fear your columns are becoming more and more bland, certainly politically correct and factually off course.

    Your Detroit column seems to indicate that any number of reasons, depending on your point of view, could be responsible for Detroit’s demise. I disagree. As does BANKRUPTCY judge Kevyn Odd: “For years, the City has spent more than it takes in and has borrowed and deferred paying certain obligations to make ends meet. The City is insolvent.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/19/detroits-pension-problems-in-one-chart/

    “— Detroit is sagging under decades of bad governance. “The city’s operations have become dysfunctional and wasteful after years of budgetary restrictions, mismanagement, crippling operational practices and, in some cases, indifference or corruption,” Orr wrote in May. “Outdated policies, work practices, procedures and systems must be improved consistent with best practices of 21st-century government.” (Detroit has been a one-party city run by Democrats since 1962.)

    — Meanwhile, Detroit owes around $18.5 billion to its creditors. That includes about $6 billion in health-care and life insurance obligations, plus roughly $3.5 billion in pension costs racked up over the years. Given its ever-worsening economic slide, Detroit was in no position to pay off all its obligations.

    Over the past few months, Orr has tried to convince the city’s various creditors, including the city’s unions and pension boards, to take far less than they were owed in order to restructure the city’s finances (in some cases, pennies on the dollar). But he was unsuccessful, so now the city is filing for bankruptcy protection.”

    Sound familiar?

    And then to cavalierly (ala train safety expert Alward) state that New Brunswick (60 % illiteracy) will never become Detroit (47% illiteracy). Prescient much? We are an equalization overhaul away from losing our Welfare. To say nothing of the lousy governance etc.

    And the Auto Industry doesn’t own all the Media that matters.

    Anyway, no disrespect, but New Brunswick, like elsewhere, is in a tough spot when it it comes to dishonest, manipulative, deceitful and agenda-laden government, business and media.

    Tell me who speaks for New Brunswickers?

    And if you say politicians, I have a Dr. and a couple of long missing back back backbench bilingually concerned MLA’s that beg to differ. Along with a chuckle and lots of anecdotes.

    I believe I can factually back up all those assertions.(As he wistfully wishes it twern’t so).

    Sorry if I posted in the wrong place.

    Here’s hoping for a more politically incorrect David Campbell!

Comments are closed.