[cobran20]

Why the need to drop interest rates if the unemployment rate is so low?!!
link

Quote

AUSTRALIA'S unemployment fell to 4.9 per cent in April, official figures show.
The March figure was an unrevised 5.2 per cent.
Total employment rose 15,500 to 11.501 million in the month, according to the seasonally adjusted figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics today.
The forecast was for total employment to have fallen by 5000 in April with the unemployment rate at 5.3 per cent, according to the median of 15 market economists surveyed by AAP.

[Chimerica]

We'll that blows the theory of unemployment rising when house prices fall.

Something doesn't quite add up, RBA slashed cash rates, consumer confidence down, insolvencies on the up, non mining sector doing it tough, plenty of other negative figures have cropped up over the last week. I call it BS.

[sydney3000]

It sure is a strange setup:

- sub-5% unemployment
- substantial increase in casual and part-time labour
- deflation
- falling house prices
- rise in bankruptcies
- zero interest rate

The lesson is that small jobs don't one allow to live large.

This post has been edited by sydney3000: 10 May 2012 - 08:10 AM

[zaph]

Chimerica, on 10 May 2012 - 02:56 AM, said:

We'll that blows the theory of unemployment rising when house prices fall.

Something doesn't quite add up, RBA slashed cash rates, consumer confidence down, insolvencies on the up, non mining sector doing it tough, plenty of other negative figures have cropped up over the last week. I call it BS.

SA UE was down but trend was flat. participation rate was slightly down. with a 95% confidence interval i'd want to see at least another month of data. Growth was in part time employment with full time dropping - indicating weak outlook, but work requiring to be done now.

[tor]

sydney3000, on 10 May 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

The lesson is that small jobs don't one allow to live large.

They do if you have enough of them and, to bang about my current long term theory, ultra specialised people don't have full time jobs if they want the money. They have lots of small ones, all paying a premium for specialisation.

I am now at the point where I get 160K a year from what amounts to retainers from various companies. They pay me a small amount per week to have me read email (this amounts to maybe 10 minutes a day total) and tell them if there is a problem but what they are really paying for is the ability to call me if the sh*t really hits the fan. This is where I am focussing all my energy.

The days of having a full time job with loyalty and benefits are dying. There is bugger all loyalty left and the benefits are usually designed by committee and meaningless to me. I'd rather have the money spent on my behalf with HR departments and so on given to me to work out my own work / life balance and I think I'll plan my own retirement too.

I am seeing more and more people that need this service and asking me if I know of networking / security / phone system / just about every other operations type role people doing the same as me. Small businesses can't afford specialists full time and can't afford the overheads that large companies have to charge to cover having specialists on staff full time.

[cobran20]

Australia's jobless figures need some work

Quote

What does it take to have a job in Australia?

Turns out just 60 minutes employment in the particular week of the month that the number crunchers in Canberra are out in force are all one needs to appear in the "employed" half of the ledger.

• Why forecasting is a mug's game

Oddly enough, this statistical quirk dates back to the 1950s when full-time work was the norm, particularly if you were male.

Still, the catch-all category may go some way to explaining how Australia's unemployment rate remains around 5 per cent, in jarring contrast to the experiences of many.

Indeed, the jobless rate for April fell to a one-year low of 4.9 per cent, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported, thanks in part to a recalculation of Australia's population growth.

The surprise drop - most economists were tipping the jobless rate would rise modestly to 5.3 per cent - made the budget estimates look pessimistic and make prompt the Reserve Bank to hold off on further rate cuts until it receives more proof of a weakening economy.

And yet economists - and the hoi polloi - rightly wonder what to make of a sharp half-percentage point drop in Victoria's jobless rate to 5.3 per cent in April. That state is bearing much of the brunt of a stronger dollar over recent years that's dented manufacturers and providers of education to foreign students alike.

'Work'

The mismatch between official statistics and the reality of many Australians can be explained by the definition of “work.”

According to the ABS: “Work is taken to mean work for one hour or more during the reference week, undertaken for pay, profit, commission or payment in kind, in a job, business or farm, or without pay in a family business or farm.”

Self-employed Melbourne vehicle refitter Jim Ioannidis dismisses that definition as "absurd."

"You would think the the real rate of unemployment is at least three times the published rate," Mr Ioannidis said. "Things are definitely tough out there."

The ABS said its employees definitions used by the International Labour Organisation that were established in 1982, although the underlying measure goes back to 1954.

Economists reckon the definition of work needs an overhaul.

“One hour of work doesn't contribute much to the labour force,” said National Australia Bank economist Ali Knight.

“I think underemployment is an issue and we're probably seeing it increase over the past few years, as well," She said. "The actual headline numbers don't capture that.”

ABS data showed the seasonally adjustment underemployment rate - the share of the workforce that was working but sought more hours - was 7.3 per cent in February 2012, up 0.3 of a percentage point over the year.

Ms Knight said part-time work is becoming more the norm than full-time work, particularly as more women began entering the workforce in the 1970s. Among other things, parents now need more flexible working hours.

Still, Ms Knight says it's fair to assume that not everybody in part-time work is there by choice. Many young employees are in casual work, for instance, because that's all they could find.

If the unemployment rate is low, how come so many people are looking for full-time work?

That's been a common question over the past year, as slumping consumer confidence and high-profile lay-offs at big name employers leave people fretting about their own job security.

Only yesterday, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that the unemployment rate fell to 4.9 per cent in April, from 5.2 per cent in March. A big part of the disparity between the statistics and the reality may be answered by the fact that the definition of unemployment used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics dates back to the 1950s, when full-time work, often in manufacturing, and typically by a male head of the household, was the norm.

These days, work in service sector jobs is the norm. And more commonly many of the men and women work on a part-time or casual basis, in some cases unable to get the full-time earnings needed to pay a mortgage or other bills.

[staringclown]

Theory:

As people are feeling the gloom of full time job cuts (consumer confidence down due to job insecurity) and feel the need to pay down debt to build a buffer against job loss. The ones that may have recently lost full time work find it necessary to take on part time work to pay the debt and to stave off bankruptcy. If the part time work is there they will do it but they don't like it. This is Labors work choices.

[staringclown]

tor, on 10 May 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

They do if you have enough of them and, to bang about my current long term theory, ultra specialised people don't have full time jobs if they want the money. They have lots of small ones, all paying a premium for specialisation.

I am now at the point where I get 160K a year from what amounts to retainers from various companies. They pay me a small amount per week to have me read email (this amounts to maybe 10 minutes a day total) and tell them if there is a problem but what they are really paying for is the ability to call me if the sh*t really hits the fan. This is where I am focussing all my energy.

The days of having a full time job with loyalty and benefits are dying. There is bugger all loyalty left and the benefits are usually designed by committee and meaningless to me. I'd rather have the money spent on my behalf with HR departments and so on given to me to work out my own work / life balance and I think I'll plan my own retirement too.

I am seeing more and more people that need this service and asking me if I know of networking / security / phone system / just about every other operations type role people doing the same as me. Small businesses can't afford specialists full time and can't afford the overheads that large companies have to charge to cover having specialists on staff full time.

I think you're right tor. I also think there is increased risk with the strategy. The specialist species in nature are more prone to extinction as opposed to generalists when environmental/evolutionary pressure is applied. Specialisation has risks. You need to keep a weather eye on what's up and coming.

[sydney3000]

staringclown, on 11 May 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

Theory:

As people are feeling the gloom of full time job cuts (consumer confidence down due to job insecurity) and feel the need to pay down debt to build a buffer against job loss. The ones that may have recently lost full time work find it necessary to take on part time work to pay the debt and to stave off bankruptcy. If the part time work is there they will do it but they don't like it. This is Labors work choices.

This is correct but it fails to focus on the main ingredient. I think we are actually at full employment. It is not job losses that create the fright. It is the inability to recreate the world of pre-2007 that makes the conscience of every human freeze up his actions. The people know that they have been living a lie and they are now subconsciously waiting in line for their punishment in hope that the blade will be blunt when it is their turn on the chopping block. The people have become savers since their only prospect of survival is to pay off their executioner.

[Corydora]

5% is not full employment. I think that full employment is when unemployment levels are about 2-3%. I think that government propaganda has convinced people that 5% is normal.

A source of labour statistics, plus more, is via ABS Year Books. ABS seems to chop off older data for some reason. Some missing parts can be found in 1000 odd page year books. The following can be found page 522 of the 1960 year book. If you are suffering insomnia, you could try to read all 1332 pages and it could assist you getting to sleep. ABS Year Books

Quote

The total number of persons "unemployed" has been recorded only at the dates of the various Censuses. Prior to the 1947 Census, persons who were "unemployed" were requested to furnish particulars of the cause and duration of unemployment, but from 1947 onwards the enquiry was broadened to include all persons (usually engaged in industry, business, trade, profession or service) who were out of a job and "not at work" at the time of the Census for whatever reason, including any not normally associated with unemployment. This change in the form of the questionnaire probably resulted in some variation in response.

The following scans are from "Australians Historical Statistics", Editor: Wray Vamplew, pages 154. I believe that it is derived from Census material.

[sydney3000]

Corydora, on 11 May 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

5% is not full employment. I think that full employment is when unemployment levels are about 2-3%. I think that government propaganda has convinced people that 5% is normal.

In a period of change you call an antiquated past measure the normal for the future? Your mind is still frozen to the idea any person without a job is unemployed. Idleness does not equal unemployment.

I talked to a 25-year old friend this week. He grew up in the Inner West, went to private school, followed up with an arts degree and topped it with a Masters in the same field (on HECS I presume). He lives with his parents (at no charge I presume) and works a few hours in a childcare centre (for minimum wage I presume). He keeps busy hanging out with friends and enjoying the company of girls. He feels at ease and doesn't see an urge to get a job. In the past I would have told him to get a full-time job but I said to him: "There is no rush." Why should Gen Y race to pay for baby boomer and Gen X perks they will never collect themselves? There really is no rush. Why invest time and effort into a system that is imploding?

We are at full employment and any person keeping a distance between themselves and the status quo rat race is a thing to be welcomed. The young like him are at an advantage. Any person without debt and without savings has the greatest vested interest to wait for the restart of the monopoly game.

A good sign that we are not at full employment would be if our commutes suddenly took 20% less time. Real life experiences beat any ABS metric.

This post has been edited by sydney3000: 11 May 2012 - 10:11 PM

[urchin]

sydney3000, on 11 May 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

We are at full employment and any person keeping a distance between themselves and the status quo rat race is a thing to be welcomed. The young like him are at an advantage. Any person without debt and without savings has the greatest vested interest to wait for the restart of the monopoly game.

i guess if you think that all work is completely devoid of any/all personal fulfilment that might be wise (though what skills that 25 year old friend thinks he will have when the monopoly game "resets" i don't know....) but if that is really how you look at work, perhaps it would be better to change careers to a job that offers something more than just dollars in return for the hours committed..

crazy talk, i know. but i like my job.

[sydney3000]

It is so frustrating to discuss these subjects if everybody keeps judging things based on their personal situation instead of the situation actually faced by the "others". Of course we like our jobs but our jobs are not their jobs. There is a difference between exchanging an $80,000 job for the dole and exchanging the dole for a $35,000 job. If you are young then you have little reason to join the regular workforce because the increased earnings do not offset the loss in leisure time in exchange for the difference between dole and earned income.

A lot of what baby boomers view as leisure time is actually considered vital work by the new generation. In a world focused on appearance going to the beach is work because it is used to network and improve your health. Maintaining a facebook, twitter and linkedin account takes a lot of effort in this hyper-digital cut-throat world. You are never going to be a success if you slack off in these areas while wasting time doing traditional "work".

This post has been edited by sydney3000: 11 May 2012 - 11:25 PM

[Solomon]

sydney3000, on 11 May 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

In a period of change you call an antiquated past measure the normal for the future? Your mind is still frozen to the idea any person without a job is unemployed. Idleness does not equal unemployment.

I talked to a 25-year old friend this week. He grew up in the Inner West, went to private school, followed up with an arts degree and topped it with a Masters in the same field (on HECS I presume). He lives with his parents (at no charge I presume) and works a few hours in a childcare centre (for minimum wage I presume). He keeps busy hanging out with friends and enjoying the company of girls. He feels at ease and doesn't see an urge to get a job. In the past I would have told him to get a full-time job but I said to him: "There is no rush." Why should Gen Y race to pay for baby boomer and Gen X perks they will never collect themselves? There really is no rush. Why invest time and effort into a system that is imploding?

We are at full employment and any person keeping a distance between themselves and the status quo rat race is a thing to be welcomed. The young like him are at an advantage. Any person without debt and without savings has the greatest vested interest to wait for the restart of the monopoly game.

A good sign that we are not at full employment would be if our commutes suddenly took 20% less time. Real life experiences beat any ABS metric.

Sydney3,
Your post disturbs me.
I'm struggling to fully articulate why.
Perhaps its my Protestant work ethic, that I was raised with. "A fair days work for a fair day's pay."
Perhaps its my belief that labour is our lot in life, and there is no such thing as a "free lunch".
Perhaps its just my disbelief that this person thinks they can just bludge off the system.
ie; (Who contributed to his HECS so that he could get his degrees? - Where did the government get that money?)
ie; (How does his parents supply him with a roof over his head and food on the table?)
ie; (Where does he get his "allowance", each week to support his "devil may care", attitude? - most girls I know like to be entertained - wined and dined/movie/outings, etc)

I'm thinking that if this attitude becomes entrenched what does it do to our whole social structure?
Maybe the younger generation think they can construct a better model, by just waiting for the old one to die away.
My history tells me, that most models have been tried and all have been found wanting in some shape or form.
Freedom is an elusive quality. If you think you have it and you control it, you can lose it.
I don't know.
There's just something in that philosophy that doesn't add up.
I see it in the conundrum of; "having his cake and eating it at the same time."
I too would like to just sit around at the expense of others; but I would know that I wasn't contributing, rather I was merely a consumer.

I'm sure your friend, is a nice person S3000, so don't get me wrong. I don't mean him, or anyone else personally, when I say these things.

[Bernard L. Madoff]

Chimerica, on 10 May 2012 - 02:56 AM, said:

We'll that blows the theory of unemployment rising when house prices fall.

Something doesn't quite add up, RBA slashed cash rates, consumer confidence down, insolvencies on the up, non mining sector doing it tough, plenty of other negative figures have cropped up over the last week. I call it BS.

Everything is hunky and dory.

http://www.canberrat...0303-1uaeb.html

Quote

More Australian businesses went to the wall last year than at the height of the global financial crisis in 2008, according to government data.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission figures show 10,481 businesses entered external administration in 2011.

The number was an increase of 9.2 per cent on 2010 and surpassed the 9113 appointments in 2008.

http://www.insolvenc...e-high-asic-261
http://www.smh.com.a...0429-1xstn.html

Quote

Insolvencies across Australia's small business sector are rising, with the number of companies put into in external administration in February reaching the highest level since insolvency statistics were introduced in 1999, the Sydney Morning Herald has reported.

Statistics from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission show that 1,123 businesses were put into administration in February, compared with 518 in January. The next highest figure on record dates back to March 2009, when 1,095 businesses were put into administration.

[zaph]

Corydora, on 11 May 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

5% is not full employment. I think that full employment is when unemployment levels are about 2-3%. I think that government propaganda has convinced people that 5% is normal.

I don't think there is any government propaganda about full employment. it would be a brave politician who publicly said any level of UE was acceptable, let alone desirable. most people wouldn't even be familiar with the term.

full employment is generally regarded by Australian economists as around 5%, although there is some dissent. I think that there is perhaps some confusion over terminology. economists use full employment interchangeably with non accelerating inflation rate unemployment (NAIRU).

If UE drops much further there will be significant pressure on inflation. i think the RBA will wait to see another couple of months UE rates before adjusting IRs.

[sydney3000]

Solomon, on 11 May 2012 - 11:30 PM, said:

Sydney3,
Your post disturbs me.
I'm struggling to fully articulate why.
Perhaps its my Protestant work ethic, that I was raised with. "A fair days work for a fair day's pay."

You live in the past. Let it go. The reason statistical unemployment has risen dramatically across the OECD is not a result of the GFC. The GFC was the match that set off the fire to expose the barren ground. The GFC exposed the wasteful utilisation of human time by the traditional work schemes. The statistical unemployment is caused by progress. We no longer need to do traditional work to feed, house and care for our race. Money and traditional work are enslavement schemes to keep people busy and prevent them from pursuing greater non-financial achievements.

This post has been edited by sydney3000: 12 May 2012 - 01:27 AM

[sydney3000]

zaph, on 12 May 2012 - 01:13 AM, said:

If UE drops much further there will be significant pressure on inflation. i think the RBA will wait to see another couple of months UE rates before adjusting IRs.

For the past months I thought a drop in commodity prices will cause a drop in AUD and inflation to break out. I no longer think inflation will arise because AUD falls will be offset by the lack of demand driven from people's new-found love to save. Every time goods and services become cheaper the targeted consumer is slugged with another tax, a utility rise or a cut in welfare payments so that no additional demand eventuates that could drive inflation. The RBA will go ZIRP but deflation will continue to take root. To create inflation in a post-2007 world the central banks need to raise interest rates. They still have not realised that.

[sydney3000]

Solomon, on 11 May 2012 - 11:30 PM, said:

ie; (Who contributed to his HECS so that he could get his degrees? - Where did the government get that money?)
ie; (How does his parents supply him with a roof over his head and food on the table?)
ie; (Where does he get his "allowance", each week to support his "devil may care", attitude? - most girls I know like to be entertained - wined and dined/movie/outings, etc)

I'm thinking that if this attitude becomes entrenched what does it do to our whole social structure?
Maybe the younger generation think they can construct a better model, by just waiting for the old one to die away.

The funny part is that now that he is past private school and university the cost of living for him are decreased. It is probably 90% cheaper for his parents to fund him at age 25 than at age 16. His bedroom exists if he sleeps in it or not. The Internet bill gets paid if he makes use of it or not. The only additional cost is food and entertainment which doesn't amount to much. You can be sure we are in the process of obsoleting the entire existing system. Learn to like it. The social structure will improve because we will create social interdependencies based on communities instead of employer-employee.

[savagegoose]

well we aint doing job sharing while people who have 40 hour jobs earniing $30-$50 /h keep them. and dont want to go 20 hours a week. maybe when they all retire, but ther is work that needs doing, and most people dont want to get ready for work for 3 hours, they want to spend the day there.
sure a more even spread may happen, but greed is a great motivator, and those with the benefits now, ie a good salary, wont give it up to share.
hell look at unions, they would rather close down a business than go on half rations.