Tag: David Richardson

  • Profit-Price Inflation: Theory, International Evidence, and Policy Implications

    Profit-Price Inflation: Theory, International Evidence, and Policy Implications

    Profits need to come down to reduce inflation and allow real wages to recover

    New research confirms that corporate profits in Australia, despite recent moderation, remain well above historic norms, and must fall further in order to allow a rebuilding of real wages in Australia that have been badly damaged by recent inflation.

    The report, compiled by Dr Jim Stanford (Economist and Director of the Centre for Future Work), with contributions from several other economists at the Centre and the Australia Institute, confirms that higher corporate profits still account for most of the rise in economy-wide unit prices in Australia since the pandemic struck.

    The good news is that corporate profits have begun to moderate, as global supply chains are repaired, shortages of strategic commodities dissipate, and consumer purchasing patterns adjust after the pandemic. This has occurred alongside a reduction in inflation of over half since early 2022 (falling from a peak of 8.9% annualised in early 2022 to 3.4% by June 2023). This further confirms the close correlation between corporate profits and inflation — but both profits and inflation need to fall further.

    The report also reviews the methodology and findings of over 35 international studies confirming the existence of profit-led inflation across many industrial countries (including Australia). The methodology and findings of these studies are very similar to that utilised by the Australian Institute and the Centre for Future Work in previous research on profit-led inflation.

    The international research includes reports from numerous established institutions (including the OECD, the IMF, the Bank for International Settlements, many central banks, and the European Commission). Using similar methodology, these institutions came to similar conclusions: namely, that historically high corporate profits were the dominant factor in the initial surge of global inflation after COVID.

    The report was submitted on 21 September as evidence to the ACTU’s Price-Gouging Inquiry, headed by Prof Allan Fels. This Inquiry is gathering documentary evidence on how Australian workers and consumers have faced exploitive and unfair pricing practices by Australian corporations, which have added to recent inflation and undermined real wages. The new report provides macroeconomic evidence confirming the relevance of the Inquiry’s terms of reference.

    Policy-makers in other countries (including Europe and the U.S.) agree that corporate profit margins need to fall further in order to continue reducing inflation, while allowing real wages to recover to pre-pandemic levels. The new report shows this is also true in Australia. Average real wages are presently 6% lower than in mid-2021 (when post-pandemic inflation broke out, led by higher prices and corresponding super-profits in strategic industries like energy, manufacturing, and transportation).

    Wages will thus have to grow significantly faster than inflation for a sustained period of time to recoup those losses. That can occur while still reducing inflation if historically high profit margins are reduced to traditional levels.



    Full report




    Factsheet
    Chalmers is right, the RBA has smashed the economy




    Factsheet
    Would you like a recession with that? New Zealand shows the danger of high interest rates

    Share

  • Profit share

    Profit share

    Exploring data on profits in the Australian economy
    by David Richardson and Richard Denniss

    The roles of profits, wages and costs in driving inflation has been widely discussed in recent months. Claims by the Business Council of Australia that profit shares are at a 20-year low are not supported by official data sources.

    In recent months the relative role of wages, costs of production and profits in driving inflation in Australia, and around the world, has been widely discussed. However, as is often the case in Australia, even simple questions such as ‘is the profit share rising or falling?’ and ‘have wages or profits played a bigger role in driving inflation?’ have become contested.

    For example, while the Australia Institute and the ACTU1 have argued that profit growth has contributed more to inflation than wage growth, and that the profit share of GDP is at historically high levels, the Business Council of Australia (BCA) is arguing the exact opposite. For example, the CEO of the BCA, Jennifer Westacott was recently reported as complaining that recent focus by the unions on the size of profits in Australia created an “us v them” narrative. Moreover, she was reported as saying that once mining profits were removed, the profits share of income had actually fallen to its lowest point in 20 years.2 While it is of course possible that Ms Westacott was misreported, no corrections have been issued. And while she may have provided data to support her claim, the journalist who wrote the story made no reference to it, nor has the BCA provided any data to support their claim on their website.

    Intriguingly, soon after Ms Westacott’s claims were reported the BCA’s Chief Economist, Stephen Walters, made a related, but significantly more cautious claim, namely:

    After excluding the miners and banks which are distorting this data and where wages are among the highest in the nation, the broader profit share actually has fallen.3

    Not only does Mr Walters suggest that it is useful to exclude the profits of two industries to understand what it happening to profits in Australia (rather than just the one identified by his CEO) he makes no claims about the relevant period for analysis (as opposed to his CEO’s claim about trends over the last 20 years). Neither Ms Westacott nor Mr Walters explain why they are excluding an arbitrary number of profitable industries from their analysis of profits. But, as discussed below, if the volatility or recent growth of profits in some sectors is the explanation for their exclusion then it seems unusual that sectors with volatile or rapidly growing wage bills would not also be excluded from their analysis.

    This paper presents a wide range of data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) that suggests, contrary to recent claims made by representatives of the BCA, the profit share of GDP is rising.

    While the topic of this paper may seem esoteric, it is important to consider the consequences for policy debate in Australia of the inability of different groups to agree on thing as simple as whether profits are currently at historically high or low levels. As has been shown with climate change, if groups cannot agree on the nature of a problem it is difficult, if not impossible, for them to develop solutions.



    Full report

    Share

  • Are Wages or Profits Driving Australia’s Inflation?

    Are Wages or Profits Driving Australia’s Inflation?

    An analysis of the National Accounts

    Labour costs have played an insignificant role in the recent increase in inflation, accounting for just 15 percent of economy wide price increases while profits have played an overwhelming role, accounting for about 60 percent of recent inflation.



    Full report

    Share

  • Funding High-Quality Aged Care Services: A Summary

    Funding High-Quality Aged Care Services: A Summary

    by David Richardson and Jim Stanford

    The Centre for Future Work has prepared a 4-page summary of our recent detailed report on funding needed improvements in aged care services in Australia, in the wake of recommendations from the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety.

    The summary is based on a full 80-page research report, Funding Quality Aged Care Services, published in May and written by David Richardson and Jim Stanford.

    The summary report restates the key recommendations from the Royal Commission (including its emphasis on improving working conditions and job stability for aged care workers), highlights the ample fiscal capacity for the Commonwealth government to move ahead with implementing those recommendations, and then considers five specific revenue tools which could generate sufficient resources to pay for needed reforms. The most obvious (and perhaps fairest) would be for the Commonwealth government to cancel the planned ‘Stage 3’ elimination of the 37% personal income tax bracket: a move (already legislated) which would reduce revenues by at least $16 billion per year, but would deliver the vast majority of its ‘savings’ to the richest fifth of society. Surely, committing to the safe and respectful care of older Australians is a more important priority than further supplementing the take-home incomes of very well-off households.



    Full report

    Share

  • Funding High-Quality Aged Care Services

    Funding High-Quality Aged Care Services

    by David Richardson and Jim Stanford

    Implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety will require additional Commonwealth funding of at least $10 billion per year, and there are several revenue tools which the government could use to raise those funds.

    While the Royal Commission’s 148 recommendations were not explicitly costed, the Centre’s report shows that $10 billion per year (or around 0.5% of Australia’s GDP) would be the minimum required to move forward with the urgent reforms in regulation, employment practices, and quality benchmarks advised by the Commission.

    The report notes Australia’s public spending on aged care is much lower than other industrial countries with better records of aged care service. It also notes that Australia’s overall tax collections are also much smaller (by about 5% of GDP) than the OECD average, and have declined relative to Australia’s GDP in recent years.

    The Centre recommends that initial improvements in aged care funding should proceed immediately, even before new revenue measures are implemented. With the Commonwealth budget projected to incur major deficits for many years (due to the COVVID-19 pandemic and recession), it is neither necessary nor appropriate to fully ‘fund’ incremental aged care spending in the initial years of reform.

    Eventually, however, as economic and fiscal conditions stabilise, additional revenue sources will be important in underpinning high-quality aged care. The Centre’s report highlights five specific options for raising new funds – two of which were proposed by the respective Royal Commissioners:

    A 1 percentage-point medicare-style flat-rate levy (proposed by Royal Commissioner Briggs).
    A set of modest adjustments to personal income tax rates, preserving the existing progressivity of the system (similar to the proposal of Commissioner Pagone).
    Cancelling the legislated Stage Three income tax cuts scheduled to begin in 2024 (which deliver most savings to high-income households).
    Reforms in the treatment of capital gains and dividend income in the personal income tax system.
    Reforms to company taxes to eliminate loopholes and raise additional revenues.
    The government could use any one of these measures (or a combination of them) to support the implementation of the Royal Commission’s recommendations.



    Full report

    Share

  • Missing a Stitch in Time:

    Missing a Stitch in Time:

    The Consequences of Underinvestment in Proper Upkeep of Australia’s Electricity Transmission and Distribution System

    Australia’s electricity industry constitutes a large and critical component of our national economic infrastructure. The industry produces $25 billion per year in value- added. It employs around 50,000 Australians, paying out $6 billion per year in wages and salaries. It makes $45 billion in annual purchases from a diverse and far-reaching supply chain, that provides the sector with inputs ranging from resources to equipment to construction to services.

    Most important, of course, the industry literally keeps the lights on: it provides an essential input, electric energy, without which no other industry could function and the safety and comfort of Australians would be immediatel jeopardised. In this regard, electricity is clearly an essential service: a utility vital to virtually everything else that occurs in the economy and society.

    Given that critical importance, we would assume that investing in the proper capitalisation, modernisation, upgrading and maintenance of this system would be a top priority of economic policy and corporate decision-making. Unfortunately, however, irrational and unintended consequences arising from the business-friendly, market-driven regulatory regime presently governing Australia’s electricity sector have produced exactly the opposite result. A structural pattern of sustained underinvestment in the upkeep and quality of the transmission and distribution grid is jeopardising the safety and reliability of the network – and harming both the people who work in this industry and the customers they serve.

    The present system was established on the assumption that profit-seeking behaviour of private businesses, with appropriate regulatory supervision, will best ensure an efficient allocation of resources, top quality service, and lowest possible prices for consumers. On every one of these grounds, however, the system has failed. Alongside chronic underinvestment in the system’s equipment and reliability, there is abundant evidence of an enormous waste of resources by self-dealing, rent-seeking corporate entities – diverting billions of dollars of expenditure away from necessary upkeep, redirected to ultimately unproductive activities (including overlapping corporate bureaucracies, frenetic selling and re-selling within the industry, and intense financialisation) that have nothing to do with the production and delivery of reliable, affordable energy. The national grid is unable to meet several challenges to its safety and reliability: including its ability to safely withstand extreme heat and severe weather events, and its capacity to adjust to the accelerating roll-out of variable and distributed renewable generation investments. The workforce in the industry has lost jobs and real incomes. And consumers (both residential and industrial) have faced an unprecedented and unjustified inflation of electricity prices.

    To be sure, this privatised, fragmented, and badly regulated industry has been consistently and increasingly profitable for its owners. Given the monopoly power these energy businesses have been granted over a critical piece of public infrastructure, these profits are hardly a surprise. What is surprising (and disappointing), however, is how Australia’s regulatory regime has failed to recognise and respond to these perverse outcomes. Despite growing evidence of deteriorating efficiency and reliability, and the inflation of both prices and profits, regulators continue with a business-as-usual approach to managing the industry. This approach routinely turns back legitimate requests for needed upgrades, modernisation, and maintenance on the system’s real capital base – while turning a blind eye to the rampant waste of resources on unproductive and self-serving corporate functions. Given the increasing pressures associated with climate change, more severe and frequent bushfires, population growth, and the shift to renewable generation, this business-as-usual approach cannot continue.

    A timeless adage reminds us that ‘a stitch in time saves nine.’ Prudent attention to maintaining productive assets in top quality condition, and upgrading capital in line with new technology and evolving best practices, is a hallmark of efficient and successful management. Australia’s electricity industry is controlled by self-seeking private businesses, and a few state-owned corporations directed to act just like them. They are governed by a regulatory system which places far too much faith in the inherent efficiency of private sector actors. Hence the industry is failing to make that stitch in time. Australians will pay the price for the chronic neglect of proper maintenance and upkeep of our electricity system in many ways: through a system that is inefficient, unreliable, cannot meet the challenges of the coming energy revolution, is unduly expensive to consumers, and which in many cases is unsafe for both workers and the public at large.

    This report provides evidence of a pattern of systematic underinvestment in the upkeep and capability of Australia’s electricity grid, drawing on three major sources of data:

    • A project to gather original qualitative data from dozens of power industry workers employed on the front lines of maintaining Australia’s transmission and distribution network. Their personal and professional experience attests to a widespread and sustained pattern of underinvestment and neglect, and provides worrisome details regarding the consequences of that underinvestment for the well-being of workers, communities, and the environment.
    • A review of other research and findings in the public domain (including several government commissions and inquries) regarding the importance of a top-quality, well-maintained electricity grid for our economy and society. These previous studies have also warned that the current system is falling behind in safe and efficient upkeep of its capital assets.
    • A review of available quantitative data – from the Australian Energy Regulator, from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and from individual companies. This review confirms the steady decline in allocations of real resources to the capitalisation and good operating condition of the transmission and distribution grid. And it documents the erosion of real maintenance and upkeep according to several indicators, alongside evidence of unprecedented inflation in both electricity prices and industry profits.

    The main findings of this comprehensive qualitative and quantitative analysis include the following:

    • First-hand accounts from dozens of electricity sector workers in various roles and all parts of the country confirm the ongoing failure of the current system to allocate adequate resources to pro-active maintenance, upgrades, and safety, with serious consequences for workers, community safety, and the environment.
    • Real spending by the transmission and distribution sectors on operations and maintenance of the grid has been reduced by at least $1 billion per year since 2012.
    • Adjusted for inflation and the expanded base of customers in the network, real operating expenditures per customer have declined by 28-33 per cent since 2006.
    • Even within that contracting overall envelope of spending on maintenance and operations, several indicators confirm a reallocation of resources away from concrete system operation and maintenance, in favour of corporate overhead functions, re-selling, and financial activities.
    • The transmission and distribution system now employs 40 per cent more managers and office-based professionals than electricians.
    • Capital investment, spending on materials and equipment, capitalised own-use activity, and employment of electricians, linespersons, and related specialists have all declined markedly in the past several years.
    • Fundamental measures of efficiency in the industry (including total factor and average labour productivity) have also deteriorated, dragged down by misallocation of resources to corporate and overhead functions.
    • The squeeze on maintenance and upgrading expenses resulting from a combination of AER pressure and corporate profit-seeking has not produced savings for consumers. To the contrary, prices for both residential and industrial users have soared dramatically (almost doubling in real terms) since 2000.
    • High electricity prices have boosted revenues and profits in the industry – which have doubled in nominal terms since 2006, and grown substantially as a share of the industry’s total value-added. The AER’s superficial and ineffective oversight processes have not prevented private energy businesses from profiting through underinvestment in the industry’s asset base, and exploitation of consumers andworkers alike.

    After reviewing this worrisome evidence of systematic underinvestment in the quality and capability of Australia’s electricity grid, the report concludes with seven concrete recommendations to begin repairing and reversing these irrational and destructive outcomes. These include:

    1. AER determinations of allowable capital, upgrading and maintenance investments by regulated businesses should be ascertained on the basis of concrete bottom-up auditing of system capability, reliability and performance, undertaken by independent arms-length technical experts. Regulation of capital and maintenance expenditures needs to be ‘grounded’ in analysis of real-world challenges and constraints facing the system – including assessments of additional requirements arising from climate change and severe weather, risk mitigation (including bushfire prevention and vegetation management), and challenges related to the growth of distributed renewable generation. A broader economic benefit test should be applied to ensure the interests of workers and the community are factored into decision-making around capital investments and upkeep.
    2. Once appropriate levels of system capital and maintenance expenditures have been identified, explicit mechanisms must be established to reflect and recover those costs in regulated electricity prices.
    3. When adverse events (such as severe weather, bushfires, or other occurrences) necessitate capital or repair expenditures above and beyond previously approved regulated levels, provisions for additional cost recovery must also be accessible.
    4. Costing of capital installation, upgrading, and maintenance expenditure must take explicit account of the need for high-quality skilled, certified labour to perform that work – including appropriate wages, entitlements and working conditions in line with industry best practices.
    5. The accelerating transition to renewable energy sources, through both utility- scale projects and distributed sources, poses a unique and historic challenge to the capabilities of the national transmission and distribution grid. The AER, in conjunction with the AEMO and other industry bodies, should undertake a thorough assessment of the investments and system changes that will be required to meet the new requirements of an increasingly renewables-focused power system. This assessment must incorporate a broader economic and social cost-benefit lens, rather than the current narrowly-defined conception of economic costs. The findings of this assessment must then inform the AER’s subsequent determinations regarding allowable capital and maintenance expenditures by regulated businesses.
    6. Businesses which underspend allowed capital and maintenance budgets should be issued financial penalties which offset the impact of this underspending on their operating margins. This would eliminate the current perverse incentive for private transmitters and distributors to artificially suppress needed maintenance and upgrades in the interests of a short-term bonus over and above their already-substantial profit margins.
    7. The AER must undertake more detailed reviews of the submitted overhead, marketing, and financial activities of regulated energy businesses. Instead of providing blanket approval for whatever operating expenses companies deem to be in their interests, within an overall ceiling that is not differentiated with respect to specific cost activities, the regulator should focus on reducing the deadweight costs of duplicated, self-serving corporate bureaucracies.

    It is past time for those in charge of Australia’s electricity system – both private owners and government regulators – to acknowledge the widening tears in the fabric of this vital public service. And it is well past time for them to begin making the necessary repairs.



    Full report

    Share

  • Tolerate Unemployment, but Blame the Unemployed

    Tolerate Unemployment, but Blame the Unemployed

    The Contradictions of NAIRU Policy-Making in Australia
    by David Richardson

    For the last generation macroeconomic policy in Australia has been based on the assumption that unemployment must be maintained at a certain minimum level in order to restrain wages and prevent an outbreak of accelerating inflation. Now, after six years of record-low wage growth – which weakened even further in the latest ABS wage statistics – it is time for that policy to be abandoned.

    In a comprehensive critique of unemployment and monetary policy in Australia, Senior Research Fellow David Richardson shows there is no stable statistical basis for the assumption that inflation will accelerate without end if unemployment falls below its so-called “natural” or “non-accelerating inflation rate” (NAIRU, commonly thought to be around 5%). And the economic and social costs of deliberately maintaining high unemployment are very large.

    Richardson’s paper, Tolerate Unemployment, but Blame the Unemployed: The Contradictions of NAIRU Policy-Making in Australia, has been published today by the Centre for Future Work. The study was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald and other papers.

    Among its major findings:

    • Officially recorded unemployment is only the tip of the iceberg of total underutilised labour in Australia. Counting underemployment, discouraged workers, and “marginally attached” workers, there are around 3 million Australians who would like to work (or would like more work) but can’t find it: far worse than the official unemployment estimate (currently around 700,000).
    • Recent disagreements between Treasury and the Reserve Bank of Australia over the precise level of the NAIRU (the former say it is 5%, the latter say it might be 4.5%) ignore the growing evidence that the core concept is invalid and unsupported by empirical evidence.
    • Numerical estimates of the NAIRU have been wildly inconsistent over time. This is partly because of a process called “hysteresis”: whereby the existence of even temporary or cyclical unemployment can create long-term barriers to employment that seem to inhibit subsequent job-creation. If policy-makers believe in an elevated NAIRU, and act to ensure that unemployment stays at or above that level, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy – and economic performance is undermined for decades.
    • Monetary and fiscal policy should be shifted to aim to steadily reduce unemployment as low as, rather than targeting a certain minimum assumed NAIRU.
    • The economic benefits of reducing unemployment are enormous. Every one-percentage point reduction in unemployment results in 134,000 new jobs, $10 billion in additional output, and billions of dollars in additional fiscal revenue for governments.
    • There is an enormous contradiction between a macroeconomic policy that deliberately maintains unemployment, and a social policy that blames the failures of unemployed people (such as a supposed lack of “work ethic”) for their own hardship.
    • The long-term freeze in Newstart benefits (which have not changed in real terms since 199) should be abandoned, and benefit levels increased substantially. Since chronic unemployment is the outcome of deliberate policy, the least society can do is fairly compensate those who have been hurt by this policy.

    Australia’s continuing record-low wage growth, and sluggish economic performance, make the need for a change in policy direction all the more urgent. Even within the constraints of the NAIRU policy, the RBA and the government have failed to meet their own stated objectives: for example, inflation has languished well below the official 2.5% target for over 5 consecutive years. It is time for a fundamental rethink of macroeconomic policy, which should be focused on restoring genuine full employment as the top priority.



    Full report

    Share

  • Inquiry into the BCA Commitment to the Senate

    Inquiry into the BCA Commitment to the Senate

    by Jim Stanford, Bill Browne and David Richardson

    The present submission questions the Business Council of Australia’s (BCA) Commitment to increasing investment, employment and wages in the event that the outstanding tax cuts are legislated. We looked specifically at the 10 corporate CEOs who made the commitment on behalf of their companies and found some half of those paid no tax. One wonders what their commitment could possibly mean.

    We then examine the logic of the tax cuts, issues to do with dividend imputation, problems with the theory, and problems in the modelling exercises as well as the evidence from cross-country data and the evidence from Australia’s own history. Much of this has been covered in earlier Australia Institute papers but there is a new treatment of the modelling problems. However, we were able to add a new section that examines the early indicators following the Trump tax cuts.

    Many of the same arguments were used by the US promoters of corporate tax cuts as were used in the Australian context. The main difference of course was that the US does not have the complications of dividend imputation. Nevertheless the early indicators are that very little is going to the workers with the bulk of the gains being spent in unproductive activities such as share buybacks and mergers and acquisitions.



    Full report

    Share

  • A licence to print money: Bank profits in Australia

    A licence to print money: Bank profits in Australia

    by David Richardson

    Banks were portrayed as the villains of the global financial crisis; many of the big international banks and their executives were associated with greed and excessive risk-taking. Regulators were obliged to step in with unprecedented rescue packages to save the financial systems in the US, the UK and, to a lesser extent, the major European countries. Australia was also affected but fortunately, the Australian banking system survived relatively unscathed. There is now a view that Australians were protected from the crisis because of the financial strength and profitability of the banks and that profitable banks provide a range of other benefits to the Australian community. However, this paper puts the view that Australian banks are too profitable and that their excess profits are being made at the expense of the Australian community. The paper estimates the underlying profits of the banks to remove the impact of the global financial crisis but, as the crisis passes, actual profits will again reflect underlying profits. The estimates in this paper suggest that the big four banks alone make underlying profits of around $35 billion before tax, of which some $20 billion per annum is likely to reflect the banks’ exploitation of their monopoly over the Australian payments system.



    Full report

    Share