Sure, it's good to see more people in work, but what about the underemployed: those who don't qualify as unemployed ? For example, mature age people who struggle to survive in home based businesses or rural workers reliant on seasonal work. Where are the programs or funding support to help them?
In the last few years the goverment has funded many worthy programs and fostered the growth of a privatised employment services industry which has seen large for-profit organisations do very nicely thank you. The industry and the government have developed a cosy relationship where even the older, often church and community based, non profit organisations almost invariably choose to take the government's money and run its programs. By doing so they become de facto government agencies for whom self-interest engenders a reluctance to criticise any government policies (and ideologies?).
Is there any organisation which speaks in any more than a whisper on behalf of the underemployed?
5 comments:
How has this measure of employment changed over the years ? Was the same 1 hour figure used in, say 1977 ?
I can't think of any "developing country" that would be so stupid as to use the "1-hour-per-week means employed" scam. Doesn't membership of OECD depend on at least the appearance of statistical probity?
The German definition of unemployment mentioned refers to persons registered as unemployed with an employment office. Official OECD figures on German unemployment use the same definition as used by Australia. Collecting and publishing data on those registered as unemployed also occurs in the UK, and even Australia published such data when the Commonwealth Employment Service was in existence. The number unemployed and the number registered as unemployed are distinct concepts. Generally speaking, there will be employed persons registered as unemployed (because they are working few hours) and there will be unemployed people who do not register with an employment office.
What's wrong with Australia's monthly unemployment
figures?
or Australia's Watergate by Marcus L'Estrange.
Revised June 2006 marcusle99@yahoo.co.uk
‘The Age’ editorial, 23/1/01, “Get the jobless
rate right noted: “fudged figures are no basis for
sound policy”.
Sir Humphrey Appleby of ‘Yes Minister’ fame would
say:
“The language of government: Restructure the base
from which the statistics are derived without drawing
public attention to the fact’. Translation: Fiddle the
figures.”
Author Phillip Knightly in his article “Goodbye to
Great Britain” in “The Australian”, 2/4/1994, commenting on United Kingdom unemployment figures noted:
“Today, no-one is really certain of how many people
are unemployed in Britain. If you believe the British
Government, then the figure is 2,787,600 (1994). But
many experts accuse the government of underestimating
unemployment or, worse, of fiddling the figures. It is
certainly true that since 1979 there have been 29
changes by the Thatcher Government to the way in which
British unemployment figures are calculated, most of
which have had the effect of reducing the number –
“the biggest conjuring trick since Houdini” says
British Labour.
Over the last two decades, Britain has become
healthier and sicker, closer to full employment and
yet ever more inactive, according to the 'New statesman',10/1/05. In 1981 there were 570,000 men and women of working age who claimed long term sickness-related benefit, now called Incapacity Benefit -IB. In October 2005 it is 2.7 million or 2.12 million if you exclude some IB recipients working part time ('The Guardian', 13/10/05). This dwarfs the claimed unemployment number of 1.42 million (Oct 2005) and 875,500 dole recipients (Oct 2005). The figures might make sense if we were all becoming unhealthier, but judging by most measures, we are all healthier than we have ever been.
According to a survey by Britain's Disability
Rights Commission, 1.1 million people who claim IB,
want to return to work. However, as one recipient, Bob
Johnson noted: "People go on the sick and they end up
on IB and they're stuck there 'cos there's no jobs".
('New statesman - 10/1/05).
Christina Beatty and Professor Steve Fothergill of
the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research
at Sheffield Hallam University investigations suggest
1.2 million IB claimants would be in work if the UK
economy were as strong in former industrial areas as
it is in the Home Counties. The history of IB is not
just about market forces. During the 1980's, the old
Department of Employment was happy for people to claim
sickness benefit instead of unemployment benefit. It
issued quotas to Job-Centre managers to keep
unemployment down. The National Audit Office spotted
this political chicanery, but too late. By 1995, there
were more than 1.8 million long-term IB claimants. (Source: New Statesman, 10/1/05). Finally on the UK scene there are some 8.8 million workers who work part time with most wanting to work many more hours. My letter in 'The Guardian' (London), elaborates.
'Blunkett's branding of benefit claimants'
Thursday October 13, 2005, 'The Guardian', London
The work and pensions minister, David Blunkett, has missed the point by claiming that because the number of incapacity benefit (IB) recipients has risen to 2.7 million "something very strange has happened to our society" (Turn off TV and work, Blunkett tells claimants, 10/10/05). There is nothing strange at all - during the 1980s, the old Department of Employment was happy for people to claim sickness benefit instead of unemployment benefit. It issued quotas to Job centre managers to keep unemployment down. The National Audit Office spotted this political chicanery, but too late. By 1995 there were more than 1.8 million long-term IB claimants.
Blunkett may well want to reduce the number of IB recipients, but what is the point? There are not enough jobs and all he would do is to swell the number of people on the dole. Then the dole recipient figures would make a mockery (not hard) of the laughable monthly unemployment figures, which is really 15% of the workforce, not the claimed 5%; about the same as in Germany or France, which for some reason Britain scoffs at.
Marcus L'Estrange, London
When it comes to various welfare payments, across
the channel Germany seems to have gone the other way.
According to the 'International Herald Tribune',
3/2/05 and Associated Press, 1/3/05, 360,000 welfare
recipients were removed from the welfare to
unemployment rolls from 1/1/05 thus pushing the
'unemployment figure to 5.2 million or 12.6%. The highest since World War 2.
German Labour Minister Wolfgang Clement stated that
a new jobless benefits system took effect 1/1/05.
Aimed at encouraging the unemployed to take jobs and
cutting long-term jobless benefits, it required many
social welfare recipients to register as jobless for
the first time. This meant that most of February's
rise was due to the government decision to "no longer
hide unemployment but to tackle it directly",
according to Clement.
Balancing this seemingly slight move towards
honesty in Germany one must factor in millions of
Germans in state funded make work and temporary
training programs (1.4 million - Dec 2004) and those
who have given up (early retirees) and the real tally
exceeds 22% (Newsweek: 14/2/05) or much the same as in
Australia where many universities faculties have
become holding bays for the unemployed.
In Sweden it is claimed (Vietnam News, 28/6/05)that the unemployment rate is 5.2%, half of France and Germany's official rate. However the official unemployment figures tell less than half the story. Critics of Sweden's 'official' figures point to people on early retirement, in job schemes and on sick leave, which brings the total to between 10% - 20%. Additionally in Sweden the pension age is 61, in a lot of European countries it is 55.
In fact the real unemployment figures in both
Germany and Australia and almost all countries are the highest since 'The Great Depression' of the 1930's. Additionally Germany seems to be sending even more manufacturing jobs abroad to East Europe and Asia than other EU countries simply because their manufacturing sector is the biggest in the EU. Even Germans who want high quality but cheap dentistry are going to nearby Polish dentists in Poland.
Paul Krugman, writing in 'The International Herald Tribune',19/7/05, notes a significant decline in US labour force participation, not growth in jobs, being a key reason why measured US unemployment figures not being much higher than it was in early 2001. 'There are at least 1.6 million and perhaps 5.1 million people who aren't counted as unemployed but would take jobs if they were available'.
The above and a host of other dodgy tricks in
defining unemployment by nearly all countries make the
comparison of unemployment rates between countries an
impossible task. Another example is that Australia
counts as being employed all those who work for an
hour or more in the survey week. Countries such as Singapore, Germany and a host of others start at
15 hours before you are regarded as being employed!
As Australia uses much the same definition of
monthly unemployment as the U.K., I believe exactly
the same process (dodgy unemployment figures) is
occurring in Australia. Labour Market Schemes / Work
for the Dole / White Paper’s which are based on false
unemployment figures, are by their very nature, doomed
to failure. Also if Government’s continue deceiving
the Australian people about the extent of the problem,
we will never, as a nation, face up to issue of mass
unemployment.
Dr Peter Brain, a senior economist with the
Australian National Institute of Economic and Industry
Research said ('Herald – Sun', Melbourne, 26/8/01)
that successive governments had “corrupted” ABS
statistics and “Government changes in policy since the
late 1980’s had corrupted the ABS unemployment
statistics”.
The Commonwealth Statistician, Mr.Trewin, is quoted
in 'The Age', Melbourne, 22/1/2001, as saying that the
official measure of unemployment does not reflect the
true jobless rate and added his weight to criticism of
the existing definition by some politicians (e.g.
Cheryl Kernot, then ALP Shadow Employment Minister)
and academics, who all have said it severely
understated the true jobless rate and hid increasing
underemployment’.
The reality is that if the monthly figures claim
that 500,000 or 5% are unemployed, that doesn't mean that they are unemployed, as they, you or I, understand the word.
No. It means that 500,000 people, (or
whatever the nonsensical monthly 'Labour Force
Australia' figures claims), match the International
Labour Organisation’s (political) monthly definition
of unemployment. The monthly figures and the ILO definition of monthly unemployment have nothing to do with economic or actuarial reality.
Commonwealth Parliamentary Library researcher Tony
Kryger claims (The Age, 23/1/01) “that ILO labour
force definitions are biased toward counting a person
as employed rather than unemployed”.
Then Community Services Minister Larry Anthony let
the cat out of the bag when he said in “The Age”,
28/10/2000: “Breaching obligations”, that there were
1.45 million on unemployment benefits. To this figure
we must add 300,000 unemployed partners who obtain the
dole via their partner (usually male) and the 400,000
unemployed who cannot claim the dole because of the
assets and means test: (Sydney Morning Herald,
7/3/1998).
All up 2 million plus and note we have 5-6
different dole payments. The dole recipient figures
alone make a mockery of the monthly or ABS 'Labour
Force Australia’s' figures.
Very few commentators appear to be aware of the ABS
annual survey of unemployment: “Person’s not in the
labour force”, which quite clearly shows that there are at least two million unemployed. Most commentators
have missed the point that the ABS carries out this
survey because they have no faith in ‘their’ monthly
survey: 'Labour Force Australia', which results from a
political definition of unemployment /employment and
which they have been forced to carry out.
'Sydney Morning Herald' journalist Tom Ballard
(25/2/99) noted:
“A million more jobless revealed”: “The true state
of Australia’s jobs market was exposed yesterday with
the release of figures showing 1.7 million want work
but can’t find it - almost a million more than the
numbers officially recognised as unemployed”.
Senator Amanda Vanstone, when she was the National
Employment Minister in 1996, noted that: “The National
Institute of Labour Studies commissioned by DEETYA
found that “the level of disguised unemployment had
risen to historic highs under Labor, pushing the true
jobless rate to between 15% - 22%”.
The late Ian Henderson, economics editor, 'The
Australian', 9/4/1998 noted:
“The Jobs crisis is now so acute that 2.5 million
people are unable to find work. Yes, that figure is
three times the usually cited number. No, it is not an
exaggeration. And, just as certainly, policy makers
have so far to acknowledge the full extent of the
almost decade-long crisis. Only one - third of the
total-around 800,000- show up in the monthly
unemployment statistics”.
What’s wrong with the Australian monthly
unemployment figures?
Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) figures when
it closed and privatised in 1996, had two million
unemployed registered, were once used as a reliable
indication of unemployment. That is, of course, until
they became embarrassingly high. They were jettisoned
in the mid-1980s by Labor in favour of Australian
Bureau of Statistics (ABS) monthly figures from the
ABS survey 'Labour Force' which, because of
the questions asked by ABS survey staff, effectively
do not include the hidden, the discouraged job seekers
and additionally rule out large numbers of others
unemployed. They also do not include the 600,000 plus
Australians forced to work fewer hours than they would
like.
This is illustrated by the ABS monthly survey
questions.
(1) If you have worked one hour for pay, profit,
commission or payment in kind, during the survey /
reference week, you are not counted as being
unemployed. You are counted as being employed. You
could be on the dole, work one hour as a casual, but
not be counted as being unemployed. You could also
work for one hour or more with or without pay in a
family business (i.e. unpaid family business) or on a
farm, and still not be counted as unemployed.
“The person who works an hour a week has the same
status in the employment statistics as one who works
40!” ('The Bulletin', November 18, 1997).
If you are unemployed and have not:
(a) registered with Centrelink as a job seeker,
(b) contacted an employment agency;
(c) contacted prospective employers;
(d) answered a newspaper advertisement for a job;
(e) checked Centrelink touch screens
(f) checked factory notice boards;
(g) advertised or tendering for work;
(h) contacted friends or relatives;
You would not be regarded as having ‘actually’ or
‘actively’ looked for work.
This raises the question of how or whom one is
supposed to apply for almost non-existent jobs.
Officially (ABS) there are about 160,000 vacancies
(May 06) or about one job for about every 20
unemployed, nationwide at present. The ratio varies of
course according to your employment skill level.
(2) If you are not able to start work within the four
weeks (i.e. being sick or lacking childcare, for
example) after the survey, you are not counted as
being unemployed.
(3) If you have been stood down without pay because of
bad weather or plant breakdown, on leave without pay
for less than four weeks, on strike or locked out, on
workers’ compensation and expecting to be returning to
their work, these categories of people are not counted
as being unemployed.
(4) You must be ready to start work within a week of
the survey. If not, you are not counted.
The official monthly unemployment ABS figures
exclude all those (1.2 plus million) who do not meet the absurd “push polling” type definitions (1- 4, and
others) as outlined above.
Let’s look at how the 2 million plus unemployed are
made up: 2005 figures.
‘Official unemployed’: 500,000. Then the following Australians are excluded from the monthly figures: September 2005 ABS figures
64,400: actively looking for work but not available
to start work in the survey week.
65,000: discouraged workers
169,000:who wanted to work but lacked childcare.
100,000: short term (less than one month) health problems.
176,000: on short - term courses.
44,000: thought they had a job to go to.
64,000: other family reasons.
155,000:other reasons*.(2005 figures)
Plus 400,000 who work 1-14 hours, with or without pay.
Total: 1.2million. 160,000 vacancies
'The ABS have reported (November 2004) that 601,000 people who had left the workforce because of a disability, injury or ill health. 323,000 people who have left the workforce gave up after being retrenched or dismissed from their last job whereas 434,000 simply decided it was time to retire'. Tim Colebatch, 'The Age', 16/3/05, 'Two million thwarted in bid to work'.
Economics commentator Terry McCrann once observed: “So that, for want of a better term, the ‘jobless problem’actually directly hits a staggering 2.5 million Australians (official jobless – 800,000, hidden unemployment 1.2 million, 578,300 underemployed)—leading on to claims that the official jobless numbers are some sort of gigantic cover-up,”
(The Australian, July 6, 1996).
The monthly figures are obtained from interviewing
80,000 people in 29,000 households, hotels/motels each
month. The monthly figures do not, repeat not, come
from any so-called Centrelink (formerly the Department
of Social Security or Commonwealth Employment Service)
‘lists’. Note: Centrelink has at least 1.6 million Australians on the five – seven different dole benefits.
Additionally another 400,000 people are estimated to be unemployed without benefits ('Sydney Morning Herald', March 7, 1998).
The 5-7 different dole payments are:
• Newstart Allowance
• Mature Age Allowance
• Parenting Payment (part)- 230,000 as of 1/5/05
• Widow Allowance
• Youth Allowance (part)
• Community Development Employment Program (Aboriginals working for the dole) 37,000 (2006)
Special Benefit
• (*) Disability Support Pension (DSP - part
The above dole figures include some lone-parent
recipients. Those who have children over 8 years old. Over the 1990’s their numbers increased by over 50% from 134,000 to 370,000. The number of Disability Pension recipients increased by 90% during
the 1990’s. (Source:'IPA Review', July 2000).
(*) I am not aware of a wave of debilitating epidemics
during the mid 90’s but I am advised that when the
Coalition came to power in 1996 large numbers of
Newstart and Mature Age Benefit recipients were
transferred to the DSP in order to reduce the dole
recipient figures. See my point on this re the UK on
page 1.
All up we have in 2004 1.75 million or a 60,000 increase (non-age) in welfare dependants since 1996 (1.69 million).
Then Labor Family Services spokesman Wayne Swan and
now Shadow Treasurer claimed that the difference
between disability and unemployment payments is only
$4 a day (maybe nothing to Comrade Swan who will become a millionaire via the Parliamentary Superannuation Scheme) but a lot to a battler), and the notion that recipients of a disability pension are there for economic reasons is simple vilification.
“The growth in the disability pension has been from
mature – age women. They are people like nurses, whose
bodies have worn out. It is far from being the
stereotypical lazy boozed – up male workers” ('The
Australian', 14/4/04).
Still inexplicably, the media do not match up the
welfare rolls with the claimed monthly unemployment
figures. Journalists blindly accept the figures given
out by the Employment Minister whom s/he says are
unemployed, as the only ones that are unemployed just
as journalists of old willingly accepted the then
press release that the earth was flat.
For example every dole recipient who found a job or has given up the search since March 1996, has been matched by an extra person moving on the disability support pension or the single parenting payment. The latter two are not tallied as unemployed because they are not technically looking for work. However they are jobless and from July 1 2006 many will now have to look for some work. That will make the Newstart payments balloon and alone will make the monthly unemployment figure even more ridiculous than now. A prospect I didn't think was possible.
I am well aware that the ABS uses concepts and
definitions recommended by the International Labor
Organisation (ILO), one of the specialised agencies of
the United Nations. My point is that these ILO
concepts and definitions of unemployment are, in
essence, designed for political purposes and to
provide governments (here and overseas) with the most
flattering figure. They have nothing to do with
reality.
In this connection, it is important to appreciate
that the ILO concepts and definitions are not
formulated by:
a) the statisticians on the staff of the ILO — the
international civil servants;
b) nor by the statisticians on the staff of other
international agencies such as the United Nations
Secretariat, the WTO, the OECD et al—also
international civil servants;
c) nor by independent expert professional
statisticians such as academics, actuaries and
accountants.
In fact, the ILO concepts and definitions emanate
from a group of statisticians, convened by the ILO,
about every seven years, which comprises national
civil servants nominated by their respective
governments (not by the ILO).
In the case of Australia, for instance, its
representatives on this ILO group has been the
Australian Statistician for the time being—an
Australian public servant. While the fact that this
ILO group is composed of national civil servants does
not mean that they are not expert statisticians, it
does mean that they are not independent, in that they
are, of course, beholden to their respective
governments which can direct or influence them as they
see fit.
All governments are anxious, for obvious reasons,
to reveal publicly the lowest rate of unemployment
that is possible — not least of all for domestic
consumption. In short, the governments involved in
the ILO group, have a vested political interest in
using concepts and definitions, especially when issued
under the prestigious imprimatur of the ILO, that
disclose as low a rate of unemployment as possible,
and the national civil servants of the ILO group all
have riding instructions or at least guidelines, from
their respective governments, to achieve this end.
Hence, ILO concepts and definitions of unemployment
are inherently flawed as they reflect the political
motivations of governments in directing or influencing
their respective national civil servants into jointly
formulating them.
Sir Humphrey Appleby of 'Yes Minister' fame
admirably sums it up well when he noted in his diary:
“The language of government: Restructure the base
from which the statistics are derived from without
drawing public attention to the fact”.
Translation: "Fiddle the figures”. Sir Humphrey
Appleby, 1989.
That’s why the ABS (and the ILO itself) does a
second, annual (with different questions) and far more
honest survey, “Persons not in the Labour Force”, which
produces a real unemployment figure of at least two
million.
Until the public is fully aware of the real
unemployment figures, only band aid solutions (e.g.
Labor’s Working Nation / Liberal’s Work for the Dole
(slave labour wages) will be applied, preventing a
real debate about the big changes we need. In my time
in the CES (over a 25 year period) I have seen
billions of dollars go down the drain on training
people for non-existent jobs, subsidising (often
dodgy) employers and creating massive bureaucracies on
the backs of the unemployed. An empire Sir Humphrey
Appleby and Labor's 'New Class', feasted on. Under
the 1983-1996 Labor Government the old Department of
Employment, Education and Training was primarily a job
creation scheme for its own middle to senior
management.
All this was in the name of covering up the real
unemployment figures and to create the illusion of
activity and concern.
Prime Minister John Howard has shown to be a shrewd
judge of populist opinions re working for the dole. He
has attacked the underclass in order to gain the votes
of the working class battlers and his mutual
obligation policy is a cheap populist approach to a
very serious problem, He and ' Job Snobs' Minister
Abbott have ignited a campaign of blaming the victims
of the current economic order and this brand of mutual
obligation is a very convenient way of diverting
attention from the current economic order’s failure to
solve unemployment.
Some $35 billion of Commonwealth money is
distributed to Australia’s various regions on the
basis of ABS figures. One can only wonder how much
unemployment money or pork barrelling is misdirected
on the basis of dodgy figures.
As ‘The Age’ editorial, 23/1/01, “Get the jobless
rate right noted: “fudged figures are no basis for
sound policy”.
I can also recall John Howard, then Shadow Minister
for Industrial Relations, saying to me at an AM
Breakfast (Melbourne) in 1993:
‘Marcus, I know the real unemployment figure is 20%
but I cannot afford to be honest. If I was honest
people would become depressed and spend less thus
creating even more unemployment’. I tried to explain
the economic and social cost of unemployment ($25 bill
- $50 bill p.a.) but he was dragged away by a minder.
Labor’s 1998 National Conference and Premier
Beattie’s 2000 pledge to get the unemployment figure
down to 5% from its ‘official’ level of 6% - 8%,
sometime next century (originally by the year 2000 in
Beazley’s case) was clearly and knowingly a false
promise because the real figure is currently 20% or
two million plus.
I recall trying to explain to Kim Beazley at a 1994
Fabian Society dinner in Melbourne what was wrong with
the monthly unemployment figures, but his eyes just
glazed over. Like the handling of the Collins Class
submarines paperwork I guess my submission was a bit
too hard for him to handle.
If you are dishonest about the magnitude of the
problem, you cannot be honest about the solution.
Now that the Commonwealth Statistician Mr. Dennis
Trewin, has blown the whistle on the extremely dodgy
monthly unemployment figures both Howard and Beazley
must be honest with the Australian public. Then and
only then will be able to move to a situation where
all Australians have some work to do rather than some
doing all the work.
Finally the media have no other choice but to stop
publishing the monthly Labour Force Australia figures
and only publish the ABS survey: ”Person’s not in the
labour force” figures which shows that at least two
million Australian want to work.
“There are lies, damn lies and statistics, the
monthly employment number is not only misleading, it
causes real harm and asked why the ABS produced this
old cobblers”. Mr. Steve Crabb, Former ALP (Labor
Unity) Victorian Employment Minister, “The Herald
Sun”, 20/12/1995. He should have asked his Federal
colleagues.
Unemployment is a serious social problem in this country. It will never be adequately addressed while governments continue to fudge the figures and pretend there is not a pressing problem in our midst.
Only REAL unemployment figures will result in a
REAL solution to our current state of mass
unemployment. If you feed junk figures into your
economic model you will get junk employment,
education, training, immigration, general economic
policies out.
Marcus L’Estrange is a freelance writer, a
Victorian High School teacher, a former CES worker and
author of many published articles on unemployment in
general and in particular:” What then is to be done”
which is available from Marcus.
Other papers available on request from
marcusle99@yahoo.co.uk are:
• (2) "What is to be done: A Plan To Reintroduce Full Employment in Australia" by Marcus L’Estrange
• (3) “Working harder isn’t working” by Marcus
L’Estrange
• (4) “What are the barriers to achieving full
employment and can we rely on the Coalition or ALP
politicians? By Marcus L’Estrange
• (5) A summary of press statements
• (6) Australia's Labour Force, chart by Marcus
L’Estrange
• (7) “Educational Left”: how it failed schools, by Marcus L’Estrange
• (8) Minister Abbot’s reply of 15/11/02, to an
earlier submission.
• (9) Unemployment: why nothing will be done, News Weekly, 3/10/1998
• (10) Background Information on Marcus L’Estrange
Marcus L'Estrange
E-mail: marcusle99yahoo.co.uk
Ph: M - 0416 574 386
Ph: H - 03 9537 3401
marcusle99@yahoo.co.uk
F1 / 3 Woonsocket Court
St Kilda, Vic, 3182
15/6/06
The claim that that the latest monthly 'Labour Force' unemployment figures 'show' that we have reached a 30 year unemployment low is nonsensical.
There are TWO sets of official unemployment figures.Both tell different stories.
One set: 'Labour Force'(Australia), which currently
shows an unemployment level of around 5%, is based on a political definition of unemployment. The monthly 'Labour Force' definition is biased toward counting a person as employed rather than unemployed and only a very obtuse person or a politician should believe this
figure.
Former Victorian (ALP) Employment Minister Steve Crabb, and himself an actuary, once said:
'There are lies, dam lies and statistics, the monthly unemployment number is not only misleading, it causes real harm and asked why the Statistician
produced this old cobblers'.
The reality is that if the monthly figures claim that 500,000 (5%) are unemployed, that doesn't mean that they are unemployed, as they, you or I, understand the word.
No. It means that 500,000 or so people, match the Australian version of the International Labour
Organisation’s (political) monthly definition of unemployment. The monthly figures and the local
version of the ILO definition of monthly unemployment have nothing to do with economic or actuarial reality.
I am well aware that the ABS uses concepts and definitions recommended by the International Labor Organisation (ILO), one of the specialised agencies of
the United Nations. My point is that these ILO concepts and definitions of unemployment are, in
essence, designed for political purposes and to provide governments (here and overseas) with the most flattering figure. They have nothing to do with
reality.
In this connection, it is important to appreciate that the ILO concepts and definitions are not formulated by:
a) the statisticians on the staff of the ILO — the international civil servants; b) nor by the statisticians on the staff of other
international agencies such as the United Nations Secretariat, the WTO, the OECD et al — also
international civil servants;
c) nor by independent expert professional statisticians such as academics, actuaries and accountants.
In fact, the ILO concepts and definitions emanate from a group of statisticians, convened by the ILO, about every seven years, which comprises national
civil servants nominated by their respective governments (not by the ILO).
In the case of Australia, for instance, its representatives on this ILO group has been the
Australian Statistician for the time being — an Australian public servant. While the fact that this
ILO group is composed of national civil servants does not mean that they are not expert statisticians, it does mean that they are not independent, in that they are, of course, beholden to their respective governments which can direct or influence them as they
see fit.
All governments are anxious, for obvious reasons, to reveal publicly the lowest rate of unemployment that is possible — not least of all for domestic
consumption. In short, the governments involved in
the ILO group, have a vested political interest in using concepts and definitions, especially when issued under the prestigious imprimatur of the ILO, that disclose as low a rate of unemployment as possible,
and the national civil servants of the ILO group all have riding instructions or at least guidelines, from their respective governments, to achieve this end.
Hence, ILO concepts and definitions of unemployment
are inherently flawed as they reflect the political motivations of governments in directing or influencing their respective national civil servants into jointly formulating them.
Sir Humphrey Appleby of 'Yes Minister' fame admirably sums it up well when he noted in his diary:
“The language of government: Restructure the base from which the statistics are derived from without drawing public attention to the fact”.
Translation: "Fiddle the figures": Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1989.
The second set: 'Persons not in the Labour Force', also produced by the Commonwealth Statistician because they don't believe in the monthly definition / figure
which has been forced upon them, is based on an actuarial or real survey, shows that we currently have a (real) 15% - 20% level of unemployment, chasing around 160,000 vacancies.
There are many things wrong with the monthly or headline 'Labour Force' figure. Some examples are that advanced countries such as Germany and Singapore only count a person as employed if they work 15 hours or
more. In Australia you are counted as being employed if you work just one hour or more. Currently 400,000
Australians work between 1 - 14 hours. They are counted as being employed in Australia but in many
other countries they are counted as being unemployed.
The person who works an hour a week in Australia has the same status in the employment statistics as one who works 40! Consequently comparisons between
countries re unemployment rates is largely an illusory exercise.
Secondly there are 1.75 million unemployed Australians on one of the 5 - 6 different dole or unemployment benefits. This alone makes a mockery of the monthly figure. For example every dole recipient who found a job or has given up the search since March
1996, has been matched by an extra person moving on the disability support pension or the single parenting payment. The latter two are not tallied as unemployed
because they are not technically looking for work.
However they are jobless and from July 1 many will now have to look for some work. That alone will make the Newstart payments balloon and alone will make the monthly unemployment figure even more ridiculous than now. A prospect I didn't think was possible.
But wait. Like the perennial steak knives offer there's more. Around 800,000 Australians told the
census takers that they wanted a job but because they couldn't take up the job during the survey week or in the three weeks immediately after (eg lack of child care, short term medical problems) they were not counted as unemployed. Talk about 'Russian Roulette!
Like the difference between the so called 'elective' surgery lists and the so called 'emergency'
surgery list we have descended into smoke and mirrors territory in trying to work out the difference between being unemployed and actually being counted as unemployed, according to the bogus monthly figure.
The Commonwealth Statistician, Mr.Trewin,is quoted as saying that 'the official measure of unemployment does not reflect the true jobless rate'. Why then
would people disagree with him rather than listen to what he has to say?
Fudged unemployment figures are not the basis for cracking open the champagne, for planning purposes or for false and misleading claims.
Marcus L'Estrange
St Kilda, Vic
Post a Comment