My Blog

Tag: Jim Stanford

  • Mid-Term Review of Albanese Government’s Labour Policy Reforms

    Labour Standards & Workers’ Rights, Unions & Collective Bargaining

    Mid-Term Review of Albanese Government’s Labour Policy Reforms

    Reforms will make a significant difference, but further progress needed
    by Greg Jericho, Charlie Joyce, Fiona Macdonald, David Peetz and Jim Stanford

    Authors

    Greg Jericho

    Chief Economist

    Charlie Joyce

    Researcher

    Fiona Macdonald

    Acting Director, Centre for Future Work

    David Peetz

    Laurie Carmichael Distinguished Research Fellow

    Jim Stanford

    A review of the Albanese government’s labour and industrial relations reforms at the mid-point of its term in office concludes that the government deserves “positive marks” for several measures taken to strengthen collective bargaining and accelerate wage growth.

    That assessment is contained in an article contained in a new special issue of the Journal of Australian Political Economy (JAPE), evaluating the government’s record on a range of issues halfway through its term. The special issue of JAPE was published on 18 December, and was edited by Prof Emeritus Frank Stilwell at the University of Sydney.

    The article reviewing the government’s labour policies was co-authored by several staff at the Centre for Future Work, including Greg Jericho, Charlie Joyce, Fiona Macdonald, David Peetz, and Jim Stanford. It considers the impacts of several government initiatives, including:

    • Successive rounds of reforms to the Fair Work Act (including last year’s Secure Jobs, Better Pay bill, and this year’s Closing Loopholes legislation).
    • Several reforms to address gender inequality in workplaces.
    • A more ambitious approach to raising the national minimum wage.
    • Longer-run proposals for attaining full employment, described in the government’s recent White Paper on Jobs and Opportunities.

    The authors judge that the government’s labour reforms have achieved an “incremental but significant rebalancing of industrial relations.” They pointed to the acceleration of wage growth in Australia in the last year as evidence that workers have won important bargaining power. Wages are now growing at 4% year-over-year, according to the latest WPI data from the ABS — twice as fast as they did on average over the previous decade, which was marked by the slowest sustained wage growth in the postwar era.

    The authors caution, however, that additional reforms are necessary to reverse the erosion of collective bargaining coverage and union membership, and ensure that workers have the bargaining power to improve wages, job security and working conditions.

    “On the whole, the Albanese government has made cautious but useful progress on industrial relations and labour issues during its first year. However, it must be acknowledged that the overall labour relations regime in Australia remains heavily skewed in favour of employers,” the authors concluded.

    Please see the full article, “Labour Policy,” by Greg Jericho, Charlie Joyce, Fiona Macdonald, David Peetz and Jim Stanford, at the link below. Fiona Macdonald also authored a second article in the special issue, dealing with the government’s reforms to care policies. To see the full collection of articles in the special issue, visit the JAPE website.



    Full report

    Share

  • The Stage 3 tax cuts will make our bad tax system worse

    The Stage 3 tax cuts will make our bad tax system worse

    by Jim Stanford in The Conversation

    Jim Stanford

    Share

    Originally published in The Conversation on December 11, 2023

    Australia has one of the weakest tax systems for redistribution among industrial nations, and as Dr Jim Stanford writes, the Stage 3 tax cuts will make it worse.

    One of the chief purposes of government payments and taxes is to redistribute income, which is why tax rates are higher on taxpayers with higher incomes and payments tend to get directed to people on lower incomes.

    Australia’s tax rates range from a low of zero cents in the dollar to a high of 45 cents, and payments including JobSeeker, the age pension, and child benefits which are limited to recipients whose income is below certain thresholds.

    In this way, every nation’s tax and transfer system cuts inequality, some more than others.

    Which is why I was surprised when I used the latest Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) data to calculate how much.

    The OECD measures inequality using what’s known as a gini coefficient. This is a number on a scale between zero and 1 where zero represents complete equality (everyone receives the same income) and 1 represents complete inequality (one person has all the income).

    The higher the number, the higher the higher the inequality.

    Australia is far from the most equal of OECD nations – it is 21st out of the 37 countries for which the OECD collects data, but what really interested me is what Australia’s tax and transfer system does to equalise things.

    And the answer is: surprisingly little compared to other OECD countries.

    Australia’s system does little to temper inequality

    The graph below displays the number of points by which each country’s tax and transfer system reduces its gini coefficient. The ranking indicates the extent to which the system equalises incomes.

    The OECD country whose system most strongly redistributes incomes is Finland, whose tax and transfer rules cut its gini coefficient by 0.25 points.

    The country with the weakest redistribution of incomes is Mexico which only cuts inequality by 0.02 points.

    Australia is the 8th weakest, cutting inequality by only 0.12 points.

    Apart from Mexico, among OECD members only Chile, Costa Rica, Korea, Switzerland, Türkiye and Iceland do a worse job of redistributing incomes.

    What is really odd is that, before redistribution, Australia’s income distribution is pretty good compared to other OECD countries – the tenth best.

    It’s not that Australia’s systems don’t reduce inequality, it’s that other country’s systems do it more.

    Of the OECD members who do less than Australia, four are emerging economies: Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Türkiye. Like most developing countries, they have low taxes, weak social protections and poor tax-gathering systems.

    Indeed, in Chile and Mexico, taxes and transfers do almost nothing to moderate extreme inequality.

    The other three countries ranked below Australia – Iceland, Switzerland, and South Korea – boast unusually equal distributions of market incomes. Each is among the four most equal OECD countries by market income, and each is considerably more equal than Australia.

    Australia ‘less developed’ when it comes to redistribution

    This makes Australia’s weak redistribution system more typical of a low-income emerging economy than an advanced industrial democracy.

    Even Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and New Zealand do a better job of redistributing income than Australia.

    This new data enhances concerns about the impact of planned Stage 3 tax cuts. By returning proportionately more to high earners than low earners these will further erode the redistributive impact of Australia’s tax system.

    It also highlights the consequences of Australia’s relatively weak payments programs, including JobSeeker which on one measure is the second-weakest in the OECD. It’s an understatement to say we’ve room for improvement.


    You might also like

    Commonwealth Budget 2025-2026: Our analysis

    by Fiona Macdonald

    The Centre for Future Work’s research team has analysed the Commonwealth Government’s budget, focusing on key areas for workers, working lives, and labour markets. As expected with a Federal election looming, the budget is not a horror one of austerity. However, the 2025-2026 budget is characterised by the absence of any significant initiatives. There is

  • Higher exports prices improve the budget, but the Stage 3 tax cuts remain the wrong tax at the wrong time

    Higher exports prices improve the budget, but the Stage 3 tax cuts remain the wrong tax at the wrong time

    by Greg Jericho in The Guardian

    Greg Jericho

    Chief Economist

    Share

    Originally published in The Guardian on December 14, 2023

    As the Budget outlook improves, with most of the benefits of Stage 3 tax cuts going to those earing over $120,000, over 80% of workers will be short-changed

    Yesterday’s mid-year economic and fiscal outlook (MYEFO) provided some pleasing news for the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers. But higher revenue does not mean a stronger economy nor that households are better off.

    While the Treasurer was releasing the latest budget numbers the annual figures for median earnings were released by the Bureau of Statistics.

    These figures showed that the median weekly earnings in August this year were $1,300 – a rise of 4.2% from last year, which was less than the 5.4% increase in inflation.

    That weekly amount translates to $67,600 in annual earnings.

    People earning that amount will get just $565 from the Stage 3 tax cuts (0.8%) while someone on $200,000 – well in the top 10% of earners will get a 4.5% cut worth $9,075.

    The Treasurer told ABC 730 on Wednesday night that the government has not changed its position on Stage 3 and that “We think there is an important role for returning bracket creep where governments can afford to do that.”

    The problem is the Stage 3 cuts are mostly focused at rewarding those on high incomes, who are least affected by bracket creep.

    If the Government was truly worried about using the bonus revenue from higher export prices to assist low and middle-income earners it would care more about those on the median income of $66,700 than those in the top tax bracket and top 10% of income.


    You might also like

    Commonwealth Budget 2025-2026: Our analysis

    by Fiona Macdonald

    The Centre for Future Work’s research team has analysed the Commonwealth Government’s budget, focusing on key areas for workers, working lives, and labour markets. As expected with a Federal election looming, the budget is not a horror one of austerity. However, the 2025-2026 budget is characterised by the absence of any significant initiatives. There is

  • Paying for Collective Bargaining

    Paying for Collective Bargaining

    by Jim Stanford

    Share

    Recent labour law reforms in Australia have focused attention on the crucial role played by collective bargaining in achieving higher wages, safer working conditions, and better job security.

    New provisions contained in both the Secure Jobs Better Pay (2022) and Closing Loopholes (2023) legislation will expand the scope for collective bargaining (including more opportunities for bargaining at a multi-employer level), make it harder for employers to evade collective bargaining, and empower union delegates to fulfil their responsibilities in workplaces to administer and enforce collective agreements.

    However, one important challenge for Australia’s collective bargaining system, that has not been addressed by these reforms, is how to pay for collective bargaining. The infrastructure of representation, bargaining, implementation and enforcement requires ongoing commitment of people and resources, from both the union and the employer sides of the relationship.

    In Australia at present, the workers’ side of this infrastructure is dependent on voluntary union dues contributed by individuals who choose to join a union in their industry. No collective system of union security or dues collection (such as closed or agency shop arrangements, dues preferences, or bargaining fees) are presently allowed under Australian law. Moreover, Australian law fully protects the ability of individual workers to ‘free ride’ on the benefits and protections negotiated by unions in their workplace: every provision of a collective agreement must be provided to all workers in a defined bargaining unit (whether they are members of the union that negotiated them or not). From a perspective of narrow self-interest, this system discourages union membership — and in turn starves the collective bargaining system of the resources it needs to be viable.

    In this article published in The Conversation, Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford discusses the nature of this ‘free rider problem,’ and highlights how the treatment of this problem varies wildly between business and union applications. Legal contracts which enforce collective revenue solutions to free-rider problems are common and fully acceptable in many common applications: such as residential strata arrangements, the governance of joint stock corporations, and even government tax collections. Where unions are concerned, however, the law prevents workers from making and enforcing a collective decision to jointly fund the apparatus of collective bargaining, to the shared detriment of workers who consequently cannot exercise collective bargaining power to improve their employment relationship. The rhetoric of ‘individual choice’ is applied selectively to industrial relations; no owner of a strata unit, or shareholder in a corporation, has the ‘free choice’ to refuse to pay the normal costs and obligations associated with those arrangements.

    Australia’s restrictions on union security and collective dues arrangements are uniquely restrictive among industrial countries; they are similar to the rules in so-called ‘right-to-work’ states in the U.S., where union representation has fallen to the low single digits. Free riding has been an important factor in the long-term erosion of union density in Australia: most recent data indicates that just 12.5% of employees in Australia are presently union members. Workers with greater awareness of the importance of collective bargaining to their long-term prosperity will support their unions, even though they are legally entitled to all the benefits of a collective agreement whether they join or not. But the current laws discourage this act of collective solidarity, and collective bargaining has been eroding accordingly. At present just 15% of workers in Australia are covered by an active enterprise agreement (and less than 10% in the private sector). The erosion of collective bargaining has contributed to wage stagnation, growing inequality, and job insecurity.

    Dr Stanford’s Conversation article has been selected for inclusion in the new anthology, 2023: A Year of Consequence, published by Thames & Hudson, and edited by Justin Bergman (International Editor of The Conversation). The book contains several essays published by The Conversation in 2023 that are judged to have contributed most to public policy dialogue in Australia over the past year.

    Further information on the extent and consequences of free riding in Australian collective bargaining, and five different strategies for addressing this problem (based on the variety of policies implemented in other industrial countries where collective bargaining is better-resourced, and hence stronger and more effective), are provided in Dr Stanford’s recent scholarly article in Labour and Industry, titled “International approaches to solving the ‘free rider’ problem in industrial relations.” Click below to see the full article.


    Related documents



    Attachment

    Related research



    Submission to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023



    Full report



    Collective Bargaining and Wage Growth in Australia



    Full report

    You might also like

  • When the prices of necessities are rising fast, the RBA does not need to hit households with another rate rise

    When the prices of necessities are rising fast, the RBA does not need to hit households with another rate rise

    by Greg Jericho in The Guardian

    Greg Jericho

    Chief Economist

    Share

    Originally published in The Guardian on November 2, 2023

    Cost of living rose by more than inflation because of interest rate rises. Another rate rise would only cause more unnecessary pain.

    In the past week, the likelihood of the Reserve Bank raising the cash rate to 4.35% has gone from about 20% prior to last week’s inflation figures coming out, to now an even-money bet.

    But when you look at the cost of living figures out this week it is clear that households are already having to reduce their spending on non-discretionary items.

    Out of the 14 biggest contributors to inflation, 10 were non-discretionary items.

    At this point we should note the comments of the secretary of the Treasury, Steven Kennedy, last week in Senate estimates. He was asked about the pathway to a “soft landing” – ie where inflation falls without us going into a recession.

    He noted that chances of a soft landing were made harder by recent rises in oil prices because “on the one hand, it will increase headline inflation by raising petrol prices. On the other hand, it may well reduce growth and see other prices fall because people have less to spend. At least in the short term, expenditure on petrol is not very discretionary.”

    When the prices of things you can’t avoid paying for rise faster than others, then that obviously reduces your ability to spend elsewhere. In this way petrol, electricity and rental price rises have the same impact as do interest rate rises.

    The most recent figures of the volume of retail spending will come out tomorrow, but we know that the volume has been falling, and is now back to pre-pandemic trend levels:

    This of course is what you would expect – when the cost of non-retail items such as petrol, mortgages, rents, electricity, property rates, medical services and insurance are rising, you are going to buy less in the shops.

    Since March last year the cost of mortgages has gone up 114%. Does the Reserve Bank think households haven’t really noticed that?

    Even you if discount the record low rates during the pandemic, the cost of mortgages is now about 70% higher than it was at the end of 2019. Since then, wages have risen only about 10.5%.

    Another rate rise is not going to do anything other than add to the cost of necessities. It would not so much reduce inflation as increase the cost of living and hit households whose wages and incomes continue to be worth less than they were a year ago.


    You might also like

  • Submission to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023

    Gig Economy, Labour Standards & Workers’ Rights, Unions & Collective Bargaining, Wages & Entitlements

    Submission to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023

    Reforms Would Improve Stability, Wages for Workers in Insecure Jobs
    by Fiona Macdonald, David Peetz and Jim Stanford

    Authors

    Fiona Macdonald

    Acting Director, Centre for Future Work

    David Peetz

    Laurie Carmichael Distinguished Research Fellow

    Jim Stanford

    Experts from the Centre for Future Work recently made a submission to the Senate committee studying the “Closing Loopholes” bill, which would make several reforms to the Fair Work Act.

    The submission was prepared by our Policy Director Dr Fiona Macdonald, Carmichael Distinguished Research Fellow Prof Em David Peetz, and Economist and Director Dr Jim Stanford.

    Their submission emphasises:
    • The importance of limiting insecure employment practices (such as casual employment, labour hire, and platform or ‘gig’ work), and providing full protections to workers in those arrangements.
    • The importance of strong and well-resourced mechanisms to ensure the enforcement of these rules, and timely and effective recompense in cases when they are not.
    • The importance of empowering trade unions and their delegates to play their full potential role in enforcing labour standards and ensuring fair compensation and treatment of workers.



    Full report




    Factsheet
    Paying for Collective Bargaining

    Share

  • Opening statement to the ACTU Price Gouging Inquiry

    Opening statement to the ACTU Price Gouging Inquiry

    by Jim Stanford and Greg Jericho

    Jim Stanford

    Greg Jericho

    Chief Economist

    Share

    This week Professor Allan Fels, the former head of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), has begun an inquiry into price gouging across a range of industries, including banks, insurance companies, supermarkets, and energy providers. The inquiry commissioned by the ACTU comes off the back of the highest inflation in 30 years and the biggest falls in real wages on record.

    The Director of the Centre for Future Work, Jim Stanford and policy director and chief economist of the Australia Institute, Greg Jericho, presented evidence at the inquiry based on their research into profit-led inflation. Below is an edited excerpt of their opening statement.

    The recent period of rising inflation has been highly unusual coming as it has after a period where in Australia, core inflation by June 2021 had not been above the Reserve Bank’s target range of 2% to 3% for more than a decade and had been below 2% for five and half years.

    Perhaps unsurprisingly, because of such a long period without rising inflation, we saw very much a default to the thinking of the 1970s and a belief that all inflation is primarily driven by demand factors that need to be limited by higher interest rates.

    This was a fundamental misunderstanding of this inflationary period. It clearly could not be driven by wages because wages at all stages over the past two years have grown on average by less than inflation, such that real wages are now 5.5% below what they were two years ago.

    Wage growth in the 12 months to June this year was just 3.6%, still well below the CPI of 6%, and far from accelerating, actually had fallen from 3.7% growth in the 12 months to March.

    Thus, the question becomes, if not wages, what?

    Our research in February this year revealed that the initial surge of inflation in Australia beginning in mid-2021 was closely associated with a surge in price pressures.

    Business profits were the dominant manifestation of that inflation. The supply shocks that occurred because of the pandemic lockdowns and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine allowed companies in some key industries (such as energy, logistics, and manufacturing) to significantly boost their profit margins, coincident with rising prices.

    Our February 2023 paper, using the decomposition method of the national accounts (as explained by Jim), concluded that since the end of 2019, 69% of unit price increases over and above the RBA’s 2.5% inflation target mid-point were attributable to increased nominal unit profit payments. Only 18% was attributable to higher nominal unit labour costs, and the rest to increases in other nominal factor payments.

    Our paper noted that the profit growth was most dramatic in the energy and resources sector. These findings were broadly consistent with the findings of earlier research by the Australia Institute, as well as with the similar decompositions of inflation reported in other countries.

    Our follow-up report in April confirmed the leading role played by profits in the energy and resource industries. It noted that products from that sector (including petrol, gas, and other fossil fuel-intensive products) were leading sources of domestic inflation in Australia. It also showed that profits in other sectors, such as wholesale trade (56%), manufacturing (38%), professional and technological services (37%) and construction (37%), had also increased as a share of non-mining GDP since the pandemic. This profit growth is not dissimilar from the 48% growth in mining profits during the same period and well in excess of the 27% increase in nominal GDP.

    This confirmed that firms across these sectors have more than simply passed on higher input costs to consumers. As American economist Isabelle Weber has argued, they amplified them.

    The release of two more quarters of national accounts since February allows us to update our figures, which find that despite recent falls in corporate profits in some sectors, higher unit profit payouts still account for over half (56%) of the cumulative increase in nominal unit prices in the Australian economy since December 2019, above and beyond what would be expected due to normal target inflation. The role of higher unit labour costs in overall unit prices has increased in recent quarters and now accounts for just over one-third (35%) of the cumulative above-target rise in prices since the pandemic.

    The influence of profits is clear when you consider that unit profit costs by June 2023 were 27% above their December 2019 levels (down from 37% above in March 2023), while unit labour costs are just 14% above December 2019 levels – pointedly just below the 15% growth in CPI.

    There have been some suggestions by the Reserve Bank and others that our research should exclude mining profits as these do not significantly influence Australian inflation. Profits in mining during this time accounted for over half of all corporate profits in Australia; obviously, if over half of corporate profits are excluded from consideration, then profits will obviously seem less important.

    We reject the argument that mining profits somehow “don’t count” – especially in regard to domestic inflation, given the critical role played by higher petrol, gas, and electricity prices in driving the initial post-pandemic surge in Australian consumer price inflation.

    Clearly, there is a strong connection between energy prices, energy industry profits, and inflation experienced by domestic consumers (not to mention inflation experienced in other sectors of the economy).

    The good news is that corporate profits have begun to moderate in the first half of this year. It is important to note the modest decline in gross operating surplus in some sectors has still left corporate profits as a share of national GDP well above pre-pandemic levels and far above longer-term post-war averages.

    Nevertheless, even the partial moderation of record corporate profits has been associated with a significant and welcome deceleration of inflation. Consumer price inflation in Australia has slowed by over half in the last nine months: from an annualised peak of 8.9% in the first quarter of 2022 (led by surging energy costs) to just 3.4% in the June quarter of 2023 (not much higher than the top of the RBA’s target range).

    Moreover, even in the later stages of this current inflation cycle, with profits stable or even falling and labour costs accelerating, it’s wrong to conclude that labour is now the ‘source’ of inflation: clearly, the rise in unit labour costs reflects efforts by workers to recoup real income losses experienced earlier in the inflationary cycle, which must still be ascribed to the initial profit-led shocks that started the whole process.

    Blaming workers now for inflation because they are pursuing higher wages to recover lost living standards is like blaming a homeowner whose house has been set on fire for using too much water to put out the flames.

    Even as it appears to be moderating, this period of inflation requires a rethink of our policy approaches.

    We have made a number of policy recommendations, including:

    • Price regulations in strategic sectors
    • Fiscal transfers (such as windfall profits taxes combined with cost-of-living transfers to vulnerable households)
    • Competition policy reforms
    • Supports for wage increases in excess of current inflation for a sustained period of time to allow the repair of recent real wage reductions.

    The biggest lesson from this period is that we need more policy tools in our inflation toolkit. Relying on monetary policy and higher interest rates only works if you think inflation is only ever produced by higher wages and strong aggregate demand.

    We know that the future is more likely than not to feature further global shocks – not the least from climate change. Policymakers and central banks need to learn from the past two years and ready themselves to treat the broader causes of inflation and protect workers and households when companies seek to use crises as an opportunity to lift prices.


    You might also like

    Centre For Future Work to evolve into standalone entity

    The Centre for Future Work was established by the Australia Institute in 2016 to conduct and publish progressive economic research on work, employment, and labour markets. Supported by the Australian Union movement, the centre produced cutting edge research and led the national conversation on economic issues facing working people: including the future of jobs, wages

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

    Macroeconomics, Unions & Collective Bargaining, Wages & Entitlements

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

    Profits need to come down to reduce inflation and allow real wages to recover
    by Jim Stanford, Richard Denniss, Matt Grudnoff, Greg Jericho, David Richardson and Matt Saunders

    Authors

    Jim Stanford

    Richard Denniss

    co-Chief Executive Officer

    Matt Grudnoff

    Senior Economist

    Greg Jericho

    Chief Economist

    David Richardson

    Senior Research Fellow

    Matt Saunders

    Senior Economist

    Media release



    Corporate Profits Must Take Hit to Save Workers

    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

  • Millionaire Tim Gurner’s Refreshing Honesty Reveals the Soul of Business

    Millionaire Tim Gurner’s Refreshing Honesty Reveals the Soul of Business

    by Jim Stanford in The New Daily

    Jim Stanford

    Share

    Originally published in The New Daily on September 13, 2023

    Every now and then a window opens into the soul of the business community, and we catch a glimpse of the values and goals that shape the actions of the captains of industry.

    A striking example occurred this week at a business outlook conference sponsored by the Australian Financial Review.

    In a panel discussion, Tim Gurner – founder and CEO of property developer Gurner Group, and personally worth almost $1 billion – discussed the state of the labour market.

    In his view, historically low unemployment in recent years has undermined the work ethic and discipline of the people who construct the buildings that made him rich.

    “Tradies … have been paid a lot to do not too much in the last few years, and we need to see that change. We need to see unemployment rise. Unemployment has to jump 40 to 50 per cent in my view. We need to see pain in the economy,” Gurner said.

    ‘Hurting the economy’

    “There has been a systematic change where employees feel the employer is extremely lucky to have them, as opposed to the other way around … We’ve got to kill that attitude, and that has to come through hurting the economy … Governments around the world are trying to increase unemployment … We’re starting to see less arrogance in the employment market, and that has to continue.”

    Gurner didn’t mention ‘inflation’ in his statement. We are regularly told by central bankers that lifting unemployment is necessary to control inflation.

    But in Gurner’s telling, the goal is to control workers, not (at least directly) prices: To re-instil a suitable fear of joblessness and dislocation, so workers work harder and demand less.

    Gurner’s remarks were eerily reminiscent of a prediction made by the great Polish economist, Michal Kalecki.

    Kalecki was a contemporary of John Maynard Keynes. He simultaneously developed theories of aggregate demand management that could prevent depressions and achieve full employment.

    A desirable cushion of jobless

    In a famous 1943 article, Kalecki explained that even though full employment could now be readily achieved through active fiscal and monetary policy, powerful business interests would reject that goal.

    They prefer to maintain a desirable cushion of unemployment, to keep workers in line and private corporations humming along:

    “Lasting full employment is not at all to [business leaders’] liking. The workers would get ‘out of hand’ and the ‘captains of industry’ would be anxious to ‘teach them a lesson’ … A powerful bloc is likely to be formed between big business and the rentier interests, and they would probably find more than one economist to declare that the situation was manifestly unsound. The pressure of all of these forces, and in particular of big business, would most probably induce the government to return to the orthodox policy.”

    Kalecki predicted the historic shift in economic policy that would occur decades later, led by thinkers like Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps.

    They postulated the idea of a ‘natural rate’ of unemployment. In their view, unemployment is essentially voluntary: Some people choose not to work at the market-clearing wage, supported unwittingly by minimum wages and social welfare policies that subsidise unemployment and discourage job searches.

    Friedman and Phelps urged government to focus on controlling inflation, rather than fruitlessly trying to reduce unemployment below this ‘natural’ rate.

    In modern guise, the theory has a less pejorative moniker: The Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU). But it postulates the same idea, namely that unemployment must be kept high enough to discipline labour and restrain labour costs.

    Central bankers rarely explicitly discuss the NAIRU anymore. This is partly to avoid offending the public with the idea that they are actively working to raise unemployment.

    It’s also because NAIRU models have been notoriously unable to pin down any precise number for this mythical benchmark, making it useless for policy purposes. In most industrial countries after the 1990s, unemployment crashed through estimated NAIRU benchmarks with no impact on inflation – casting great doubt on the very concept, let alone specific numerical estimates of it.

    Nevertheless, it is clear that NAIRU thinking still underpins the current obsession of central banks with alleged overheated labour markets as the purported source of post-COVID inflation. It also informs their single-minded focus on suppressing aggregate demand (and thus employment) to reduce that inflation.

    Even bankers say quiet bits out loud
    Occasionally, even central bankers say the quiet bits out loud.

    The Reserve Bank of Australia’s new governor Michele Bullock recently stated the unemployment rate had to rise to 4.5 per cent (from 3.5 per cent when she said it) to allow inflation to return to the bank’s 2.5 per cent target.

    If inflation is still above 2.5 per cent when the unemployment rate gets that high, this will be interpreted as evidence that the true NAIRU must be higher than thought.

    Let’s hope they don’t resuscitate previous estimates of the NAIRU, which formerly suggested unemployment had to be 7 per cent or even higher to keep workers suitably disciplined.

    We should be grateful to Gurner for his refreshing honesty, which helps illuminate the choices being made in current monetary policy.

    Workers who expect too much are a barrier to his efforts to accumulate more wealth. He wants adequate discipline restored, and engineering higher unemployment is exactly the way to do that. And apparently, central bankers agree.


    You might also like

  • The Case for Investing in Public Schools

    Education & Training, Tax, Spending & the Budget

    The Case for Investing in Public Schools

    The Economic and Social Benefits of Public Schooling in Australia
    by Eliza Littleton, Fiona Macdonald and Jim Stanford

    Authors

    Eliza Littleton

    Senior Economist

    Fiona Macdonald

    Acting Director, Centre for Future Work

    Jim Stanford

    Media release



    Report Reveals True Potential of Fully Funded Public Schools

    Education has long been recognised as a vital determinant of both personal life chances and broader economic and social performance.

    Public schools play a critical role in ensuring access to educational opportunity for Australians from all economic and geographical communities.

    Public schools are accessible to everyone. They provide a vital ‘public good’ service in ensuring universal access to the education that is essential for a healthy economy and society.

    However, inadequate funding for public schools – measured by persistent failure to meet minimum resource standards established through the Schooling Resource Standard (SRS) – is preventing students in public schools from fulfilling their potential. Growing evidence (including the latest NAPLAN testing results) attests to declining student completion and achievement in Australia, with major and lasting consequences for students, their families and communities, and the economy.

    In this new report, Centre for Future Work researchers Eliza Littleton, Fiona Macdonald, and Jim Stanford document the large economic and social benefits of stronger funding for public schools. The report measures three broad channels of benefits:

    1. The immediate economic footprint of public schools, including direct and indirect jobs in schools, the education supply chain, and downstream consumer industries.
    2. The labour market and productivity gains resulting from a more educated workforce.
    3. Social and fiscal benefits arising from the fact that school graduates tend to be healthier, require less support from public income programs, and are less likely to be engaged with the criminal justice system.

    Citing international and Australian evidence regarding the scale of these three channels of benefit, the report estimates that funding public schools consistent with the SRS would ultimately generate ongoing economic and fiscal benefits two to four times larger than the incremental cost of additional funding. For governments, the fiscal payback from those benefits (via both enhanced revenues and fiscal savings on health, welfare, and criminal justice expenses) would exceed the upfront investments required in meeting the SRS.

    Please see the full report, The Case for Investing in Public Schools: The Economic and Social Benefits of Public Schooling in Australia, by Eliza Littleton, Fiona Macdonald, and Jim Stanford.



    Full report




    Factsheet
    Report Reveals True Potential of Fully Funded Public Schools

    Share