Hidden jobless figure may reach 17% - National - smh.com.au
From the article:
"There are about 2 million people who typically would have got jobs in the 1960s who can't get work now," said John Quiggin, professor of economics at the University of Queensland.
Professor Quiggin's calculations mean about 17.5 per cent of the labour force wants more work than it can get - more than triple the official 5.2 per cent jobless rate. Acceptable real unemployment estimates ranged between 10 and 20 per cent.
How much sense does it make to call the "underemployed" the "unemployed"? None at all, in my books.
5 comments:
Problem is that the gov't (both sides do it) very much benefit from the ABS figures which count anyone over the age of 15 yrs and working at least ONE hour per week as "employed".
"Underemployment" has become entrenched as employers lean ever more to casuals, part timers, and temp workers. Also entrenched is the idea that someone earning, say, a couple of hundred dollars a week has a living wage.
Consider also the incredible loss of productivity, which both the gov't & employers keep insisting has to be on the ever-upward march.
So, if you ever find yourself working 5 hours a week, on an hourly rate, you might look at "underemployment" a little differently. Employed, sure, but not enough money to pay the rent & a loss to the economy of a productive person who could, and is willing, to be working full time.
It's a serious problem, but no gov't wants to tackle it, because it looks better to quote the "jobs created" rate, even if all of the jobs were part time shelf stackers, and it looks better to quote the "unemployment" rate as being only those people who didn't have even one hour of work in the last week (and were not a full time student). That's what the figures measure.
Many hundreds of thousands of people are now in the forever underemployed basket, and it would not be a fun place to spend much time.
Caz,
I didn't mean to totally rubbish the idea that underemployment may be a problem. It's just that this particular story seemed to just want to move it totally from one definition to another. Am I correct in thinking that the Australian government follows internationally accepted definitions of "unemployment", as that definition changes over time? (I have had occasional arguments with a family member who believes the Coalition changed the definition to suit itself, but actual ALP people don't cite that argument very much, if at all, do they?)
As to the degree to which underemployment is a problem, I am not so sure, having not looked at the figures. A simple "yes" to "would you like to work more hours" may not make much difference to a mainly stay at home mother who would like to increase from 1 to 2 days a week, for example. But I have not looked at the ABS or Quiggins article, so I just don't know if there is a clear way of differentiating the underemployment that really matters, and that which doesn't. Maybe you can enlighten me?
Ah, now that's a wiggly point - underemployed mum's don't really matter! Oooh!! Rash statement.
The ABS determines how things are measured, in consultation with Gov't. The manner of measuring unemployment has been the same for a long time (decades?), so "no" it hasn't been alterned one way or the other by ALP or by Libs, to my knowledge. And you can bet they both like it just the way it is. Every now & then ABS might raised a quibble about whether it should be changed, but ever nothing happens.
I have zero knowledge of how O/S data is collected or measured. I have read that our data is comparable, or that when figures are "adjusted" to compare to O/S unemployment our rates are still very good, etc. But, I have no trust in the "adjustment" concept, as I don't know what they're adjusting. We're supposed to just take their word for it.
There is no international standard for how countries must measure things, as far as I know, and keep in mind that ABS measures & reports on thousands of things, whether it be imports, exports, jobs created, babies born. I guess international standards would be impossible, firstly politically, secondly because not all countries have the resources.
I suppose another way of looking at it would be: if a person WANTS to work more hours, doesn't that mean we have willing, but wasted & unproductive labour? And a very large pool of it too? Yes, people may want to work more hours for "personal fulfillment", but even for mums with young children, odds are they want to work more hours because they need or want more money.
I'm just speculating that not many people want to work more hours because they can't think of anything better to do with their lives - they need income, would be my guess!
BTW - no, I can't say I would agree with any proposal to count the "underemployed" as "unemployed", as that would be a great distortion.
I would certainly be in favour of lifting the bar from 1 hr per week up to, say, a five hour a week threeshold before someone is counted as "employed". And raising the age level too, which would be controversial, but hell, 15yr olds don't get to vote anyway!
Just being entirely random with those thoughts - but I think some refinement would be good, to capture real jobs, real unemployment, and real underemployment. It's not as easy as it sounds, plus the methodology is to knock on random doors to conduct a survey, but, the resulting data is just as valid as any other, so I'm not particularly critical of that approach.
Thanks Caz,
I sort of chose the stay at home Mum wanting to increase a little deliberately, because (as I understand it) the current way that child allowance is paid would not encourage a mother to even think about doing that. But if they are asked on a survey if want to work longer, maybe they would answer "yes" before even knowing how pointless that may be in terms of additional income.
Anyway, maybe I should read more about this as a topic before I have any opinion!
By the way, and far off topic, but I thought your words of advice to Major Anya a few weeks back about depression were extremely wise.
Post a Comment