Author: Jim Stanford

  • Principles for Meaningful Transition Support for Workers in Carbon-Intensive Industries

    Principles for Meaningful Transition Support for Workers in Carbon-Intensive Industries

    by Jim Stanford

    As Australia and other countries shift their economies toward lower-carbon forms of energy and production, problems of displacement and transition for workers in carbon-intensive industries must be addressed as a top priority.  The coal-fired electricity generation industry is on the front lines of this challenge.

    Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford was recently invited to give testimony to a Senate of Australia reference committee studying the future transition of the coal-fired electricity sector.

    Offering meaningful and concrete job and income protection for workers in affected industries (like coal-fired power) is not only fair: after all, those workers should not bear disproportionate costs from policies that benefit broader society and the environment.  It is also politically important, because it refutes oft-made claims that environmental protection is incompatible with job security and economic prosperity.  Environmental advocates often speak of the need for a “just transition” for affected workers, although that idea is often described in broad, vague terms.  Developing specific, concrete programs to facilitate fair and effective employment transitions in carbon-intensive industries will be an important priority for the overall strategy to phase-out this highly-polluting energy form.

    Dr. Stanford reviewed for the Senate committee the experience of employment transitions in other jurisdictions, and identified key principles for minimising the cost of those transitions for the affected workforce.



    Full report

    Share

  • Economic Aspects of Paid Domestic Violence Leave Provisions

    Economic Aspects of Paid Domestic Violence Leave Provisions

    by Jim Stanford

    Economic insecurity is one of the greatest factors inhibiting victims of domestic violence from escaping violent situations at home.  To address that problem unions and employers have developed paid domestic violence leave provisions which allow victims to attend legal proceedings, medical appointments, or other events or activities related to the violence they have experienced, without risk of lost income or employment.  Proposals have now been made to extend that provision to more Australian workers, by including a paid domestic violence leave provision in the Modern Awards (presently being reviewed by the Fair Work Commission), and/or by including it as a universal entitlement under the National Employment Standards.

    This report considers the likely impact of such an extension on the payroll costs of employers, and finds it to be so small it would be difficult to measure: we estimate that incremental payments to workers taking the leave would amount to one-fiftieth of one percent (0.02%) of current payrolls.

    These findings refute recent statements by Commonwealth Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, who recently described domestic violence leave as “another cost on our economy that will have an impact on our international competitiveness.”  His government has opposed extending the provision — at least not until the Fair Work Commission has completed its review.

    The idea that a 0.02 percent increment to payrolls (less than one hundredeth of a percent of last year’s increase in average weekly wages) would even be noticed internationally, let alone undermine our “competitiveness,” is not credible.  Worse yet, this argument misunderstands the nature of competitiveness in a modern, innovation-driven economy.  Cementing a reputation as a safe, high-quality, inclusive place to live is beneficial to national competitiveness, and paid leave for victims of domestic violence would be an important symbol of Australia’s commitment in that regard.



    Full report

    Share

  • The Economic, Fiscal, and Social Importance of Aluminium Manufacturing in Portland, Victoria

    The Economic, Fiscal, and Social Importance of Aluminium Manufacturing in Portland, Victoria

    by Jim Stanford

    The unit price of aluminium is more than 50 times greater than the unit price of bauxite.  Yet Australia is growing its presence at the lower-value end of this industry – while perversely shrinking its presence in an industry whose output sells for 50 times as much.  In recent years, Australia’s downstream capabilities in aluminium manufacturing (including alumina refining, smelting, and secondary fabrication and manufacturing) have been substantially deindustrialised, even as exports of raw or barely-processed resources grow. Australia is shipping billions of dollars in value-added, and many thousands of jobs, to other countries.  This would get worse, if further manufacturing facilities — such as the smelter in Portland — are permanently closed.

    This report, prepared by the Centre for Future Work for the Australian Workers’ Union, describes the perverse evolution of Australia’s role in global aluminium production in recent years, including the growth of raw extraction, the decline of value-added activity, and the resulting shrinkage in net income and employment in the industry.  It also estimates the impact of the potential closure of another threatened smelter, in Portland, Victoria, on overall employment, output, exports, incomes, and government tax revenues.  The loss of another major manufacturing facility would be a significant blow, at a time when the failure of the previous extraction-dominated model of economic development has become abundantly clear.



    Full report

    Share

  • Beyond Belief: Construction Labour and the Cost of Housing in Australia

    Beyond Belief: Construction Labour and the Cost of Housing in Australia

    by Jim Stanford

    Remember when Prime Minister Turnbull and Immigration Minister Dutton blamed unionized construction workers for the high cost of housing in Australia? The idea that workers (not property speculators or bankers) are to blame for the property bubble is pretty far-fetched — in fact, it sparked a viral storm on social media, using the #blameunions hashtag.

    We’ve looked in detail at the empirical data regarding the relationship (or lack thereof) between unions, construction wages, and housing prices.  The results are surprising…

    A new research paper from the Centre for Future Work has found that:

    • Average earnings in the construction industry have grown more slowly than the Australian average over the last five years.
    • Real wage increases in construction have been slower than real productivity growth, with the effect that real unit labour costs in construction have declined.
    • Construction labour accounts for only 17-22 percent of the total costs of new building.
    • Construction costs, in turn, account for less than half the market value of residential property.
    • Construction labour costs correspond to less than 10 percent of housing prices (and even less than that in Australia’s biggest cities).
    • Construction workers receive far less income from the housing sector than land-owners, property investors, and banks.
    • Construction labour accounts for about the same proportion of a house purchase as real estate commissions and stamp duty.
    • Homes in Australia are becoming unaffordable even for the workers who build them: on average, a construction worker would need to spend 9.2 years of their pre-tax earnings to purchase a median home (25 percent more than just four years ago).

    The paper recommends that if government genuinely wants to make housing more affordable, it should turn its attention to the real causes of soaring housing prices: by cooling off property speculation, more carefully regulating the banking sector, and reforming property-related taxes.



    Full report

    Share

  • Denying The Downside Of Globalization Won’t Stop Populism

    Originally published in The Huffington Post on October 11, 2016

    The rise of anti-globalization sentiment, including in Australia, poses a big challenge to mainstream politicians who’ve been trumpeting the virtues of free trade for decades.

    Treasurer Scott Morrison recently started pushing back, delivering a staunch defense of globalization to an audience in Sydney. Like other world leaders responding to the wave of populism, Mr. Morrison doubled down with strong claims about the universal, lasting benefits of free trade. Australians may be anxious about their economic future, he conceded. But don’t blame globalization.

    Globalization “increases our living standards and always has,” Mr. Morrison bluntly proclaimed. Free trade, immigration and inward foreign investment are “the very sources of … prosperity.” Resisting globalization, he suggested, is like thinking “we can pull the doona over our head and insulate ourselves.”

    Denying any potential downside to globalization, and deriding critics as hiding from reality, will not defuse the wave of anger that put four One Nation senators into Parliament. Contrary to Mr. Morrison’s claims, there is ample evidence that Australia’s trade performance has deteriorated badly in recent years, despite –- or perhaps because of -– the acceleration of free trade.

    Globalization, as currently practiced, is imposing real, lasting damage in many parts of Australia, and producing a fertile political environment for nationalism and xenophobia. The political and policy responses to that danger must go beyond denial.

    Mr. Morrison stressed the effectiveness of his government’s trade agenda, especially what he called new “export trade deals” with China, Korea, and Japan. (This curious terminology deliberately neglects that free trade agreements are also intended to facilitate imports!) “The results are there to see,” he said.

    Or are they? As a share of GDP, Australia’s exports have declined significantly since the turn of the century, even as government inked several free trade pacts. Services exports also contracted relative to GDP. And ironically, Australia did worse with its free trade partners, than with the world as a whole.

    For example, we now have one year of experience under free trade with Japan and Korea. Perversely, Australian exports to both countries declined in the first year: by 9 percent for Korea, and 16 percent to Japan. Yet Australia’s imports from Japan and Korea surged by 14 percent and 24 percent, respectively.

    Therefore, Australia enjoyed more exports, and a better trade balance, without free trade than with it. In the first months of free trade with China, Australia’s exports are also declining. Similarly, under Australia’s trade pacts with the U.S., Thailand, Singapore and Chile, imports grew much faster than exports — and in some cases exports didn’t grow at all.

    There’s little reason to believe that new deals being pursued by Canberra (with India, Indonesia and the Trans Pacific Partnership) would have any better results.

    The cumulation of many bilateral trade deficits is an overall global payments imbalance that is driving Australia deeply into international debt. Australia’s current account deficit reached $77.5 billion last year: the biggest ever (in nominal terms). Relative to GDP, that’s the second-largest of any OECD country — behind only the U.K. (another hotbed of populism). It’s even worse than precarious emerging economies (like Brazil, South Africa or Turkey).

    Mr. Morrison actually celebrated this large international deficit last week, suggesting it allows Australia to invest more and grow faster. But he has it perfectly backwards. Business investment is contracting rapidly in Australia, not growing. And with Australia buying so much more from the rest of the world than it sells, we end up with less production, fewer jobs and less income. The gap can be offset with growing international debt, but only for a while.

    This miserable trade performance is clearly contributing to Australia’s weak labour market: declining total hours of employment, disappearing full-time jobs and unprecedented wage stagnation. So disaffected Australians aren’t making it up when they conclude their prospects have diminished, and no amount of boosterism can change that reality.

    Moreover, they have sound reasons to blame globalization as one important factor (certainly not the only one) for their predicament.

    If Mr. Morrison and other free-traders want to truly counter the divisive and dangerous ideas of nationalism and xenophobia, they should start by acknowledging that globalization does indeed have a downside, not just an upside. Then they must move to implement policies -– like balanced trade, job creation, stronger income security, and better vocational education — to assist those Australians who have been harmed by it.


    You might also like

    The Difference Between Trade and ‘Free Trade’

    by Jim Stanford in The Guardian

    U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent trade policies (including tariffs on steel and aluminium that could affect Australian exports) have raised fears of a worldwide slide into protectionism and trade conflict.  Trump’s approach has been widely and legitimately criticised.  But his argument that many U.S. workers have been hurt by the operation of current free trade

  • Auto Shutdown Will Deliver Another Economic Blow

    Auto Shutdown Will Deliver Another Economic Blow

    by Jim Stanford

    We’ve known for over two years that this day was coming.  But that won’t ease its economic and social pain.  The shutdown of Australia’s mass motor vehicle assembly industry is now upon us.  Ford’s assembly plant in Broadmeadows, Victoria, was the first to go dark: the final Aussie-made Ford has already rolled off the assembly line.  Remaining workers are preparing the factory’s final shutdown.  Holden’s assembly plant in Elizabeth, SA, and Toyota’s Altona factory (also in Victoria), are scheduled to close next year; both have already begun phasing down production.  Engine plants operated by Ford and Holden will also close.

    This briefing note reviews the direct and indirect economic consequences of the closures, which will extend far beyond the plants being shuttered.  After all, motor vehicle manufacturing purchases $8 billion in inputs from 100 different economic sectors in Australia — and most of those are services.  Ultimate job losses will be many times larger than the direct jobs eliminated at Ford, Holden, and Toyota.

    The briefing note also addresses the damaging effect of Australia’s lopsided trade agreements have played in hastening the industry’s end.  In particular, the implementation of 5 free trade deals with major auto-producing nations (the U.S., Thailand, South Korea, Japan, and China) over the past decade provided global automakers with a free ticket for selling their products in Australia, without necessarily producing anything here.  The FTAs have had no positive impact on Australian vehicle exports, and resulted in a forty-to-one imbalance in automotive trade flows.

    In addition to taking action to ameliorate the economic and social hardship that will be experienced in automotive regions over the coming months, government must also learn the lessons of this failed strategy — before other industries here experience a similar fate.



    Full report

    Share

  • Penny Wise and Pound Foolish

    The state government of New South Wales recently awarded a contract for the purchase of 512 new intercity passenger rail cars to a consortium that will manufacture the equipment in South Korea.  The contract is worth $2.3 billion, including an unspecified sum to cover maintenance of the double-decker cars over an initial 15-year period.  The government chose to import the cars from Korea instead of purchasing made-in-Australia products, claiming this was the “cheapest” option.  However, major government purchases have important indirect effects on many economic, social, and fiscal variables: including GDP, employment, incomes, exports, and even government revenues.  A comprehensive cost-benefit analysis must take those broader impacts into consideration; governments should make decisions that maximize the overall social net benefit of procurement, not simply minimize the up-front purchase cost to government.

    This paper reviews the economic importance of the railway equipment manufacturing sector in Australia, and describes its broad economic benefits: supporting 5000 direct jobs, and many more than that in supply industries and downstream consumer industries.  And it provides an illustrative simulation to show that offshoring this new contract could deprive the government sector of a cumulative total of $455 million in forgone revenue — as a result of lower GDP, employment, and incomes.  That is considerably more than any supposed “cost penalty” to government incurred as a result of manufacturing the equipment in Australia.  Worse yet, the NSW decision undermines attempts to coordinate and schedule upcoming railway rolling stock purchases from various governments across Australia, in order to maximize the economic benefits from future transit investments.



    Full report

    Share

  • Economic Management by PM

    Economic Management by PM

    by Jim Stanford

    New report from the Centre for Future Work ranks Prime Ministerships by 10 key economic performance indicators.

    In this report Jim Stanford digs beneath vague claims about economic competence and friendliness to business, and considers more concrete indicators of economic progress. The paper asks: is there any correlation between the policy outlook of those respective governments, and in particular its “business credentials,” and Australia’s real economic progress?

    This paper identifies a dozen standard indicators of economic performance: covering work, production, incomes, and debt. Consistent historical data is gathered for the twelve indicators, going back to the 1950s. Then the actual historical record is compared between the various postwar Prime Ministers (any who served in office for at least a full year). This analysis should assist voters to consider more concretely what the economy actually means to them, and evaluate the economic promises of competing parties accordingly.



    Full report

    Share

  • Manufacturing (Still) Matters

    Manufacturing (Still) Matters

    by Jim Stanford

    The problems in Australia’s manufacturing sector are well-known, and many Australians have concluded that the decline in manufacturing is inevitable and universal: that high-wage countries like Australia must accept the loss of manufacturing as an economic reality.  But international statistics disprove this pessimism.  Worldwide, manufacturing is growing, not shrinking, including in many advanced high-wage countries. 

    Australians are purchasing more manufactured products, not less.  Manufacturing is not an “old” industry: it is in fact the most innovation-intensive sector of the entire economy, generating better-than-average productivity growth, good jobs, and exports.  Most importantly, manufacturing possesses several key structural features that make it vital to the economic success of any economy – including Australia’s.  This study documents the damaging decline of Australian manufacturing, a decline that has accelerated in recent years.  It explains the unique features of manufacturing (including innovation-intensity, productivity, income-generating capacity, export-orientation, and complex supply chains) that endow it with a national economic importance.  It shows that Australia has done much worse than other high-wage countries (even smaller more remote ones) at maintaining manufacturing: in fact, manufacturing employment is now smaller as a share of total employment in Australia than in any other advanced country (even Luxembourg!). 

    The paper lists ten key policy levers that have been invoked in other countries to support manufacturing – and which could play a positive role here, too, so long as government gives the sector the attention and priority it needs to succeed.  The paper concludes with public opinion research showing that Australians agree, by very large majorities, that manufacturing is crucial to the national economy, supports good jobs and high living standards, and should be a national priority for policy-makers.



    Full report

    Share

  • A Portrait of Employment Insecurity in Australia

    A Portrait of Employment Insecurity in Australia

    by Jim Stanford

    The insecure nature of work in Australia today can be illustrated through the following infographic (based on 2015 data published by the ABS). Australia has over 19 million residents of working age (which the ABS defines as anyone over 15). Of those, 12.5 million “participated” in the labour market (by working or actively seeking it). Participation has declined in recent years, in large part because of poor job prospects; that’s a turnaround from earlier decades when participation (especially by women) increased steadily.

    Of those 12.5 million, around 11.75 million were “working.” But that doesn’t mean they were all “employed.” Because 2 million of those Australians nominally worked “for themselves,” mostly in small businesses (often not even incorporated) which have no other employees. Conservatives celebrate the expansion of self-employment as a sign of “entrepreneurship.” And some small businesses are indeed rewarding, productive undertakings. But all too often self-employment is more of a desperate act than an opportunity: many sole proprietors can’t find any other way to support themselves, and end up scraping together casual work out of their homes, with hardly any capital (other than their own savings) to back them up.

    Not counting self-employment, an average of 9.75 million Australians held paying jobs in 2015. But close to one-third of those (3 million) were part-time. Again, some part-time jobs are decent, desirable jobs, especially when schedules are reliable and fit well with workers’ preferences and family situations. But most part-time jobs are not: hours are inadequate, schedules are unreliable, wages are low. Two-thirds of all jobs created in Australia in the last year (to April 2016) were part-time, and the share of part-time work in total employment has reached a record 31.5 percent.

    That leaves 6.75 million Australians in full-time paid jobs. But of them, over 750,000 had no leave entitlements (for illness, vacation, or family reasons). Absence of entitlements generally indicates that a job is temporary, contingent, or otherwise very insecure.

    Therefore, a grand total of 5.98 million Australians held a paying full-time job with basic leave entitlements last year. That’s less than half of the labour force. And less than one-third of the working-age population.

    It’s no wonder that holding down a regular full-time job with basic benefits seems like a rarity these days. Statistics confirm that it is a rarity.



    Full report

    Share