Category: Economics

Research branch

  • The Limits of CGE Modelling

    The Limits of CGE Modelling

    The surprising assumptions behind computable general equilibrium models and the implications of not knowing about them
    by Richard Denniss and Matt Saunders

    Economic modelling is a central element of economic and policy debate in Australia. Yet the assumptions that underpin the most commonly used macroeconomic models are rarely discussed even though they fundamentally influence model results. Too often, models are used as a tool of persuasion rather than providing objective policy advice.



    Full report

    Share

  • Life Savers Without Life Savings

    Life Savers Without Life Savings

    Early retirement and superannuation for firefighters and paramedics
    by Jack Thrower

    Firefighters and paramedics save lives, protect us from the ravages of fire, and ensure the sick and injured receive the medical treatment they need. However, after a working life protecting others, these emergency workers face substantial risk of having inadequate retirement incomes.

    Firefighters and paramedics are regularly compelled to retire early due to particular barriers to working beyond the age of 60. Workers in these intense and challenging roles should have access to early retirement options. However, early retirement means fewer years for superannuation to grow and more years in retirement drawing on superannuation.

    The possibility of superannuation running out is significant even under relatively optimistic assumptions.

    This paper provides simulations of retirement income trajectories for firefighters and paramedics under a range of assumptions. For firefighters, these show, under relatively optimistic assumptions, an early-retiring single firefighter can expect their superannuation to run out six years before male life expectancy, nine years before female life expectancy, and 15 years earlier than for a regular retiree (retiring at 67). Under alternative scenarios, incorporating plausible risks, an early-retiring firefighter can expect their superannuation to run out 15 or more years before life expectancy.

    For paramedics, the challenges are similar and severe. Our simulations indicate that, even under optimistic assumptions, an early-retiring single paramedic can expect their superannuation to run out seven years before male life expectancy, ten years before female life expectancy, and 14 years earlier than for a regular retiree. Considering plausible risks, an early-retiring paramedic’s superannuation could run out 15 or more years before life expectancy.

    To extend superannuation longevity through to the age of their expected lifespan an early-retiring firefighter or paramedic would need to reduce their annual living expenses by 18.5%.

    Given the challenges of continuing their work in these intense roles past age 60, it is unacceptable that retired firefighters and paramedics should have either significantly reduced living standards or risk running out of superannuation in retirement.

    Among the range of potential policy responses considered in this paper, one response with promise is to increase employer superannuation contributions for emergency responders and supplement this with a one-time special superannuation contribution for workers already approaching retirement.



    Full report

    Share

  • Submission to Industrial Relations Victoria Inquiry on Restricting Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) in Workplace Sexual Harassment Cases

    Submission to Industrial Relations Victoria Inquiry on Restricting Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) in Workplace Sexual Harassment Cases

    by Lisa Heap and David Peetz

    It is generally reported that NDAs can benefit victim-survivors by providing anonymity and privacy where that is the victim-survivor’s choice. However, it is also reported that power imbalances between victim-survivors on the one hand and perpetrators and employers/organisation on the other have left workers feeling they had little choice but to sign NDAs.

    NDAs have had the impact of silencing victim-survivors, disguising the actions of perpetrators and covering up the prevalence of sexual harassment and other forms of gender-based violence and harassment within organisations. At times, this has enabled harassers to remain in the same workplace or move within industries and continue to engage in sexual harassment.

    The focus of this submission is on the issues of transparency associated with NDAs and the impact of these agreements on public interest concerns regarding the prevention of sexual harassment and other forms of gender-based violence and harassment at work. We believe that greater transparency regarding the practices associated with settling sexual harassment claims will lead to greater accountability. This accountability should be supported by legislative reforms that mandate minimum conditions such as those set out in this submission.



    Full report

    Share

  • Economic Prosperity, Public Sector Restraint

    Economic Prosperity, Public Sector Restraint

    Unpacking South Australia’s Economic and Fiscal Advantages in the Shadow of Public Sector Pay Erosion
    by Jack Thrower

    New report contrasts South Australia’s economic progress with continued public sector wage restraint

    By many measures, South Australia has enjoyed the strongest economy of any state in Australia. Its economic growth has been faster in recent years than any state – and in per capita terms, its prosperity has improved twice as fast as the national average. It enjoys a stable, diversified economic base: reflecting a virtuous combination of strong business investment, exports, household consumption, and government spending (both on current services and on capital investment). The state’s labour market has been operating at or near record-low levels of unemployment and underutilization.

    Unfortunately, this economic progress has not been reflected in improvements in state-funded public services in South Australia. The proportionate share of the economy contributed by state-funded services and infrastructure investments has been declining since before the pandemic (and is now lower as a share of the state’s economy than any other state). State public sector workers have borne the burnt of this restraint: their wages have lagged far behind inflation, resulting in a painful real wage cut for state employees.

    In a new research report, Economist Jack Thrower shows that real wages for state public servants in South Australia have declined by as much as 10% since 2019. This represents a one-tenth reduction in the real purchasing power of their salaries, imposing severe financial stress on tens of thousands of households – and undermining consumer spending and economic growth.

    The report also confirms that South Australia possesses abundant fiscal capacity to repair this damage to real compensation for public sector workers. The state government’s core revenues are growing much faster than core expenses, and the budget is projected to return to surplus this year – faster than any other state other than Western Australia. Rebuilding public servant wages to catch up to past inflation should be a vital priority for the state government.

    Please read the full report, Economic Prosperity, Public Sector Restraint: Unpacking South Australia’s Economic and Fiscal Advantages in the Shadow of Public Sector Pay Erosion, by Jack Thrower.

    Share

  • Taking up the Right to Disconnect? Unsatisfactory Working Hours and Unpaid Overtime

    Taking up the Right to Disconnect? Unsatisfactory Working Hours and Unpaid Overtime

    Go Home on Time Day 2024 Update
    by Fiona Macdonald

    This year marks the sixteenth annual Go Home on Time Day (GHOTD), an initiative of the Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute, that shines a spotlight on the maldistribution of working hours and the scale of unpaid overtime worked by Australians.

    The Australian labour market has remained relatively strong over 2024 although interest rate rises have pushed unemployment to over four per cent. Recent growth in wages has not been enough to take pressure off household budgets, or to offset the major reductions in real wages that occurred following the COVID pandemic. Across the economy, large numbers of workers want more paid work hours. However, the underemployment problem co-exists with overwork and with unpaid overtime that contributes to the loss of substantial amounts of income for working households.

    During the past two years there has been a great deal of public attention and debate about a right to disconnect from work outside work hours. New “Right to Disconnect” laws came into effect in August 2024. While it is early days, these laws could already be having a positive impact including through raised awareness that workers should be free to enjoy their personal time without work demands. Our research indicates that unpaid overtime hours were fewer in 2024 than in previous years, both pre- and post-COVID pandemic years.

    Unpaid overtime
    On average, employees reported they performed 3.6 hours of unpaid work in the week of the survey, equivalent to       10.9% of total working hours.  This unpaid overtime equates to 188 hours per year per worker, or almost five standard 38-hour work weeks.

    •  If  unpaid overtime were valued at median wage rates, this means the average worker is losing $7,713 per year or $297 a fortnight.
    • At the economy-wide level, this equates to more than $91 billion of lost income per year.

    The personal and social costs of unpaid overtime, through working outside of normal hours, include negative consequences for health and wellbeing and relationships:

    • Four in ten workers report physical tiredness (42%) and feeling mentally drained (40%)A third of workers experience stress or anxiety (32%), and one in four experienced interference with personal life/relationships (29%).One in five workers experience disrupted sleep (22%).
      • One in three workers (36%) indicate that unpaid overtime is either expected or encouraged in their workplace.
    •  The most common reason for working outside scheduled work hours is too much work (41%), with the second most common reason being staff shortages when other staff are absent or on leave (31%).

    Dissatisfaction with working hours
    Across the whole labour market, almost half of all employed workers (45%) are unsatisfied with their working hours – wanting either more or fewer hours.
    o One in three workers (32%) reported that they wanted more paid hours. This desire was especially strong among workers in casual jobs (51%). Over four in ten workers (43%) aged 18 to 30 years of age wanted more paid hours.
    o Just over half of workers (55%) indicated their hours were about right.

    To calculate how much pay you are losing through unpaid overtime go to our unpaid overtime calculator at gohomeontimeday.org.au



    Full report

    Share

  • Doing it Tough

    Doing it Tough

    How Australians are experiencing the cost of living crisis
    by Lisa Heap

    This report documents the results of a recent survey of Australian adults regarding their experience of the cost of living crisis. Australian workers are doing it tough. Costs are increasing faster than wages and incomes. Those with less are doing it the toughest.

    The current cost of living crisis in Australia has two components – the incomes that people receive, and the prices they pay for goods and services. This is what Alan Fels has recently referred to as the “two faces” of the crisis .  Action to protect the living standards of Australians must address both faces of the crisis.

    As part of a broader research initiative investigating the human costs of the crisis and the impact of austerity on Australian workers, the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work surveyed a nationally representative sample of 1014 adults living in Australia about their household income and the costs of living.  The results show that:

    • Almost three-quarters (72%) of respondents felt their wages had grown slower than prices over the previous year.
    • Over half of respondents (53%) said their household’s financial situation was worse that it was two years ago.
    • The cost of living crisis has had differential impacts. Because it has affected lower-income Australians most severely, the cost of living crisis has exacerbated inequality.
    • Respondents identified higher grocery prices as the most visible source of the increased cost of living. Six out of 10 (60%) of respondents identified groceries as the purchase where they have most noticed higher prices followed by utilities (21%) and transport (7%).
    • There was strong support for measures across a broad range of policy areas to address the costs of living. 64% of respondents said it was very important to lower utility costs to reduce cost of living pressures. 64% said it was very important to increase supermarket competition, 60% to lower medical costs, and 58% to increase the pace of wages growth.

    The respondents to this survey supported a suite of policy initiatives designed to both reduce the cost of living, and to increase wages and income supports. In their view, addressing the cost of living crisis requires a multi-dimensional approach, rather than a singular reliance on high interest rates to slow inflation.

    The report is published by the Centre for Future Work in conjunction with a one-day symposium it is hosting in Melbourne on 17 October on the crisis in living standards in Australia, and how to address it through greater investments in wages, public services, and affordable housing and energy.



    Full report

    Share

  • An Industrial Strategy for Domestic Manufacturing of Onshore and Offshore Wind Energy Towers and Equipment

    An Industrial Strategy for Domestic Manufacturing of Onshore and Offshore Wind Energy Towers and Equipment

    by Phillip Toner

    Australia could create more than 4300 quality direct jobs by making its own wind towers instead of importing them, according to new research by the Centre for Future Work. At present, all wind towers installed in Australia are imported from overseas with most coming from China.

    The report, by Professor Phil Toner (Honorary Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Political Economy at the University of Sydney) found a domestic wind energy sector would generate:

    ●      4,350 ongoing jobs in wind tower manufacturing, and thousands more in input industries, especially steel

    ●      Output of over 800 towers per year, with cumulative value of up to $15 billion over the next 17 years

    ●      Incremental demand for up to 700,000 tonnes of Australian-made steel per year, creating a foundation for the recapitalization of Australian steel plants with carbon-free technologies

    ●      Avoiding 2.6 million tonnes of CO2 emissions thanks to reduced sea shipping of imported wind towers

    Wind energy manufacturing represents a prime opportunity to apply the new policy tools of the federal government’s Future Made in Australia manufacturing strategy.

    The report makes several recommendations, including:

    • The federal government in co-operation with state governments and industry should commission an engineering and financial study into the optimal location, plant size, plant playout, advanced production equipment and minimum scale of output required to establish competitive tower manufacturing on the east coast of Australia (where onshore and offshore wind farm activity will be intense for decades).
    • State and federal government local content plans for renewable energy generation should prescribe specific proportions of domestic content in private and public procurement of wind energy equipment – harmonised across states to improve efficiency in domestic wind tower manufacturing.
    • A public-private planning authority should be established to strengthen linkages between investments in renewable energy supply and parallel investments in green steel production, using steady demand for wind tower manufacturing (and resulting supply of non-carbon electricity) to validate investments in decarbonised steel production.
    • The Scope 3 emissions embodied in imported towers (both in offshore manufacturing and then shipping of those towers to Australia) should be fully reflected in decisions regarding sourcing.



    Full report

    Share

  • Leaving Money on the Table: Foregone Economic Gains from Continued SRS Underfunding

    Leaving Money on the Table: Foregone Economic Gains from Continued SRS Underfunding

    By locking in public school underfunding, Australia misses out on important economic, labour market, and fiscal benefits.
    by Jim Stanford

    The Commonwealth government’s current offer to fund public schools to just 22.5% of the agreed Schooling Resource Standard would leave much of the current school funding shortfall unrepaired. This would squander many of the economic benefits that would otherwise result from full public school funding. Based on disaggregation of previous estimates of the economic benefits generated by stronger school funding and hence scholastic outcomes, we estimate the failure to fulfil the 25% Commonwealth contribution required for full SRS funding would ultimately forego GDP gains of $3.5 to $5 billion per year, and impose net fiscal costs on government (all levels) of $0.6 to $1.5 billion per year.

    International and Australian research has confirmed the substantial economic and fiscal benefits of well-funded and accessible public schools. Extrapolating international evidence, previous research from the Centre for Future Work estimated cumulating Australian GDP gains reaching $18-$25 billion per year after two decades, as a result of fully meeting SRS funding standards for public schools. Those gains are experienced via increased employment and value-added in the school sector; improved productivity and wage outcomes for school graduates; and reduced income support and social expenditures as a result of better overall education. Higher GDP would in turn generate revenue gains for government that exceed the expense of meeting SRS funding benchmarks in the first place.

    The failure to fully fund public schools is clearly a case of false economy. The relatively small amounts of money ‘saved’ in the near term, are more than offset by long-run underperformance according to numerous indicators: school attainment and completion, productivity, GDP, and fiscal balances. The Commonwealth government is leaving money on the table, with its failure to fully meet SRS funding requirements.



    Full report

    Share

  • Chalmers is right, the RBA has smashed the economy

    Chalmers is right, the RBA has smashed the economy

    by Greg Jericho

    In recent weeks the Treasurer Jim Chalmers has been criticised by the opposition and some conservative economists for pointing out that the 13 interest rate increases have slowed Australia’s economy. But the data shows he is right.

    Last year the government announced it was considering removing its statutory power to overrule the Reserve Bank. Thankfully it has now reconsidered that move, and the actions of the RBA over the past year serve to remind everyone that it is far from infallible.

    In its May Statement on Monetary Policy the RBA looked ahead one month and estimated that in June the annual growth of household consumption would be 1.1%. When the national accounts were released last week, the actual growth was revealed to be just 0.5%.

    Now obviously economic forecasting is a bit of a mugs game, but household consumption makes up half of Australia’s economy and accounted for around 45% of all the growth in the economy over the past decade so it is pretty important. It is also the area of the economy most directly affected by interest rate rises. This error of forecasting suggests that the Reserve Bank has rather poorly misread just how greatly households had been impacted by the 13 rate rises that had taken the cash rate from 0.1% in April 2022 to 4.35% in November 2023.

    This error is crucial because the main reason the RBA raises rates is to reduce the ability of households to spend. Because you can’t tell your bank that you don’t really feel like paying your mortgage this month, interest rate rises force households to divert money that would have been spent on goods and services to paying your mortgage.

    The problem is when you are trying to slow down half of the economy so directly, if you overdo it the entire economy begins to fall. This is what happened in the early 1980s and 1990s when interest rates were raised sharply in order to slow inflation.

    And the private sector has already slowed so greatly that the only reason GDP rose in the past year was because of increased government spending.

    That is not a sign of a strong economy, nor a sign of one, according to the assistant governor of the RBA, Dr Sarah Hunter, that “is running a little bit hotter than we thought previously”.

    Economies that are running a bit hot are ones in which households are spending a lot more than they were the year before because unemployment is falling and wages are rising well ahead of inflation. Instead we currently have a situation where unemployment has risen from 3.5% in June last year to the current level of 4.2%, household spending grew just 0.5% – well below the long-term average of 3% – and real wages in the past year rose just 0.1%.

    When asked about this discrepancy between reality and the RBA’s belief, the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Michele Bullock told reporters last week that

    …it’s the difference between growth rates and levels.

    She noted that “it’s true that the growth rate of GDP has slowed” but that “part of monetary policy’s job has been to try and slow the growth of the economy because the level of demand for goods and services in the economy is higher than the ability of the economy to supply those goods and services. So there’s still a gap there. So even though it’s slowing, we still have this gap.”

    In effect Bullock was telling people to stop worrying about the fact that household consumption was barely growing or that GDP only grew because of government spending or that GDP per capita has fallen for a record 6 consecutive quarters because the amount of consumption and GDP was too high.

    This could make sense – think of it like a car travelling on a 60km/h road. If it was travelling at 80km/h and slowed to 70km/h even though it was slowing it would still be going too fast.

    In essence this is what Bullock is arguing is happening to demand in the economy – it is slowing but overall there’s still too much of it.

    The only problem is that this is completely wrong.

    Consider the suggestion that the demand for goods and services is higher than the ability of the economy to supply those goods and services. One simple way to look at this is to see if the amount of goods and services bought per person is currently at a level consistent with the growth observed in the decade before the pandemic.

    This is actually not a major test – household consumption, along with most of the economy was rather weak in the 7 or 8 years before 2020. The RBA at the time actually was hoping Australians would spend more than they did, so you would expect in an economy with too much demand that the amount of things we are buying is well above the levels of that particularly weak period.

    But it is not.

    As we can see from the below graph, while household spending did quickly recover after the lockdowns in 2020 and 2021, by the time the RBA began raising interest rates our level of demand for goods and services was only back to the level consistent with the pre-pandemic growth.

    Now yes you can argue the RBA was right to increase rates at that time – to ensure our spending didn’t keep zooming up in recovery. But by the time of the 10th rate increase in March 2023, household spending per person was already falling and 0.7% below the pre-pandemic trend. When the RBA raised rates for there 12th time in June 2023, the level of demand for goods and services was 1% below the pre-pandemic trend.

    At this point you might think the RBA had done enough. But after pausing for 4 months, the bank inexplicably raised rates for a 13th time in November 2023. At this stage household level of spending was 2.5% below the pre-pandemic trend.

    And because interest rate rises take months to worth through the economy we now find ourselves at a point where the level of household consumption per person is 3.8% lower than would have been expected had households merely kept increasing our consumption in line with the decade before the pandemic.

    In effect Australians are currently consuming almost the same amount of goods and services as they did in June 2018 and yet the head of the RBA would have us believe that is a case of excess demand.

    If we look at the overall economy, the picture is much the same (see the graph at the top of the page). Australia’s level of GDP per capita did recover quickly after the lockdowns and by June 2022 was 1.4% above the pre-pandemic trend level. But the interest rates rises had an immediate impact – reducing GDP per capita in 7 of the next 8 quarters. By June 2023 the level of activity in the economy was already below pre-pandemic expectations, and when the RBA hit Australians with the 13th rate rise in November 2023, the level of GDP per capita was 1.2% below the long-term trend.

    It is now 2.5% below – back at the level it was in June 2021.

    The RBA has got it wrong. They were initially worried that inflation was driven by concerns of strong wage growth rather than supply side issues and corporate profits. They then tried to argue household spending was still growing too strongly. The GDP figures showed that to be woefully mistaken. They then tried to argue that while growth in the economy was slow, there was still too much demand. But again the figures show this to be mistaken.

    The Treasurer Jim Chalmers stated nothing but the facts when he said earlier this month that rate rises were “smashing the economy”. The data supports his assertion, and it is time the RBA admits that their actions have not only slowed the economy but slowed it at a pace that is now harming Australians for no benefit other than the RBA saving face from its previous over-reactions.


    Related research

    You might also like

  • The 9 to 5 is back! Time to put the phone on silent

    Originally published in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age on August 26, 2024

    If you’ve ever flicked off an email before bed, texted your boss out of hours, or received an ‘urgent’ work call after clocking off, you’ll be glad to hear some respite is just around the corner.
    A new right to disconnect from work, for employees in businesses with 15 or more staff, comes into force across Australia from Monday 26th August. This is a welcome response to the growing problem of ‘availability creep’, where work demands spill over into workers’ leisure time.
    The new right means most employees can now refuse to monitor and respond to unreasonable contact from their employers about work matters outside of paid work hours.
    Many of us are now online and digitally connected to our workplaces 24/7. This constant connectedness can make it hard to escape work calls, texts, and emails when not actually at work.
    As we are now so easily contacted anywhere and anytime, our leisure and family time has become very susceptible to interruptions from work, leading to unpaid overtime, an inability to ‘switch off’, and blurred boundaries between work and non-work time. Gone are the days of 8 hours work, 8 hours rest, and 8 hours play.
    The consequences are stark. Research has shown these work practices lead to increased stress, health problems and a poor work-life balance.
    The right to disconnect from work is one solution to the problems of availability creep and unpaid overtime. The Senate Select Committee on Work and Care proposed this reform to Australia’s workplace laws in early 2023 and the initiative was included in the Government’s Closing Loopholes package of workplace reforms passed by the federal parliament later that year. A similar right is in place in a number of other countries including France, Canada and the Philippines.
    Australia’s new right to disconnect does not mean there is a blanket ban on contacting employees outside their scheduled work hours. Rather, it means that an employee cannot be penalised for refusing unreasonable contact.
    There are many circumstances in which a manager’s attempts to contact an employee out of their work hours might be reasonable. For example, this could be where an employee is on-call and receiving an on-call allowance. Some jobs regularly require a certain amount of out of hours contact and employees’ remuneration may reflect this. However, for many workers, contact out of working hours arises from pressures that lead to overwork and unpaid overtime.
    And unpaid overtime is a significant problem in Australia.
    In 2023 employees responding to a Centre for Future Work survey reported working an average of 5.4 hours of unpaid overtime a week, with full-time employees reporting working an average of 6.2 hours a week of unpaid overtime. A conservative back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that’s an extra seven weeks’ work every year.
    Workers should not have to monitor or respond to emails, text messages and phone calls after hours about concerns that could be raised and dealt with in their scheduled work time. Poor organisation, understaffing and reliance on overwork are not good reasons for requiring employees to be available out of hours. It is these practices that the right to disconnect is intended to challenge.
    Fears that workplace flexibility will be undermined as workers exercise their rights to disconnect are largely misplaced. In organisations where flexibility is based on employees’ constant availability there may be some disruption. But this is exactly the practices that the right to disconnect should disrupt.
    Flexibility can exist alongside respect for employees’ rights to switch off from work. Good flexible work practices and arrangements are those that benefit both employers and employees, and are designed through negotiation and consultation. The dissolution of boundaries between work and leisure time is not the answer.
    Will individual employees be lining up to ask the Fair Work Commission to order their employers to stop contacting them? Probably not. The real potential in the right to disconnect is its ability to catalyse an evolution in workplace expectations that shifts norms away from a reliance on overwork and constant availability.
    Time to put that phone on silent.


    You might also like