Sydney Morning Herald journalist Adele Horin article in the SMH today – Here’s a stimulating idea: create jobs – challenges the Federal Government to get it priorities right. She writes:
If employment is the primary concern, there are surer, more direct ways than cash payments to ensure bosses hire rather than fire. If not now, a debate on the hoary old topic of direct job creation may be just around the corner.
Yesterday the Government announced its latest fiscal response to the rapidly worsening economic situation. They will spend $42 billion (mostly in 2009 and into 2010 to shore up aggregate demand. They estimate this will underwrite 90,000 jobs in the economy. That is not new jobs but existing jobs. They also estimate that the unemployment rate will rise to 7 per cent over the coming year which is around 300,000 people extra who will be without work. That will take unemployment towards 850,000 and underemployment will certainly rise in lock-step (already around 600,000) so you see the scale of the deterioration.
However, while I think the package is a step in the right direction, the Government has failed to really target jobs. If the Government had have introduced a Job Guarantee and paid the workers the current national minimum wage (with holiday pay etc) it could have hired 557,000 full-time equivalent workers for around $8.3 billion per year. Where does this figure come from?
In the New York times article (December 26, 2004), from Larry Rohter – Argentina’s Economic Rally Defies Forecasts – it is reported that the Argentinian economy has made a surprising comeback. Rohter writes “When the Argentine economy collapsed in December 2001, doomsday predictions abounded. Unless it adopted orthodox economic policies and quickly cut a deal with its foreign creditors, hyperinflation would surely follow, the peso would become worthless, investment and foreign reserves would vanish and any prospect of growth would be strangled. But three years after Argentina declared a record debt default of more than $100 billion, the largest in history, the apocalypse has not arrived. Instead, the economy has grown by 8 percent for two consecutive years, exports have zoomed, the currency is stable, investors are gradually returning and unemployment has eased from record highs – all without a debt settlement or the standard measures required by the International Monetary Fund for its approval.”
In the New York Times, December 27, Brent Staples explains – Why Some Politicians Need Their Prisons to Stay Full – and outlines how public spending can clearly be a tool for essential job creation underpinning regional development. The problem is that it seems the Americans haven’t quite got it right.
The lack of correspondence arises when a government tries to operate within the tight constraints of unjustifiable fiscal rules by proposing legislation that cuts billions in government support for programs that are the difference between abject poverty for millions and a modest standard of living is once again coming to the fore in Britain. The Labour government is obsessed with achieving fiscal rules that are not only arbitrary but cannot be precisely assessed given the deficiencies in the available data and the forecasting techniques. However, the Chancellor tries to convince everybody that there is precision and that major austerity has to be imposed to fit the government fiscal outcomes within the arbitrary constraints they have imposed. Those constraints do not have any context in the things that matter – reducing disadvantage, dealing with inequality, climate change, health care etc. Yet the constant reference to a ‘black hole’ – the difference between the estimated fiscal trajectory and the fiscal rules constraint leads the government to ill-considered policy hacks aimed at keeping the outcomes within the rules. The visceral reaction against the hacks then leads to the situation we have seen in Britain recently, which further undermines the political viability of the government. The only hole that the government should be worried about is the political hole it is digging for itself as a result of its obsession with imprecisely measured and essentially irrelevant ‘black holes’.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) released the latest CPI data yesterday (June 26, 2025) – Monthly Consumer Price Index Indicator – for May 2025, which showed that the annual underlying inflation rate, which excludes volatile items continues to fall – from 2.4 per cent to 2.1 per cent. The trimmed mean rate (which the RBA monitors as part of the monetary policy deliberations) fell from 2.8 per cent to 2.4 per cent. All the measures that the ABS publish (including or excluding volatile items) are now well within the ABS’s inflation targetting range which is currently 2 to 3 per cent. What is now clear is that this inflationary episode was a transitory phenomenon and did not justify the heavy-handed way the central banks responded to it. On June 8, 2021, the UK Guardian published an Op Ed I wrote about inflation – Price rises should be short-lived – so let’s not resurrect inflation as a bogeyman. In that article, and in several other forums since – written, TV, radio, presentations at events – I articulated the narrative that the inflationary pressures were transitory and would abate without the need for interest rate increases or cut backs in net government spending. In the subsequent months, I received a lot of flack from fellow economists and those out in the Twitter-verse etc who sent me quotes from the likes of Larry Summers and other prominent main stream economists who claimed that interest rates would have to rise and government net spending cut to push up unemployment towards some conception they had of the NAIRU, where inflation would stabilise. I was also told that the emergence of the inflationary pressures signalled the death knell for Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) – the critics apparently had some idea that the pressures were caused by excessive government spending and slack monetary settings which demonstrated in their mind that this was proof that MMT policies were dangerous. The evidence is that this episode was nothing like the 1970s inflation.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) released the latest labour force data today (June 19, 2025) – Labour Force, Australia – for May 2025, which revealed that the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 4.1 per cent for the second consecutive month. There was a small decrease in overall employment (-2,500) which was offset by a 0.1 point decline in the participation rate, The net effect was a small decline in official unemployment (-2,600) and a stable unemployment rate. Whether the fall in employment and participation is a signal of a significant slowdown in the coming months is unclear at this stage. Monthly data fluctuates up and down. There was a 1.3 per cent rise in monthly hours worked and significant growth in full-time employment which blurs an easy interpretation of the other changes. Underemployment also fell 0.1 point growth. The broad labour underutilisation rate (sum of unemployment and underemployment) fell to 10 per cent (down 0.1 point) on the back of the declining underemployment. It remains a fact that with 10 per cent of available labour not being used it is ludicrous to talk about Australia being close to full employment. There is substantial scope for more job creation given the slack that is present.
The Chair of the Finance Committee in the Irish Parliament invited me to make a submission to inform a – Scrutiny process of EU legislative proposals – specifically to discuss proposals put forward by the European Council to increase spending on defence. This blog post and the next (tomorrow) will form the basis of my submission which will go to the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation on Friday. The matter has relevance for all countries at the moment, given the increased appetite for ramping up military spending. Some have termed this a shift back to what has been called – Military Keynesianism – where governments respond to various perceived and perhaps imaginary new security threats by increasing defence spending. However, I caution against using that term in this context. During the immediate Post World War 2 period with the almost immediate onset of the – Cold War – nations used military spending as a growth strategy and the term military Keynesianism might have been apposite. These nation-building times also saw an expansion of the public sector, which supported expanding welfare states and an array of protections for workers (occupational safety, holiday and sick pay, etc). However, in the current neoliberal era, the increased appetite for extra military spending is being cast as a trade-off, where cuts to social and environmental protection spending and overseas aid are seen as the way to create fiscal space to allow the defence plans to be fulfilled. That trade-off is even more apparent in the context of the European Union, given that the vast majority of Member States no longer have their own currency and the funds available at the EU-level are limited. We will discuss that issue and more in this two-part series.
On June 3, 2025 Australia’s minimum wage setting authority – the Fair Work Commission (FWC) issued their decision in the – Annual Wage Review 2025 – which provides for wage increases for the lowest-paid workers – around 0.7 per cent of employees (around 88 thousand) in Australia. In turn, around 20.7 per cent of all employees, who are on the lowest tier of their pay award (grade) receive a flow-on effect. The FWC provided a 3.5 per cent nominal wage increase for the lowest paid workers in its 2025 National Wage Case decision. Against the current CPI growth, that provides for some modest real wage increase for this cohort. However, note the discussion above as to the best purchasing power measure to use. Against the more applicable Employee Selected Cost of Living Index (SCLI), the decision provides for barely any real wages growth and fails to redress the massive real wage cuts in recent years. The media has failed to pick up on that reality, and has instead given oxygen to the employers’ responses which called the decision irresponsible while at the same time pocketing record profits as a result of their profit gouging. But at least the lowest-paid workers gained some relief as a result of the decision as the FWC largely ignored the whining of the employers.
Today, I am fully engaged in work commitments and so we have a guest blogger in the guise of Dr Scott Baum, who will soon be joining us at the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE) at the University of Newcastle as a senior research fellow. Scott has been one of my regular research colleagues over a long period of time and we currently hold ARC grant funding together to explore regional disparities as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Scott indicated that he would like to contribute occasionally and that provides some diversity of voice although the focus remains on advancing our understanding of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and its applications. Today he provides analysis of how lost the Australian tertiary education system has become in this neoliberal period. While focused on the Australian situation, the analysis unfortunately has relevance to higher education systems in most countries.
During the recent inflationary episode, the RBA relentlessly pursued the argument that they had to keep hiking interest rates, and then, had to keep them at elevated levels, well beyond any reasonable assessment of the situation, because wage pressures were set to explode. They claimed their business liaison panel was telling them that wages were becoming a problem despite the facts being that nominal wages growth was at record lows and real wages (the purchasing power of the nominal wages) were going backwards at a rate of knots. The RBA massaged that argument by adding that productivity was low and that there was no ‘non-inflationary’ space for wage increases as a result, as if it was the workers’ fault. Yesterday (May 28, 2025), the Productivity Commission (a federal agency that morphed out of the old – Tariff Board – published an interesting research report – Productivity before and after COVID-19 – which lays bare some of the misinformation that the corporate sector has been pumping into the public debate about productivity growth. In particular, it demonstrates that forcing workers to work longer hours undermines productivity growth, that work-from-home is beneficial, and the lack of investment in productive infrastructure by corporations is a major reason for the lagging productivity growth in Australia.
The recent federal election in Australia saw the conservative opposition coalition lose further seats in parliament building on their disastrous 2022 result. The coalition is made up of conservative urban types (the so-called Liberal Party) and the National party, which represents the rural lobby. The Nationals are essentially climate-change denialists and because the Liberals require them to have any hope to govern, the smaller rural lobby can dominate policy choices. To convince the Nationals to adopt a net-zero by 2050 stance, the Liberals had to agree to propose a shift to Nuclear power, which was neither realistic in a logistical sense or economic in a cost sense. The electorate clearly rejected that option at the recent election. Now the Liberals, who are facing an existential crisis after the devastating loss, has to make a choice – stick with the Nationals and jettison net zero or break the Coalition and pitch a climate policy that will be acceptable to voters. The problem is that neither option will deliver them electoral success. Progressives are enjoying some rare schadenfreude over this conservative dilemma. It seems that the British Labour Party has got itself into a similar dilemma, with pressure from the Right-wing Reform Party to water down its climate policy. But what is more interesting in the UK setting is the role played by Labour’s former Prime Minister, who is also now attacking ‘green’ stances. I predict that will not end well for Starmer and Co. Fortunately, the Australian Labor party, which is also in government is sticking to a more ambitious climate agenda, although, even then, it is not ambitious enough. However, governments that are pursuing a net zero agenda must provide security for communities and regions that will bear the brunt of the policies introduced. The resistance to change that political forces such as Reform UK exploit can be easily offset if governments accompany their net zero agenda with a Just Transition framework. However, there is an absence of policy development in that area.
Last month’s labour force data for Australia revealed a sluggish labour market, seemingly on the cusp of contraction as other indicators were pointing in that direction. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) released the latest labour force data today (May 15, 2025) – Labour Force, Australia – for April 2025, which revealed that employment growth was strong enough to absorb a 0.3 point rise in participation without increasing the unemployment rate. The broad labour underutilisation rate (sum of unemployment and underemployment) did, however, rise 0.2 points to 10.1 per cent on the back of a rise in underemployment. The fact that 10.1 per cent of available labour are not being used indicates that folly of those who claim Australia is close to full employment. There is substantial scope for more job creation given the slack that is present.
Throughout the recent period of higher than usual inflation, the Reserve Bank of Australia kept telling us that they had to keep hiking rates (even though the inflation trajectory was downward) because they were predicting a wages explosion. Who told them about that? Their so-called business liaison meetings. The business sector is always claiming that a crippling wages breakout is about to happen because they want policy makers to suppress employment growth to give them the upper hand in wage negotiations. Anyway, no such wages explosion occurred. And the latest data shows that things haven’t changed. Today (May 14, 2025), the Australian Bureau of Statistics released the latest – Wage Price Index, Australia – for the March-uarter 2025, which shows that the aggregate wage index rose by 3.4 per cent over the 12 months (up 0.2 points on the last quarter). While most commentators will focus on the nominal wages growth relative to CPI movements, the more accurate estimate of the cost-of-living change is the Employee Selected Living Cost Index, which is still running well above the CPI change. Using that measure, purchasing power of the nominal wages was stable in the March-quarter. There is no wages breakout happening.
The – Japanese asset price bubble – burst in spectacular fashion in late 1991 (early 1992) following five years in which the real estate and share market boomed beyond belief. The boom coincided with a period of over-the-top neoliberal relaxation of banking rules which encouraged wild speculation. The origins of the boom can be traced back to the endaka recession in the mid-1980s, after the signing of the – Plaza Accord – forced the yen to appreciate excessively. This was at the behest of the US, which wanted to reduce its current account deficit through US dollar depreciation. The narratives keep repeating! This post, however, is not about the boom, but its aftermath. The collapse in 1991-92 marked the beginning of what has been termed the – Lost Decades – which was marked by a trend slowdown in economic growth, deflation, and for the purposes of this post, cuts in real wages as nominal wages stagnated. While the long period of wages stagnation was bad enough for Japanese workers, there is still hardship coming as the cohort who entered the labour market during this period reach retirement age. This post is part of work I am doing on Japan, which I hope will come out in a new book early next year after I return from my annual working period in Kyoto towards the end of this year.
Last week, the – 2025 Canadian federal election – was held and the Liberal Party won for the fourth consecutive time securing 169 seats (in the 343-seat House of Commons), just short of a majority. They also won the popular vote (43.7 per cent of the vote – up 11.1 per cent), which was the first time they had achieved that since 2015. The Opposition Conservative Party leader lost his own seat in the election. On January 7, 2025, national polling saw support for the Conservatives of around 47 per cent and support for the government around 20 per cent. By the time the poll came, that had shifted dramatically in favour of the government. In between, came Trump. The UK Guardian analysis (March 19, 2025) – Canada’s Liberals on course for political resurrection amid trade war, polls show – said the shift “has little precedent in Canadian history, reflecting the outsized role played by an unpredictable US president”. To some extent, the craziness of the US political situation at present also impacted on the – 2025 Australian federal election – which was held on Saturday (May 3, 2025). The incumbent government, which was well down in the opinion polls before Trump took power, won in a landslide achieving the highest two-party preferred outcome in Australia’s electoral history. The parallels with the Canadian outcome are strong despite the different voting systems in both countries. Moreover, the conservative Liberal-National Coalition in Australia, the dominant party in the Post-WW2 era has been reduced to being little more than a far Right populist party. Similar to the Canadian situation, the Opposition leader also lost his seat, which was the first time that has ever happened in Australia. So Trump is undermining the very movements he is trying to promote. But what is very clear is that Australia is nothing like the US, despite some commonalities (language – sort of!).
Today, I am fully engaged in work commitments and so we have a guest blogger in the guise of Professor Scott Baum, who will soon be joining us at the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE) at the University of Newcastle as a senior research fellow. Scott has been one of my regular research colleagues over a long period of time and we currently hold ARC grant funding together to explore regional disparities as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Scott indicated that he would like to contribute occasionally and that provides some diversity of voice although the focus remains on advancing our understanding of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and its applications. Today he is going to talk about the dilemma facing Australian voters who will go to the polls at next week’s federal election – the so-called Hobson’s choice facing voters all over the world.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) released the latest labour force data today (April 17, 2025) – Labour Force, Australia – for March 2025. It revealed that the unemployment rate rose 0.1 point (on rounding) to 4.1 per cent, employment rose by 32,200 (0.2 per cent), the underemployment rate was unchanged at 5.9 per cent, and the participation rate rose 0.1 point (on rounding). Monthly hours worked fell by 6 million (-0.3 per cent). The broad labour underutilisation rate (sum of unemployment and underemployment) was 9.9 per cent, which puts the claims that this is a tight labour market into perspective. There is substantial scope for more job creation given the slack that is present.
We know that after the Second World War, as nations embraced their major national policy statements (White Papers in many countries) to build their societies after the disruption of the War and the Great Depression, income inequality fell significantly. Since the 1970s, the post WW2 trend has been somewhat reversed in many (but not all) nations. The rising income inequality is particularly apparent in the Anglo advanced economies, with the US leading the way. In other nations, the trend is mixed, which suggests the link between rising income inequality and the rising support for right-wing political movements is less obvious than some commentators are suggesting. In fact, there is credible research that suggests the swing to right-wing political parties is not coming from the most precarious workers who appear to remain loyal to Leftist ideas. It is the next segment of workers up who have not yet been ravaged by globalisation but sense they are about to be who seem to have swung to the Right. In this blog post, I discuss some of these ideas and the research that is accompanying them.