The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Turning down the economic turbo boost > Comments

Turning down the economic turbo boost : Comments

By Corin McCarthy, published 9/9/2009

Wayne Swan's policies have us heading for the sub-optimal result of more inflation, higher interest rates and lower labour utilisation.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
When a Labor minister takes advice from a neo-liberal clown like this, you know that there is no more Labor party as such.

Isn't that just a delicious concept? Non Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment - the idea that it is highly desirable that a certain percentage of the otherwise willing workforce can never find a job and is destined to languish in unemployemnt in the belief that this is an admirable approach to controlling inflation.

Strangley, the author conveniently neglects to mention that for over 30 years, we had close to REAL full employment (average of 2.5% unemployment over the period and no underemployment) and miraculously, inflation did not run away and eat everyone's babies. This would be the Keynsian period from WW2 to the early 1970's.

This is all a matter of public record people - I urge you to check it out because this jerk is simply lying by omission.

So.......2.5% average unemployment in the previous period vs 7.6% unemployment (not counting underemployment) in the current period and the author is trying to sell this as a glowing success.

With friends like this giving policy advice to the "workers party" - oh muwahahahaha - workers hardly need enemies now do they?

I would not p%ss on this bloke if he was on fire.
Posted by Fozz, Wednesday, 9 September 2009 9:24:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Typical rightwing capitalist spiv. Thinks unemployment is just a number not real people suffering in poverty.

<<According to Treasury figures, labour utilisation rates rose nearly nine per cent from 1978 to 2006 with most of the dividend achieved through higher participation and more hours being worked, as the unemployment rate in 1978 was similar to that in 2006.>>

Yeah but who got the dividend? Certainly not the workers. Made to work harder and longer so the boss makes bigger profits. How very 19th century.

If it wasnt for capitalisms vile need to have an underclass of the unemployed to keep employees disciplined there could be full employment and less, as you put it "labour under-utilisation".

Get your head out of your economic holy books (and out of your arse) and listen to what real people want which is not your mumbo jumbo jargon and "flexibility" of minimum wage slaves but less fat cats making billions off the sweat of their employees and their "falling real wages". All your talk of "hard won gains" is just a poke in the eye for all the workers that suffered the restructuring and pain of the last few decades only to see your "hard won gains" flow inexorably to the top end of town and never to those who slaved to produce them.
Posted by mikk, Thursday, 10 September 2009 12:05:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An excellent article which is grounded in economic reality, unlike some of the hysterical comments which have followed it.

Take this one for example:

"Yeah but who got the dividend? Certainly not the workers. Made to work harder and longer so the boss makes bigger profits. How very 19th century."

That's incorrect. While profits rose, so did wages, in real terms., Furthermore, lower unemployment means that more people within the workforce have jobs which give them a solid income and hence a better standards of living.

"So.......2.5% average unemployment in the previous period vs 7.6% unemployment (not counting underemployment) in the current period"

The last I heard, unemployment was just over 5%. That's a lot lower than it was throughout the 1980's and 1990's. This figure of 5% is a miracle considering the GFC and its negative effects on the economy.

Its about the facts people. Over regulation lowers the economy's productive capacity, which means higher inflation, higher unemployment and lower wages growth
Posted by AJFA, Thursday, 10 September 2009 8:08:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is indeed about facts AJFA.

And the facts are that unemployment over the Keynsian period AVERAGED around 2.5% while in this period that has followed, they AVERAGED around 7.6%. This is not my opinion.

It is a huge difference and one that the author has indicated that he finds desirable. He fails to mention though that although the unemployment rate was consistently below the supposed NAIRU in those decades, inflation did not run wildly and destructively away (I am aware that Friedman did not consider the NAIRU to be a permanently fixed figure. In fact, 8% was considered NAIRU at one stage. Imagine that - we need to sacrifice 8% of the workforce to the dole queue to gaurd against inflation. It has since been revised down to 5%, prompting Howard to claim that we had reached full employment. We had nothing of the sort and do not have it now).

In the current downturn, the stimulus packages have staved off what would otherwise be a significantly more serious rise in unemployment. However, UNDERemployment has risen quite sharply. Total hours worked have continued to fall as many full time jobs ahve become part time.

I think we need a third package. This one should be aimed squarely at direct job creation.

The author would not approve of the idea that everyone who wants a job should be able to get one. His veiw requires a percentage of the workforce to be sacrificial lambs.

I wonder if he would willingly apply this to himself?

Silly question really.
Posted by Fozz, Thursday, 10 September 2009 9:26:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I terms of the 1960's and low unemployment, there are explanations for this:

"The unemployment rate is influenced by a range of factors. These include the prevailing economic environment, the institutional and policy framework for the labour market, and a range of social factors such as attitudes towards desired hours of work and willingness to move locations or undertake further training in order to secure employment. "

I think what's also often not discussed is the fact that women back then tended to stay at home. Nowadays many women choose not to have children, or decide to delay having children. Further, when they do have children, they use daycare in order to get back into work. The labour market has to have more jobs per 1000 people now than it did then.

Why did it all end in the 1970s?

"The increase in the structural rate of unemployment since the mid-1970s likely reflected a range of factors. In the 1970s, poor macroeconomic policy management (especially in the face of the first oil price shock), combined with rigid institutional arrangements in the labour market and strong union influence, resulted in much higher inflation and a sharp increase in real wages relative to underlying trends in productivity. The resultant real wage ‘overhang’ resulted in a reduction in employment opportunities and rising unemployment as businesses reacted to the increased cost of labour. "

You can see the relevant Budget Paper here: http://www.budget.gov.au/2004-05/bp1/html/bst4-01.htm
Posted by AJFA, Friday, 11 September 2009 7:47:28 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJFA,

“In terms of the 1960’s and low unemployment”

As you yourself can see, very low unemployment begins well before the 60’s and continues for a time after – 1940 to around 1975. I’m sure you are not trying to deliberately play down the fact that low to very low unemployment actually lasted over three decades by summing it up as a single ten year period.

The high unemployment that plagued us for much of the first half of the 20th century ended early in WW2. The classical assumption was that governments should not and could not successfully interfere in this situation. Then out of necessity, government mobilised the country for war – unemployment simply disappeared as all available resources and labour – including that of women – was put towards supporting the war effort.

When the war ended, it was decided that if government could successfully banish unemployment by mobilising for war, then surely it could do so in peacetime. The near full employment we enjoyed for the next 30 years was not a lucky accident – it was the result of deliberate government policy. Labor PM John Curtin issued a white paper titled “Full employment in Australia” which guided economic policy for the next 30 odd years. Governments both left and right presided over near full employment during this period.

Deliberate full employment policy was abandoned in the mid 1970’s. As your own document shows, unemployment quickly rose to heights not seen since before WW2. It has NEVER fallen back to full employment policy levels again.

In fact, the current neo-liberal period much more closely resembles the period before WW2 – sharp booms and busts and entrenched unemployment.

“women tended to stay at home”

I take it you are arguing that the policies that successfully employed nearly all males would have failed simply if females had entered the labour force in larger numbers?

cont
Posted by Fozz, Saturday, 12 September 2009 7:50:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy