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. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All
I'm not aware of which policies you are referring to when you assert they were responsible for full employment for three decades.

"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?"

Not necessarily. Only that this would have presented a challenge to the labour market in those times. Increased supply (employees) in a market (for labour) combined with minimum prices (awards, the minimum wage etc) usually means a shortfall in demand.

"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 think you misunderstand the author of the article when you write this. In the short term, there is a trade-off between unemployment and inflation which is widely recognised by economists. In the longer term, the Non Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment can be lowered, as it was under the Howard government, through a combination of policies such as work for the dole, labour market liberalisation, increasing job seeking requirements for those on welfare benefits, and other policies which increase the economy's productive capacity.

Even though you disagree with the author, you must agree that increasing the capacity of the economy is a good thing, as that's the source of long term economic growth.
Posted by AJFA, Saturday, 12 September 2009 8:40:33 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
You were apparently unaware of a long period of near full employment as well but you don't seem to have had any trouble finding out that this was a fact although you somehow missed the fact that it existed for much longer than just the 1960's - around 20 years longer in fact - and seem to have decided to dismiss all this as lucky chance, despite the fact that there is no other comparable period in our history.

The "wage overhang" is interesting. Since the end of the Keynsian period in this country, the total wage share as a % of GDP has trended dramatically downward, from roughly 62% to 52%. And yet unemployment has not fallen to anywhere near the very low levels of the last period.

I have not misunderstood the authors intent. He is in reality a mouthpiece for the business lobby and therefore opposed to the notion of full employment or anything else that would increase worker bargaining power. He would not be doing his job if he were not.

But the simple facts are that history proves that we certainly can have true full (or at least near-full) employment and economic stability at the same time. It is also clear that there are vested interests that oppose it.
Posted by Fozz, Saturday, 12 September 2009 3:28:27 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

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