I understand your sentiment. I actually am quite concerned about the loss of jobs in particular segments. I would put this in a really long historical context, and then I'll come back to your specific point.
A hundred years ago, probably 75% to 80% of the Quebec economy was in agriculture. It was a rural economy. It was agriculture-based. Today, it's probably less than 1%. So you have to understand, I guess, economic transformation over a long period of time. Manufacturing at one point was probably a third of our economy; now it's about 12% to 13%. There is constant evolution. Part of the reason rich countries got rich and have stayed rich is that they have been able to adapt on an ongoing basis. We spend money on education. We go back and learn other languages. We learn mathematics. We learn skills that can be sold in the marketplace. That's the context I start from.
To the specific point about job loss, I am actually quite concerned about the huge spread of employment that exists in the service economy. You have everything from what I call McJobs, with people working for minimum wage turning over burgers or doing fairly minimal service things—and we all rely on those services, and for our 16-year-old kids, that's a great place to enter the workforce—all the way up to investment bankers, who are making $3 million, $5 million, $8 million, and $15 million a year.
So one of the challenges we're facing in the sort of pre-industrial age is that we have people who are often unionized making very good money in manufacturing. Those jobs are disappearing, because the firms figure out that if they don't transform, someone else is going to, and they will lose their market share regardless. The challenge is how you actually help people transition over a lifetime from entry-level job to building the skills so that one day they can dream to be management consultants making $300 an hour.