Ignore the desperate attempts to find a flaw in the Australian jobs market — multiple large rate rises have done nothing to damage employment. The Reserve Bank (RBA) is set to continue its punishment of households and businesses for months to come.
The jobs data for August shows an employment market going gangbusters. True, there was a small rise in the jobless rate to 3.5%, but that was because the participation rate rose, to 66.6% — just 0.2 percentage points below the record high in June and 0.7 percentage points higher than before the pandemic.
That suggests the job market is so strong, people are entering or re-entering the jobs market, encouraged by the prospect of getting work. The rise in unemployment is nothing to do with demand for labour — seasonally adjusted employment increased by 33,500 people in net terms, including a rise in full-time jobs of 58,800, while part-time employment fell by 25,300. And seasonally adjusted hours worked rose by 0.8% in August — fully reversing July’s 0.8% drop in hours worked, which was due to the school holidays and continuing COVID infections.
This is not a jobs market showing the signs of 1.75% of interest rate rises between May and early August. This is a jobs market encouraging people to get into the labour force because there’s plenty of strong demand for what they can offer.
And note that the Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reported on Wednesday that 900,000 people held two or more jobs – up 4.3% from the March quarter. That’s equal to 6.5% of all those unemployed. It’s the highest rate recorded by the ABS, and 0.5 percentage points above its pre-pandemic level. It includes a growing number of people working more than two jobs.
As the ABS pointed out, this coincides with a large fall in the number of part-time and full-time workers who would like to work more hours, with underemployment now at historical lows.
Let’s be clear what that says about our industrial relations system — wages growth is stuck in the doldrums. Workers are having to work multiple jobs to make ends meet (dismissed by some facile journalists as “side hustles”). But it also tells of a labour market where demand is very strong.
From the perspective of the RBA, this means it will continue its aggressive rate hikes. It wants to see unemployment rising and more people out of work — that’s the blunt truth of it. That’s what it believes is required to reduce demand, even though demand isn’t driving inflation, supply problems are. It can only keep belting households and businesses until they stop spending and people lose their jobs.
There’s a view from the “liquidate them all” crowd at the Financial Review that because US inflation remains strong and the US Federal Reserve will continue to hike rates, that somehow “pressures” the RBA to do the same. There’s no logic to that argument, it’s just made by neoliberals who want to see households punished as much as possible with higher interest rates. But the US example is instructive about how responsive post-pandemic labour markets are to rate rises.
The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits fell 5000 to 213,000 in the week that ended September 10 — way below what the market expected and at the lowest since May. That suggests that, like here, interest rate rises are as yet having little impact on demand for labour — and the Fed has been lifting rates for longer than the RBA. Unlike here, US wages growth continues at a healthy clip — 5.2% annual growth, though below the 5.7% level of January. There are around two vacancies for every unemployed person in the US currently, compared to one here.
Retail sales and car sales in the US are also remaining strong.
If we follow the US example, there’ll be many months ahead of rate rises before we seen much sign of an impact. The lingering fear, though, is that when the labour market finally responds, it snaps back like a taut rubber band and we see a rapid rise in unemployment. As of yet, there’s no sign of that. So, to use the great cliché of Australian economic journalism, “rate rise looms”.
Are you feeling the pinch of rising interest rates? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
I find the whole unemployment rate discussion a bit laughable. People are amazed that despite the low “unemployment” rate and everyone crying out for more employees there is no wage growth. Could it be that because of decades of fiddling with the definition of the word by all governments the term “unemployed” no longer has any actual universally agreed meaning? Or maybe even multiple meanings so that what I mean doesnt line up with what you mean and we dont even realise that we are talking about different things.
The ABS definition of unemployment has not changed for many decades and is in line with ILO definitions. It doesn’t make it a great definition, but there has been no fiddling.
dismissed by some facile journalists as “side hustles”
A sickening Americanism intended to suggest that juggling part-time gigs is somehow the epitome of can-do free-market ambition and enterprise. Who are these journalists?
Is there any good reason why the Reserve Bank wouldn’t address the massive elephant eating all the extra peanuts in the room? The supposed non-partisan nature of the Reserve Bank puts them in a position where they can call a spade a spade without fears of reprisals.
Except that they are of the same ilk with the same neolib mindset.
I had high hopes for Sally McManus joining the board but her recent square dance/pas de deux with Westacott on Insiders suggests that she is going to be another Bill Kelty.
You’re probably right on that, though part of me thinks there might also be some politicking going on too. Coming out and saying “we need more people to be unemployed to keep a price floor” flies in the face of all sides of politics, since everyone preaches the nobility and necessity of paid employment.
Not ‘everyone’ – see Heart’s comment re the need to discipline workers, which is the function of unemployment and scab mobs.
Everyone as in every political party, not as in every human being. I should have been clearer.
Personally I think the value of work is overstated politically, leading to a proliferation of what the anthropologist David Graeber calls bullsh*t jobs. A lot of work is neither noble or necessary but we do it because we need earn money. The disconnect between the need to do something versus the need to do something that actually contributes to our society is something no political party has even begun to address.
Agree.
Powell litterally said in a speech a few months ago “labor needs to be disciplined” – he’s been pretty clear he wants unemployment up in favor of employers.
Fact is Australia’s working age population passed the ‘demographic sweet spot’ pre Covid, like much of the developed and developing worlds; many regions, postcodes, sectors and occupations offer clear evidence of the future and impact on services and small business.
This should translate into increased opportunities and power for employees (as the baby boomer bubble transitions), provided union awards and conditions are complied with more coverage and improved awards, including wage rises, increases super contribution guarantees (an alternative to blunt interest rate rises to dampen demand)
However, this is too easily averted by media, LNP and think tanks introducing/using the dog whistle of (undefined) ‘immigration’ card lowering incomes as both a base/false binary (argument) versus rights of local employees; with award compliance, all are better off.
Surely, if we are poaching the young people of other countries, those other countries will simply disallow it eventually?
No. Working age is declining leaving gaps in the workforce while most developing nations do not, basic maths?
If there are people offshore looking for work or e.g. in the case of the Philippines, apparently a surplus of nurses are trained annually to allow emigration for work and remittances, that’s their decision, not poaching?
How do you describe British nurses, other occupations and other developed nations’ people emigrating to Australia, poached?
Conversely, by your logic, Australians should be neither ‘poached’ nor emigrate temporarily &/or long term to work offshore in finance, IT, health care, education, arts etc. in their 100’s or 10s of thousands (apparently about a million Australians resident outside, it’s globalisation)?
False equivalence because no equivalence is made…. a rhetorical device.