A good article. Youth unemployment is at 17.2 per cent and climbing. Age discrimination (both young and old) is stalking recruitment companies. Working one daya week is not employment when one wants to work fulltime is a shocker.

Fulltime jobs are falling as the workforce, especially the service industry, goes casual and part time.

The real shocker is under employment. We have tens of thousands of people who want to work more but can't becuase there are no jobs, especially in the so called priority employment areas.

Currently there is 24,965 jobs available in AU.
ACT 565
NSW 9072
VIC 4922
QLD 5483
SA 1769
TAS 232
NT 445
WA 2477
As of 21.02.12
These are just the advertised jobs.

I guess it depends on how you look at it. 'Twas ever thus with statistics, regardless of who is wielding them, and this article is... just another way of looking at it.

Is the number of people employed - 11.464 million, according to the ABS - more significant or less significant than the number of unemployed? After all, that is just over half the entire population, indicating that there is a substantial number of dual-income households.

Is that a good thing, or a bad thing? Surely, it depends on your point of view.

I know a lot of good folk who bemoan, constantly, that it is impossible to survive without a second income, so surely it would be a positive signal if the total number of people employed came down?

Not necessarily, I hear you cry.

Well, exactly.

The most reliable indicator of the badness of unemployment in Australia, I would have thought, is the number of people who rely upon the State, through unemployment benefit, for their weekly income. This is a drain on the taxpayer, and a painful budget item for the Treasurer to have to deal with.

The writer seems adept at shape-shifting too, changing his own definition of "unemployed" as it suits his argument. This is typical of the fancy footwork:

"...the official statistics hid a huge number of people who would actually like to be working"

Sure, that's a relevant number, possibly indicating a massive waste of valuable resources. But it could also cover people who "want to work", but live in an area that has no work available. I hear that a number of rapidly-growing companies in the West are actually flying people in from overseas to fill their vacancies - how are these measured, in the unemployment statistics?

And...

"...those who have long ago become disenchanted with the process of looking for a job as well as those only passively looking because they are growing frustrated with each passing day."

These are presumably classified as unemployed, so why identify them separately?

Statistics are fully manipulable, in whatever direction you wish to take them.

So what else is new? It's been this way for many years.

All it takes to be employed is that you undertook at least 1 hours work in the previous week, and that doesn't even mean paid work.

For example, if you tell Centrelink that you helped the old lady next door weed her garden and it took at least an hour, you're classed as "employed".

The real social villain is Under-Employment.

During the "Howard Miracle Years" the workforce was so deeply casualised (second only to Spain globally) that it hid the real impact of so-called employer flexibility.

As I once read - an immigrant wrote home saying "come to Australia. There are plenty of jobs here. I have three myself!"

Beneath the paranoid rhetoric this article makes some reasonable points. But as Pericles says, none of this is new. Indeed far from being co-conspirators in a plot to downplay unemployment, the ABS iproduces estimates of under employment, levels of attachment to the workforce etc.

Cheryl

Youth unemployment has always been higher than adult unemployment in Australia and most other countries, for good reasons. Young people are likely to be entering the workforce for the first time, and not all have jobs lined up before leaving school. They switch jobs more often than adults. Most (about 70%, in Australia) are in full-time education.

Of Australia’s average youth unemployment of 134,000 in 2011, almost half (64,000) were in full-time education looking for part-time jobs. Just 4.2% of all 15-19 year olds were looking for full-time work.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6202.0Jan%202012?OpenDocument

Cheryl and 579
According to the ANZ there was an average of 191,423 jobs a week advertised in Australia in January

http://www.media.anz.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=248677&p=irol-jobad&nyo=

The job figures i had must be for a specific job.
The latest figures for feb; are 179,970 job vacancies as of 16.02.12

Hi Jonathan,

Just a bit of background.

We are selling assets, borrowing and allowing massive environmental damage to occur with mining.......all because Australia is panicking for income to support our growing population's appetite for infrastructure and jobs.

Our manufacturing is collapsing, our World rankings of our universities and school leavers academic standards, are falling.

As Paul Keating said, " population growth will lead to unemployment, if you don't grow the economy ". The opposite is also true, that you can have full employment if you don't grow the economy........if you stabilise population growth.

Denmark with a basically stable population of 5 million , export all over the world. How ? Because they invest in education, technology and efficient, high end capital intensive manufacturing.

Australia can't, because we invest in more people.........which is an investment in more pollution.

The billions spent on growth infrastructure and services, must be spent alternatively on education, health and emerging technology.

Forget "bank" and Business Council economists pushing for more population growth.........this is the last thing we need.

Stabilisation designs out unemployment and underemployment.

(happy to chat further, if you have any queries)

Cheers,

Ralph

rpbennett@optusnet.com.au

Denmark, Ralph Bennett?

>>you can have full employment if you don't grow the economy........if you stabilise population growth. Denmark with a basically stable population of 5 million , export all over the world<<

The bit about a stable population is true - they are growing steadily at about 0.25% a year. But it has no impact on unemployment at all.

http://www.indexmundi.com/denmark/unemployment_rate.html

http://www.indexmundi.com/denmark/population.html

If you look at the graphs, you can see that there is no correlation whatsoever between population and unemployment.

So that argument goes straight out of the window.

It is also hardly realistic to compare us with a tiny country that has a population only a quarter larger than that of Sydney, a land mass a twentieth of that of NSW (and 0.55% the size of Australia), one that has no raw materials in the ground, and has the highest personal tax rates in the known universe.

>>Stabilisation designs out unemployment and underemployment. (happy to chat further, if you have any queries)<<

Ok. How about you begin with a more convincing example?

Pericles, so are yo suggesting that 5.1% is the real unemployment number?

Another stat that rarely gets a mention is that just over 42% of those employed, actually pay less tax than they claim back in welfare.

So, when you do the math, this means 48%, not only pay the bills, but they also pick up the slack.

Now as for no work where you live, then move.

Of cause they can stay put, but shouldn't expect to be cared for in their lifestyle choice.

labor says they have created some 700,000 new jobs.

Can anyone tell us how many have also been lost.

Butch you have another conspiracy. You obviously would not have to create jobs if it was not for unemployment.
The less tax more welfare has gone back many years, there are a lot of people out there that are being under payd, and with child support, you have what you said.

rehctub

Can you provide a source for your data on tax and benefits?

“labor says they have created some 700,000 new jobs.”

This number is net – the excess of additional jobs over jobs lost. When Labor was elected in October 2007 Australian employment was 10,668,000; in January 2012 it was 11,449,000.

Whether Labor deserves credit for “creating” those jobs is another matter. Annual average employment growth is the past four years has been 1.6%, which is significantly below the average of 3.0% in the previous four years. But then, Labor came to power shortly before the global financial crisis, and compared to most other developed economies our economic and employment record since then has been very good.

It all depends on how you want to spin the numbers, I guess.

There are many factors that caused the casualization of our workforce.

The main one being, unfair dismissal, followed by extended trading hours, both of which have reeked havoc throughout the small retail sector.

Employers nm longer trust governments so full time employment is a thing of the past, to the point where many positions are now on a contract basis.

What a crying shame I say.

Also, one of the reasons for under employment, is that the system is geared in such a way that if a casual works a regular 38 hours, even though they have been paid at casual rates, they can claim thatbthey are employed on a permeant basis, so the only way for employers to have the flexibility they need, is to employ more people for less hours.

You can thank the smarty lawyers and employees who sued the bosses for that one.

If only people realized that for every action, there is a reaction.

I am afraid it is both labor and former, greedy employees that are to blame for under employment.

All because governments can't leave well enough alone.

Hi Pericles,

>>Stabilisation designs out unemployment and underemployment. (happy to chat further, if you have any queries)<<

Ok. How about you begin with a more convincing example?

Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 23 February 2012 8:29:24 AM

Pericles,
it's good to test this assumption. Stabilisation leads to labour becoming more scarce.

With scarcity ( as in any commodity ) labour becomes more valuable, treasured as a resource suddenly, there is money for re-training and with labour worth something, it finally gives an incentive to get of the dole or disability pension.

Cheers,

Ralph

A fascinating theory, Ralph Bennett.

>>Pericles, it's good to test this assumption. Stabilisation leads to labour becoming more scarce. With scarcity ( as in any commodity ) labour becomes more valuable, treasured as a resource suddenly, there is money for re-training and with labour worth something, it finally gives an incentive to get of the dole or disability pension.<<

Let me see if I am following this.

Labour becomes more scarce, and therefore more expensive. So naturally, the cost of living will rise inexorably, as the cost of employment increases, leading to even higher prices, leading to... galloping inflation?

In which case, where does the "money for re-training" magically appear from?

It would appear that you are concentrating on one half of the equation - the fact that your labour would be more valuable - and completely ignoring the other, which is that someone actually has to be in a position to pay those higher costs.

There would, without doubt, be a major "incentive to get of the dole or disability pension", given the soaring cost of living.

Sadly, there'd be precious little opportunity to do so.

Incidentally, do you in fact have an illustration of your earlier theory - "you can have full employment if you don't grow the economy........if you stabilise population growth", apart from Denmark?

The best way to get the disabled into the work force, is by full time subsidizing of wages.

I have not employed anyone with a disability for many years now, however when I did, I as entitled to 26 weeks subsidy at something like 30%, then, I was expected to pay full rates.

This will never work, ever!

Many of these disabled people would love to work, some actually do and they are real heroes in my opinion.

There was a lady at the local check out in a wheel chair and I used to wait for her as often as possible as although I never said anything to her, I thought she was a real trooper.

Hi Pericles,

"Let me see if I am following this.

Labour becomes more scarce, and therefore more expensive. So naturally, the cost of living will rise inexorably, as the cost of employment increases, leading to even higher prices, leading to... galloping inflation?

In which case, where does the "money for re-training" magically appear from?"

Stabilisation is a fascinating design. For example, inflation of wages will mean less service industry jobs.....lawn mowing people etc but there will be a decrease in housing costs, electricity, water etc . The retraining money comes from the money we would have spent on growth infrastructure . For example, instead of spending 3 billion dollars on upgrading the Pacific highway because of congestion, we could have spent that money on emerging technologies and retraining.

"It would appear that you are concentrating on one half of the equation - the fact that your labour would be more valuable - and completely ignoring the other, which is that someone actually has to be in a position to pay those higher costs."

We don't want the working poor in Australia. High wages can be acheived by investment in productive, export orientated activity. Investment in more people is an investment in more pollution and increases imports.

"Incidentally, do you in fact have an illustration of your earlier theory - "you can have full employment if you don't grow the economy........if you stabilise population growth", apart from Denmark?"

All the smart countries have basically stable populations.Try Switzerland and Norway. You can't look after the environment and increase the number of our species.

With all the Green rantings that consumption is the issue; the level of per capita consumption is increasing. It is a tragedy that The Greens are pro open borders , trashing our environment and doing the heavy lifting for big business to promote endless growth, in a finite world.

Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 23 February 2012 10:01:19 PM