https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-17/one-unemployed-person-per-vacant-job-full-employment/101243530?utm_medium=social&utm_content=sf258670549&utm_campaign=fb_abc_news&utm_source=m.facebook.com&sf258670549=1

One unemployed person per vacant job: Has Australia finally hit full employment

By ABC business reporter Gareth Hutchens

Article tells how Chifley introduced Australia's full employment policy, as an alternative to the misery of 10 % unemployment in the interwar years, resulting in unemployment less than 2% for almost thee decades,  1946-the 70's.

Actual full employment is a bad idea. It would be like having no rental houses on the market.

I read a tweet the other day about how many adverts in NZ there were begging for people to come to WA. NOW.

Maybe they were just running out of gimps who've all moved to Melbourne to become baristas.

Not a bad idea that full employment - for those trying to get a leg-up into the workforce and future prosperity and for the nation as well, given that it would not have to sustain them for life.

High unemployment is totally stupid for any economy.... nobody wins but the parasites sucking the life blood from nations while hiding in tax havens..... tax everything in and out of tax havens NOW!

Anyone else notice how 'unemployment rate' went down once Covid restrictions eased and after a prolonged period of no mass immigration?  Anyone?  Do we actually need all those people to fill in empty rooms in rentals to feed the already fat and the flood the jobs market and create 'needs' for governments etc to employ those who speak the lingo and know the culture, regardless of all other factors?

The cost of living is through the roof due to excessive competition for limited resources in HOMING (as opposed to housing), for jobs, and for genuine opportunities with a future for Australians NOW!

We don't need more people - we need a better road ahead planned and funded.... I've given you options times many.... when will you listen?

freediver wrote on Jul 18^th, 2022 at 9:36pm:

Actual full employment is a bad idea. It would be like having no rental houses on the market.

Wouldn't matter if there was the option of moving on from temporary housing into a home........ there's your problem...... renting should not be a lifestyle choice........ the best form of home life security is getting a home......  8-)  8-)  8-)

freediver wrote on Jul 18^th, 2022 at 9:36pm:

Actual full employment is a bad idea. It would be like having no rental houses on the market.

yes...you prefer your fascist police mates to 'rough up' the unemployed to keep them in line...

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jul 18^th, 2022 at 10:55pm:

Not a bad idea that full employment - for those trying to get a leg-up into the workforce and future prosperity and for the nation as well, given that it would not have to sustain them for life. High unemployment is totally stupid for any economy.... nobody wins but the parasites sucking the life blood from nations while hiding in tax havens..... tax everything in and out of tax havens NOW! Anyone else notice how 'unemployment rate' went down once Covid restrictions eased and after a prolonged period of no mass immigration?  Anyone?  Do we actually need all those people to fill in empty rooms in rentals to feed the already fat and the flood the jobs market and create 'needs' for governments etc to employ those who speak the lingo and know the culture, regardless of all other factors? The cost of living is through the roof due to excessive competition for limited resources in HOMING (as opposed to housing), for jobs, and for genuine opportunities with a future for Australians NOW! We don't need more people - we need a better road ahead planned and funded.... I've given you options times many.... when will you listen?

Dick Smith spoke a lot of sense several years back when he pointed to the impossibility of continuous increase in population to grow the economy.

The demands on the Murray's resources are already greater than the river's capacity.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jul 18^th, 2022 at 10:57pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 18th, 2022 at 9:36pm: Actual full employment is a bad idea. It would be like having no rental houses on the market. Wouldn't matter if there was the option of moving on from temporary housing into a home........ there's your problem...... renting should not be a lifestyle choice........ the best form of home life security is getting a home......  8-)  8-)  8-)

As Menzies achieved when he established the Public Housing Department, with subsidized rents able to be converted to home purchase. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 18^th, 2022 at 11:49pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jul 18th, 2022 at 10:55pm: Not a bad idea that full employment - for those trying to get a leg-up into the workforce and future prosperity and for the nation as well, given that it would not have to sustain them for life. High unemployment is totally stupid for any economy.... nobody wins but the parasites sucking the life blood from nations while hiding in tax havens..... tax everything in and out of tax havens NOW! Anyone else notice how 'unemployment rate' went down once Covid restrictions eased and after a prolonged period of no mass immigration?  Anyone?  Do we actually need all those people to fill in empty rooms in rentals to feed the already fat and the flood the jobs market and create 'needs' for governments etc to employ those who speak the lingo and know the culture, regardless of all other factors? The cost of living is through the roof due to excessive competition for limited resources in HOMING (as opposed to housing), for jobs, and for genuine opportunities with a future for Australians NOW! We don't need more people - we need a better road ahead planned and funded.... I've given you options times many.... when will you listen? Dick Smith spoke a lot of sense several years back when he pointed to the impossibility of continuous increase in population to grow the economy. The demands on the Murray's resources are already greater than the river's capacity.

So true.

While the government relies on the term "employed" people to brag about
low unemployment, it relies on a ludicrous ABS definition of the term.

"The ABS defines people as 'employed' if they
work one hour or more in the reference week."

This is claimed to be consistent with approaches used internationally.  But so
what?  In my opinion, if you're only working one hour a week, in reality you're
basically unemployed in any gainful manner.  Besides the obvious fact that NO
employer would ever employ someone on that basis.  And who's even gonna
get out of bed in order to bank a lousy $21.38 a week (before tax LOL).

The government needs to come clean, and publish the figures representing the
number of employed people working 38 hours per week on a permanent basis.

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/72/a1/ef/72a1ef567539dfe9cb983e72b791e761.jpg

demographic change.

we are going to run out of young people.

rural folk have 6 kids because they are free labour.

a kid when you live in an urban apartment is just a pain.

an expensive pain who is usually baby sat by the electronic device and grows up with little attachment to parents who are terrible role models , living their "surviving and coping" lifestyle.

the cat and dog are better fits for these beaten down chodes.

as we enter an age where the number of people over 80 will quadruple and they are all entitled and feel they deserve 3 months of expensive hospital care every time their diabetic toe turns black, we will simply run out of staff to care for them and cash to apy for their entitlement.

its probably a good idea to start to take some personal responsibility becasue the demographics are going to leave this enormous bulge of frail and soft boomers pretty much abandoned.

without a functional economy, all the things that people expect albo or scomo to pay for evaporate.

and with so few new workers coming thru, with them prefering to just be chodes then start businesses, with them having zero sense of duty to parents and prefering their phone as their best friend , the evolutionary blowtorch is about to be applied to millions of older australians , right when they are hopelessly inadequately prepared to deal with it.

you should train hard to build personal strength.

you will certainly need it

thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 18^th, 2022 at 11:44pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 18th, 2022 at 9:36pm: Actual full employment is a bad idea. It would be like having no rental houses on the market. yes...you prefer your fascist police mates to 'rough up' the unemployed to keep them in line...

And remember, just because you are paranoid does not mean they aren't out to get you.

aquascoot wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 5:21am:

demographic change. as we enter an age where the number of people over 80 will quadruple and they are all entitled and feel they deserve 3 months of expensive hospital care every time their diabetic toe turns black, we will simply run out of staff to care for them and cash to pay for their entitlement...

It's not oldies filling up hospital beds unnecessarily.

Frontline doctors have issued desperate pleas for more people to get
vaccinated after reporting that in some hospitals all new intensive care
COVID patients have not had jabs.  An estimated 5 million people, or
10% of the eligible UK population, have not been inoculated, and it is
this group who are seemingly draining the most resources from
overstretched hospitals, experts say.  Cambridge’s Royal Papworth
hospital said more than 80% of its COVID patients requiring the most
care were unjabbed.

—The Guardian UK, 23 December 2021.

I would guarantee you that there are far far far far more people in hospital beds
With diabetes strokes heart failure kidney failure and dementia
Then with covid.

And as the number of octogenarians quadruples
And nursing homes become more stressed
You will see endless referrals from nursing homes to public hospitals
Resulting in collapse of the system

Kovid is a nice scapegoat
But the demographic change and be general unhealthiness of people due to poor nutrition and poor exercise acceptance is a way bigger problem

underemployment is the new thing

Spot

What percentage of people doing less than standard hours do so out of personal preference?

freediver wrote on Jul 18^th, 2022 at 9:36pm:

Actual full employment is a bad idea. It would be like having no rental houses on the market.

Correct, capitalism requires suffering to survive

freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 8:58am:

What percentage of people doing less than standard hours do so out of personal preference?

Yeah, young people hate having food and shelter.  LOL!!!!

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 8:59am:

freediver wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 8:58am: What percentage of people doing less than standard hours do so out of personal preference? Yeah, young people hate having food and shelter.  LOL!!!!

If you don't know the answer, you need not feel compelled to respond. It just makes you look silly.

freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 9:02am:

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 8:59am: freediver wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 8:58am: What percentage of people doing less than standard hours do so out of personal preference? Yeah, young people hate having food and shelter.  LOL!!!! If you don't know the answer, you need not feel compelled to respond. It just makes you look silly.

I do know the answer.  Unstable employment is not a delight for people struggling to eat

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 9:11am:

freediver wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 9:02am: FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 8:59am: freediver wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 8:58am: What percentage of people doing less than standard hours do so out of personal preference? Yeah, young people hate having food and shelter.  LOL!!!! If you don't know the answer, you need not feel compelled to respond. It just makes you look silly. I do know the answer.  Unstable employment is not a delight for people struggling to eat

Hello??!!   Can you see the question, now highlighted for you.  Any big words that elude you??  Lemme break it down for you so you don't need to struggle.
1. Some people work fewer than full time hours.
2. A percentage of such people prefer - choose, opt, elect, want to - work the fewer than full time hours.
Q. What percentage is 2 of 1?



You said you do know the answer. Out with it, then.

Frank wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 10:09am:

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 9:11am: freediver wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 9:02am: FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 8:59am: freediver wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 8:58am: What percentage of people doing less than standard hours do so out of personal preference? Yeah, young people hate having food and shelter.  LOL!!!! If you don't know the answer, you need not feel compelled to respond. It just makes you look silly. I do know the answer.  Unstable employment is not a delight for people struggling to eat Hello??!!   Can you see the question, now highlighted for you.  Any big words that elude you??  Lemme break it down for you so you don't need to struggle. 1. Some people work fewer than full time hours. 2. A percentage of such people prefer - choose, opt, elect, want to - work the fewer than full time hours. Q. What percentage is 2 of 1? You said you do know the answer. Out with it, then.

A very small percentage.  Most people are struggling. A few have reliable other income and do it for pocket money, sure

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 10:12am:

Frank wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 10:09am: FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 9:11am: freediver wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 9:02am: FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 8:59am: freediver wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 8:58am: What percentage of people doing less than standard hours do so out of personal preference? Yeah, young people hate having food and shelter.  LOL!!!! If you don't know the answer, you need not feel compelled to respond. It just makes you look silly. I do know the answer.  Unstable employment is not a delight for people struggling to eat Hello??!!   Can you see the question, now highlighted for you.  Any big words that elude you??  Lemme break it down for you so you don't need to struggle. 1. Some people work fewer than full time hours. 2. A percentage of such people prefer - choose, opt, elect, want to - work the fewer than full time hours. Q. What percentage is 2 of 1? You said you do know the answer. Out with it, then. A very small percentage.  Most people are struggling. A few have reliable other income and do it for pocket money, sure

;D ;D ;D


"I know the answer - a very small percentage".

:D :D :D

Frank wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 10:18am:

"I know the answer - a very small percentage". :D :D :D

Are you just retarded?

The actual, non-ratty answer:

https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2017/sep/images/graph-0917-3-03.gif

Full report with lots of other details and graphs: https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2017/sep/3.html

Part-timers' underemployment rate around 3%. The majority of part times want only part time work.

Frank wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 10:25am:

The actual, non-ratty answer: https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2017/sep/images/graph-0917-3-03.gif Full report with lots of other details and graphs: https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2017/sep/3.html Part-timers' underemployment rate around 3%. The majority of part times want only part time work.

Part time is different to casual.  Casual is the issue.

aquascoot wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 6:39am:

I would guarantee you that there are far far far far more people in hospital beds with diabetes, strokes, heart failure kidney failure and dementia than with covid.

That may well be the case, but it's totally irrelevant.  At any rate those illnesses
you list are more often than not the result of the natural aging process—not any
sort of acquired viral infection.  I checked widely, and couldn't find any statistics
on the types of hospital, admissions by specific illness. 

So how can you "guarantee" the claim you make here?   Any citations?


Quote:

Covid is a nice scapegoat. But the demographic change and be general unhealthiness of people due to poor nutrition and poor exercise acceptance is a way bigger problem.

The effects of general unhealthiness and poor nutrition can be reversed
with the appropriate education, support and motivation.  COVID can't be.

If, as a 75-year-old, I develop diabetes or suffer a heart attack I can do
something about it—a change of diet, lose weight, and more exercise for
example, which—hopefully!—would keep me out of hospital.

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 10:28am:

Part time is different to casual.  Casual is the issue.

Agreed.  Permanent part time equals guaranteed minimum hours,
usually 15 hours per week, and includes pro rate holiday pay, sick
leave, and employer superannuation.  Casual doesn't guarantee any
minimum hours, leave, or superannuation under 90 hours worked
per month.

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 9:11am:

freediver wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 9:02am: FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 8:59am: freediver wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 8:58am: What percentage of people doing less than standard hours do so out of personal preference? Yeah, young people hate having food and shelter.  LOL!!!! If you don't know the answer, you need not feel compelled to respond. It just makes you look silly. I do know the answer.

But you are afraid to post it because the truth would make you look silly?

freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 11:10am:

But you are afraid to post it because the truth would make you look silly?

Oh, sweeetheart.  I could never look sillier than you

Casuals - now that the goalposts are shifted by ratty on uppers:


While part-time employment encompasses a range of actual hours worked, part-time employees work an average of 17 hours per week. More than half of Australia's part-time workers are casually employed, compared with 10 per cent of full-time workers. Casual employment is defined here as employment with no paid holiday or sick leave. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly given the continued upward trend in the part-time employment share, the share of casual employees in the workforce has been relatively stable since the 1990s at around 20 per cent. The share of independent contractors working part time is around 40 per cent. Independent contractors own their own business and are contracted to perform services by a client; they represent close to 10 per cent of employment.

Relative to other age groups, older workers (particularly those aged 55 years and over) have the strongest preference for working part-time hours. It may be that older workers take on a part-time job (and, increasingly, casual arrangements) as a transition between the role they had for most of their working life and retirement. Older workers also cite caring for relatives and illnesses or disabilities as reasons for working part time. In addition, an older worker's decision to work part-time hours can be influenced by access to, and the level of, pensions and superannuation.

Data from the HILDA Survey suggest that, on average, a little less than 20 per cent of part-time workers switch to full-time employment each year. In contrast, less than 10 per cent of full-time workers switch to part-time work on average each year. As previously mentioned, many young people combine part-time work and study, while unemployed workers more commonly transition to part-time (particularly casual) jobs rather than full-time work. This provides some evidence that part-time work can be used as a stepping stone into full-time employment.

https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2017/sep/3.html

See also
Why there's more jobs and fewer applicants than ever before
https://www.savings.com.au/news/more-jobs-than-ever-before

Frank wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 11:30am:

Casuals - now that the goalposts are shifted by ratty on uppers: While part-time employment encompasses a range of actual hours worked, part-time employees work an average of 17 hours per week. More than half of Australia's part-time workers are casually employed, compared with 10 per cent of full-time workers. Casual employment is defined here as employment with no paid holiday or sick leave. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly given the continued upward trend in the part-time employment share, the share of casual employees in the workforce has been relatively stable since the 1990s at around 20 per cent. The share of independent contractors working part time is around 40 per cent. Independent contractors own their own business and are contracted to perform services by a client; they represent close to 10 per cent of employment. Relative to other age groups, older workers (particularly those aged 55 years and over) have the strongest preference for working part-time hours. It may be that older workers take on a part-time job (and, increasingly, casual arrangements) as a transition between the role they had for most of their working life and retirement. Older workers also cite caring for relatives and illnesses or disabilities as reasons for working part time. In addition, an older worker's decision to work part-time hours can be influenced by access to, and the level of, pensions and superannuation. Data from the HILDA Survey suggest that, on average, a little less than 20 per cent of part-time workers switch to full-time employment each year. In contrast, less than 10 per cent of full-time workers switch to part-time work on average each year. As previously mentioned, many young people combine part-time work and study, while unemployed workers more commonly transition to part-time (particularly casual) jobs rather than full-time work. This provides some evidence that part-time work can be used as a stepping stone into full-time employment. https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2017/sep/3.html See also Why there's more jobs and fewer applicants than ever before https://www.savings.com.au/news/more-jobs-than-ever-before

*looks out the window*

It's not 2017, mate.  Casual jobs have exploded

freediver wrote on Jul 18^th, 2022 at 9:36pm:

Actual full employment is a bad idea.

Not to those who are unemployed

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 11:33am:

Frank wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 11:30am: Casuals - now that the goalposts are shifted by ratty on uppers: While part-time employment encompasses a range of actual hours worked, part-time employees work an average of 17 hours per week. More than half of Australia's part-time workers are casually employed, compared with 10 per cent of full-time workers. Casual employment is defined here as employment with no paid holiday or sick leave. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly given the continued upward trend in the part-time employment share, the share of casual employees in the workforce has been relatively stable since the 1990s at around 20 per cent. The share of independent contractors working part time is around 40 per cent. Independent contractors own their own business and are contracted to perform services by a client; they represent close to 10 per cent of employment. Relative to other age groups, older workers (particularly those aged 55 years and over) have the strongest preference for working part-time hours. It may be that older workers take on a part-time job (and, increasingly, casual arrangements) as a transition between the role they had for most of their working life and retirement. Older workers also cite caring for relatives and illnesses or disabilities as reasons for working part time. In addition, an older worker's decision to work part-time hours can be influenced by access to, and the level of, pensions and superannuation. Data from the HILDA Survey suggest that, on average, a little less than 20 per cent of part-time workers switch to full-time employment each year. In contrast, less than 10 per cent of full-time workers switch to part-time work on average each year. As previously mentioned, many young people combine part-time work and study, while unemployed workers more commonly transition to part-time (particularly casual) jobs rather than full-time work. This provides some evidence that part-time work can be used as a stepping stone into full-time employment. https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2017/sep/3.html See also Why there's more jobs and fewer applicants than ever before https://www.savings.com.au/news/more-jobs-than-ever-before *looks out the window* It's not 2017, mate.  Casual jobs have exploded

Really??  By how much? The rate was around 20% since the 1990s until 2017, the report's date. What is it in 2022??   If you think the rate exploded since 2017 you must know what it is.  Go on, tell us.

"I know - very big".  :D :D :D :D

Frank wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 12:43pm:

\ Really??  By how much? The rate was around 20% since the 1990s until 2017, the report's date. What is it in 2022??   If you think the rate exploded since 2017 you must know what it is.  Go on, tell us. "I know - very big".  :D :D :D :D

I love how utterly brain dead you are... It's beautiful

Over the period from 1992 to 2013, male casual employment increased at an annual average rate of 4.0 per cent—twice that of females at 2.0 per cent.

Your claim is a lie from the start :)

thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 18^th, 2022 at 11:49pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jul 18th, 2022 at 10:55pm: Not a bad idea that full employment - for those trying to get a leg-up into the workforce and future prosperity and for the nation as well, given that it would not have to sustain them for life. High unemployment is totally stupid for any economy.... nobody wins but the parasites sucking the life blood from nations while hiding in tax havens..... tax everything in and out of tax havens NOW! Anyone else notice how 'unemployment rate' went down once Covid restrictions eased and after a prolonged period of no mass immigration?  Anyone?  Do we actually need all those people to fill in empty rooms in rentals to feed the already fat and the flood the jobs market and create 'needs' for governments etc to employ those who speak the lingo and know the culture, regardless of all other factors? The cost of living is through the roof due to excessive competition for limited resources in HOMING (as opposed to housing), for jobs, and for genuine opportunities with a future for Australians NOW! We don't need more people - we need a better road ahead planned and funded.... I've given you options times many.... when will you listen? Dick Smith spoke a lot of sense several years back when he pointed to the impossibility of continuous increase in population to grow the economy. The demands on the Murray's resources are already greater than the river's capacity.

I recall David Suzuki was talking about over population also… saud something like Australia can sustain 17-18 million people.
Yet… which former PM was it that said “we believe in a BIG Australia of 50 million people!”
Geez  :o

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 12:47pm:

Frank wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 12:43pm: \ Really??  By how much? The rate was around 20% since the 1990s until 2017, the report's date. What is it in 2022??   If you think the rate exploded since 2017 you must know what it is.  Go on, tell us. "I know - very big".  :D :D :D :D I love how utterly brain dead you are... It's beautiful Over the period from 1992 to 2013, male casual employment increased at an annual average rate of 4.0 per cent—twice that of females at 2.0 per cent. Your claim is a lie from the start :)

So to what rate has casual employment 'exploded' since the 20 % rate in 2017??


Why don't you just tell us, instead of slipping and sliding like a twitching ratty on ice? 

aquascoot wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 5:21am:

demographic change. we are going to run out of young people.

Just to confirm,  the currency-issuing government needn't (can't) run out of money (see MMT) ....so a  post labour-intensive, robot-enhanced manufacturing, AI and IT  enabled economy will do just fine.  And since there is always plenty of useful work to be done, full-employment can be guaranteed by judicious creation of jobs in both the non-market, public (social) and private market (for profit) sectors. 

But you are right -  people need to take responsibility for their own health, so the elderly don't end up   draining the community's resources in miserable ill-heath near the end of life.


Quote:

without a functional economy, all the things that people expect albo or scomo to pay for evaporate.

Addressed above. Mobilization of the community's resources on behalf of R&D, good housing, and healthy living for all, instead of wasting resources on junk, health-destroying, profit-driven consumerism, will be a necessary change, as populations begin to reduce as they must, in an overcrowded world with finite resources.


Quote:

you should train hard to build personal strength. you will certainly need it

Yes - addressed above.

Frank wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 1:58pm:

So to what rate has casual employment 'exploded' since the 20 % rate in 2017?? Why don't you just tell us, instead of slipping and sliding like a twitching ratty on ice?

The workforce stats.  in the last five years are of course very challenging to pin down - we have just emerged from a global pandemic.

But are you creating a red herring with your  casual work narrative? Certainly, consistently higher unemployment compared with 1946 -1974 has been accompanied by increasing precarity of employment since the 80's.   

Casual employment can be voluntary; underemployment, which has been consistently high since the GFC,  is involuntary, by definition.

Chifley was able to create real full employment after 1946, continued by Menzies, as outlined in the OP.

Now many young people are facing mickey mouse gig economy jobs...

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 11:12am:

freediver wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 11:10am: But you are afraid to post it because the truth would make you look silly? Oh, sweeetheart.  I could never look sillier than you

Of course not - you are in a category of your own.... sort of the trans-intellectual type - stuck somewhere between mental morbidity and genius and awaiting surgical or chemical intervention to reassign your intellect....

freediver wrote on Jul 18^th, 2022 at 9:36pm:

Actual full employment is a bad idea. It would be like having no rental houses on the market.

Rubbish.

Firstly, it's a false analogy. It is MUCH easier to issue foreign work visas than it is to bring empty houses in from overseas.

Secondly, state-mandated involuntary unemployment is FAR WORSE than full employment. The burden of involuntary unemployment is NOT shared equally, and anyone trying to get back into the workforce experiences enormous discrimination.

The burden of involuntary unemployment needs to be shared more equitably.

For example, any company layoffs should be by lottery. Anyone who has been out of work for six months or more in the past five years would be excluded from the redundancy lottery. The directors ordering the sackings would all be included in a separate lottery pool and directors are also made redundant in the same proportion as workers, with a minimum of one to be axed.

Anyone drawn in the redundancy lottery is made redundant with no redundancy pay. No exceptions.

Bam wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 9:07pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 18th, 2022 at 9:36pm: Actual full employment is a bad idea. It would be like having no rental houses on the market. Rubbish. Firstly, it's a false analogy. It is MUCH easier to issue foreign work visas than it is to bring empty houses in from overseas. Secondly, state-mandated involuntary unemployment is FAR WORSE than full employment. The burden of involuntary unemployment is NOT shared equally, and anyone trying to get back into the workforce experiences enormous discrimination. The burden of involuntary unemployment needs to be shared more equitably. For example, any company layoffs should be by lottery. Anyone who has been out of work for six months or more in the past five years would be excluded from the redundancy lottery. The directors ordering the sackings would all be included in a separate lottery pool and directors are also made redundant in the same proportion as workers, with a minimum of one to be axed. Anyone drawn in the redundancy lottery is made redundant with no redundancy pay. No exceptions.

Good work!

Ben Chifley -

"He foreshadowed that taxes would need to be maintained: 'after the war, to save ourselves from inflated costs and prices, and to distribute equitably the additional wealth which full employment brings, we must expect fairly heavy tax rates ... higher than before the war.’ 62 By 1944, however, he was warning 'taxation is so high that it is impracticable to obtain any further contribution from this source."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281979829_Ben_Chifley_the_true_believer


Edit: "It would not create work for work’s sake, but drive increases in productivity to create meaningful jobs that made a social contribution. Work would be dignified – and socially recognised. The power of big business to use the threat of unemployment to discipline labour (as had taken place in the 1930s) would be curtailed. Labour would be treated as more than a mere commodity.

It was the basis of a new era of prosperity. In the 1950s and 1960s GDP grew annually by 2%, and then 3%, while unemployment remained beneath 3%."

https://www.chifley.org.au/in-depth/the-curtin-government-and-full-employment/

lee wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 12:42pm:

Ben Chifley - "He foreshadowed that taxes would Ben Chifley: the true believer need to be maintained: 'after the war, to save ourselves from inflated costs and prices, and to distribute equitably the additional wealth which full employment brings, we must expect fairly heavy tax rates ... higher than before the war.’ 62 By 1944, however, he was warning 'taxation is so high that it is impracticable to obtain any further contribution from this source." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281979829_Ben_Chifley_the_true_believer Edit: "It would not create work for work’s sake, but drive increases in productivity to create meaningful jobs that made a social contribution. Work would be dignified – and socially recognised. The power of big business to use the threat of unemployment to discipline labour (as had taken place in the 1930s) would be curtailed. Labour would be treated as more than a mere commodity. It was the basis of a new era of prosperity. In the 1950s and 1960s GDP grew annually by 2%, and then 3%, while unemployment remained beneath 3%." https://www.chifley.org.au/in-depth/the-curtin-government-and-full-employment/

Can you correct the top line there?  ie remove the highlighted words in the top line. 

Note: Chifley had observed the misery of continuous 10% unemployment  in the inter-war years, hence his earlier comment re the need for higher taxes.  But by 1944 the cost of the war was sky-high, hence the seeming reversal of the earlier statement on tax.

In any case both he and Menzies succeeded in ushering a post war environment of high growth, moderate taxes and real full employment  (ie <2%, and no underemployment), via Keynesian deficit spending.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 1:47pm:

But by 1944 the cost of the war was sky-high, hence the seeming reversal of the earlier statement on tax.

And after the war? ::)

Edit:

" In order to meet the needs of the war economy 20,000 soldiers were released from the Australian Army in October 1943. Further reductions took place in August 1944 when another 30,000 soldiers and 15,000 personnel from the Royal Australian Air Force were discharged. In mid-1945 the Government implemented a policy in which service men and women who had completed five years of service, including at least two years outside Australia, could volunteer for discharge."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demobilisation_of_the_Australian_military_after_World_War_II

lee wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 2:15pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 1:47pm: But by 1944 the cost of the war was sky-high, hence the seeming reversal of the earlier statement on tax. And after the war? ::) Edit: " In order to meet the needs of the war economy 20,000 soldiers were released from the Australian Army in October 1943. Further reductions took place in August 1944 when another 30,000 soldiers and 15,000 personnel from the Royal Australian Air Force were discharged. In mid-1945 the Government implemented a policy in which service men and women who had completed five years of service, including at least two years outside Australia, could volunteer for discharge." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demobilisation_of_the_Australian_military_after_World_War_II

In any case both he and Menzies succeeded in ushering in a post war environment of high growth, moderate taxes and real full employment (ie <2%, and no underemployment), via Keynesian deficit spending.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 2:25pm:

lee wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 2:15pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 1:47pm: But by 1944 the cost of the war was sky-high, hence the seeming reversal of the earlier statement on tax. And after the war? ::) Edit: " In order to meet the needs of the war economy 20,000 soldiers were released from the Australian Army in October 1943. Further reductions took place in August 1944 when another 30,000 soldiers and 15,000 personnel from the Royal Australian Air Force were discharged. In mid-1945 the Government implemented a policy in which service men and women who had completed five years of service, including at least two years outside Australia, could volunteer for discharge." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demobilisation_of_the_Australian_military_after_World_War_II In any case both he and Menzies succeeded in ushering in a post war environment of high growth, moderate taxes and real full employment (ie <2%, and no underemployment), via Keynesian deficit spending.

It's a lot easier to reach full employment when people are driven to find employment.

I also bet you that actual employment rates were lower then. There were lower expectations for women to work.

Article from Prof. Bill Mitchell:

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=50155

The global poly crisis is the culmination of the absurdity of neoliberalism

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 4:49pm:

It's a lot easier to reach full employment when people are driven to find employment.

Er....see Prof. Bill Mitchel's post linked in the previous post.  Admittedly, Oz govts. in the immediate post war years funded public investment via a large public service required to support massive public investment nation building projects like the Snowy River scheme, and massive roll-out of public housing, and a Commonwealth Employment service dedicated to matching available labour to jobs. 


Quote:

I also bet you that actual employment rates were lower then. There were lower expectations for women to work.

Interestingly, in the Chifley-Menzies era, women left the workforce when they married, since a male bread winner on an average wage could easily support a family with 4 kids. Mom's hands were full of course, child-care was neither available or necessary. 

Hence married women were not counted as unemployed, as indeed they were not....they were unpaid child and home carers.

Is English your second language?

thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 6:59pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 4:49pm: It's a lot easier to reach full employment when people are driven to find employment. Er....see Prof. Bill Mitchel's post linked in the previous post.  Admittedly, Oz govts. in the immediate post war years funded public investment via a large public service required to support massive public investment nation building projects like the Snowy River scheme, and massive roll-out of public housing, and a Commonwealth Employment service dedicated to matching available labour to jobs.  Quote: I also bet you that actual employment rates were lower then. There were lower expectations for women to work. Interestingly, in the Chifley-Menzies era, women left the workforce when they married, since a male bread winner on an average wage could easily support a family with 4 kids. Mom's hands were full of course, child-care was neither available or necessary.  Hence married women were not counted as unemployed, as indeed they were not....they were unpaid child and home carers.

Not unpaid - they shared the family income... same as super and such - of course these things are ignored in 'calculations' of 'wage gaps' and 'super gaps'..... just don't tell anyone, OK?

Point is - as you said already - they didn't NEED to go to work for a family to thrive, so the man was left to do all the heavy lifting and dangerous work.  :-/

Now with the advent of the MADIF - the Mandatory Dual Income Family - since the early 1980's following the mass introduction of women into work and with affirmative action to boot, which lead to a near-instant doubling in the price of homes and that situation has never looked back since... only gotten worse for families struggling to get a start in life..... women NEED to go to work just to make family ends meet - and then along came the 'need' for heavily subsidised childcare etc.... all out of the budget pocket ..... fascinating...... talk about a luxury run and incredible sense of Entitlement™.

Again - given the Covid shutdown on mass importation of migrants and the eventual loosening of restrictions - now there is an apparent (relative) glut of jobs available... with unemployment theoretically falling to 3.5% as a result of low immigration and return to work.... I wouldn't call that 'low' unemployment given that so many are part-time casuals... someone said they love it that way - not the young ones I know who can never see home ownership, stable family etc, anywhere on the horizon.

Now, of course, this alleged 'shortage of workers' will mean that government will resume its mad race to the bottom of Australian society and culture via mass importation of large groups of Third Worlders... and the planned reduction of the masses of ordinary folk under the despotism of incipient poverty and part-time temporary will resume...

Back to the good old days of the swaggy wandering from place to place asking for a little work here and there - a hundred years of industrial relations and social progress gone in an instant....

The reasons for this are clear to any who choose to look.....

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 4:49pm:

It's a lot easier to reach full employment when people are driven to find employment.

It's a lot easier to reach full employment when employers are driven to employ the jobless.

This isn't happening now because the current employment market has far too many barriers, such as ineffective job service providers, excessive recruitment costs for employers, excessive training costs for the unemployed and rampant discrimination against the unemployed.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 4:49pm:

...I also bet you that actual employment rates were lower then. There were lower expectations for women to work.

I randomly chose the middle 1950s to check this out.

https://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/free.nsf/0/BA7571A92CFEE2B0CA25748E0005A623/$File/61010_1955_CHAPTER4_EMPLOYMENT_AND_UNEMPLOYMENT.pdf

Post-WW2 Male employment rose, reaching a peak of 1,923,700 in March, 1952.
Post-WW2 Female employment also rose, reaching a peak of 724,000  in November, 1951.

Although these figures look low today, it needs to be remembered that in 1950,
Australia's population was only 8,200,000 people.

So... In the mid-1950s, the male/female worker ratio was 2.6:1
Today it's pretty close to 1:1 according to 2020 ABS data.

P.S.  The modern day swaggy moves from one part-time casual temporary seasonal to another.... just like in the old days.. the difference is that they swag in the back of their car, under the bridge, down by the riverbank or in a tent.... maybe in a single room somewhere if they are fortunate.

Increasingly, same as in the old days, men and women, children/families reside in the equivalent of the Snowies bark hut (it's in Eden) with thin walls and a fire going day and night for some warmth and a terrible diet etc.  Maybe they live in a tent ..... in their mother's backyard.... can't afford rent ....

I see nothing good coming from any of this.....

Bam wrote on Jul 21^st, 2022 at 12:39am:

freediver wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 4:49pm: It's a lot easier to reach full employment when people are driven to find employment. It's a lot easier to reach full employment when employers are driven to employ the jobless. This isn't happening now because the current employment market has far too many barriers, such as ineffective job service providers, excessive recruitment costs for employers, excessive training costs for the unemployed and rampant discrimination against the unemployed.

None of those make sense.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 7:23pm:

Point is - as you said already - they didn't NEED to go to work for a family to thrive, so the man was left to do all the heavy lifting and dangerous work.  :-/ Now with the advent of the MADIF - the Mandatory Dual Income Family - since the early 1980's following the mass introduction of women into work and with affirmative action to boot, which lead to a near-instant doubling in the price of homes and that situation has never looked back since... only gotten worse for families struggling to get a start in life..... women NEED to go to work just to make family ends meet - and then along came the 'need' for heavily subsidised childcare etc.... all out of the budget pocket ..... fascinating...... talk about a luxury run and incredible sense of Entitlement™.

All true, but I suppose more and more women have finally gotten sick of 'barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" as a career choice....

I blame global neoliberalism - and the junk consumer economy (as well as desire for McMansions) -  for both parents needing to work, to support a family.

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2022 at 6:57am:

Bam wrote on Jul 21st, 2022 at 12:39am: freediver wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 4:49pm: It's a lot easier to reach full employment when people are driven to find employment. It's a lot easier to reach full employment when employers are driven to employ the jobless. This isn't happening now because the current employment market has far too many barriers, such as ineffective job service providers, excessive recruitment costs for employers, excessive training costs for the unemployed and rampant discrimination against the unemployed. None of those make sense.

Because you do not understand these issues.

Why are you commenting on issues that you do not understand?

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 4:49pm:

It's a lot easier to reach full employment when people are driven to find employment.

Nonsense, that's RW mythology; people were "driven to find jobs" just as much in the full employment Chifley- Menzies era.

Unemployment since the 70's, and involuntary underemployment since the GFC, have been consistently higher than in 1946 -1970's (average unemployment  c.2%)

The Commonwealth Employment Service was closed BECAUSE the post-Thatcher neoliberal economy wrecked full employment, so the C.E. Service was outsourced to private companies pretending  to supply non-existent jobs, when in reality they were only private welfare agencies.   

thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 21^st, 2022 at 4:19pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 7:23pm: Point is - as you said already - they didn't NEED to go to work for a family to thrive, so the man was left to do all the heavy lifting and dangerous work.  :-/ Now with the advent of the MADIF - the Mandatory Dual Income Family - since the early 1980's following the mass introduction of women into work and with affirmative action to boot, which lead to a near-instant doubling in the price of homes and that situation has never looked back since... only gotten worse for families struggling to get a start in life..... women NEED to go to work just to make family ends meet - and then along came the 'need' for heavily subsidised childcare etc.... all out of the budget pocket ..... fascinating...... talk about a luxury run and incredible sense of Entitlement™. All true, but I suppose more and more women have finally gotten sick of 'barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" as a career choice.... I blame global neoliberalism - and the junk consumer economy (as well as desire for McMansions) -  for both parents needing to work, to support a family.

Hyperbole - they were not 'barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen' .... it wasn't women who 'got sick of it' - it was men's science and progress in rights and actual votes that changed it all....  EVERY time men here gained something their first response was to give the same to the women... starting with universal male suffrage - at the very first vote on universal suffrage HERE in Australia men voted overwhelmingly that women should have an equal vote.

There was no 'great victory of suffragettes' - it was men who did it for them..... women had no vote and were in fact a minority at the time..... got it?

You there yet?  Hyperbolic reminiscences and re-writings of history past do not add up to reality .....

Are you prepared to say that it was not the invention of reliable contraception that changed the status of women, and not their 'fearless freedom fighting' bullshit?  Who invented the Pill?

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jul 21^st, 2022 at 10:52pm:

Hyperbole - they were not 'barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen' .... it wasn't women who 'got sick of it' - it was men's science and progress in rights and actual votes that changed it all....  EVERY time men here gained something their first response was to give the same to the women... starting with universal male suffrage - at the very first vote on universal suffrage HERE in Australia men voted overwhelmingly that women should have an equal vote.

Of course it is rhetorical exaggeration.."hyperbole",  but   continuous pregnancy  was the women's role for generations...even if people like Fanny Mendelssohn had brilliant careers in their own right (while bearing 6 kids for Felix).


Quote:

There was no 'great victory of suffragettes' - it was men who did it for them..... women had no vote and were in fact a minority at the time..... got it?

So Oz was particularly socially advanced at the beginning of the 20th century?...certainly wasn't the case in the UK where women suffered considerable abuse, and worse, to achieve the vote.


Quote:

You there yet?  Hyperbolic reminiscences and re-writings of history past do not add up to reality .....

Well I know you are strong on gender politics, and weak on economic outcomes for all individuals ....


Quote:

Are you prepared to say that it was not the invention of reliable contraception that changed the status of women, and not their 'fearless freedom fighting' bullshit?  Who invented the Pill?

Status of men and women relies on achievement of economic and political power: on average, men have been more successful in the past.
As for the Pill, both sexes - and society - benefited from a reduction in the birth rate.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 21^st, 2022 at 4:36pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 4:49pm: It's a lot easier to reach full employment when people are driven to find employment. Nonsense, that's RW mythology; people were "driven to find jobs" just as much in the full employment Chifley- Menzies era.

Crap.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2022 at 11:59am:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jul 21st, 2022 at 10:52pm: Hyperbole - they were not 'barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen' .... it wasn't women who 'got sick of it' - it was men's science and progress in rights and actual votes that changed it all....  EVERY time men here gained something their first response was to give the same to the women... starting with universal male suffrage - at the very first vote on universal suffrage HERE in Australia men voted overwhelmingly that women should have an equal vote. Of course it is rhetorical exaggeration.."hyperbole",  but   continuous pregnancy  was the women's role for generations...even if people like Fanny Mendelssohn had brilliant careers in their own right (while bearing 6 kids for Felix). Quote: There was no 'great victory of suffragettes' - it was men who did it for them..... women had no vote and were in fact a minority at the time..... got it? So Oz was particularly socially advanced at the beginning of the 20th century?...certainly wasn't the case in the UK where women suffered considerable abuse, and worse, to achieve the vote. [quote]You there yet?  Hyperbolic reminiscences and re-writings of history past do not add up to reality .....

Well I know you are strong on gender politics, and weak on economic outcomes for all individuals ....


Quote:

Are you prepared to say that it was not the invention of reliable contraception that changed the status of women, and not their 'fearless freedom fighting' bullshit?  Who invented the Pill?

Status of men and women relies on achievement of economic and political power: on average, men have been more successful in the past.
As for the Pill, both sexes - and society - benefited from a reduction in the birth rate.


[/quote]


We live HERE - there is no global world war over any and every problem in every nation worldwide.

The suffragettes, by their actions in Britain, caused the government of the day to delay giving women the vote, since they were considered too unstable because of the suffragettes. 

Yes - Australia at the beginning of the twentieth century had universal suffrage... a long way from the time not that long before when only the landed gentry had the vote.... men gradually got it, then as said - voted at the first opportunity for women - the minority - to have it as well.

The true nobility of Men shown clearly for all to see... took a while for the public to vote in favour of Indigenous getting the vote... again the same applies... it wasn't 'fought for' - it was given as a fair thing.

Now we are seeing Men disenfranchised in countless ways..... and still there is no backlash.... again proving that the majority of men are highly civilised here...

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2022 at 5:39pm:

We live HERE - there is no global world war over any and every problem in every nation worldwide.

Yes there is - an economic war aka global neoliberalism which supplanted the Cold War after 1990.


Quote:

The suffragettes, by their actions in Britain, caused the government of the day to delay giving women the vote, since they were considered too unstable because of the suffragettes.

Yes  the old theory about women:

" The name hysteria is derived from the Greek word hystera which means uterus".


Quote:

Yes - Australia at the beginning of the twentieth century had universal suffrage... a long way from the time not that long before when only the landed gentry had the vote.... men gradually got it, then as said - voted at the first opportunity for women - the minority - to have it as well.

Well done Oz....


Quote:

The true nobility of Men shown clearly for all to see...

You mean chivalry?

Certainly not "nobility"  (exhibit 1: the ben roberts-smith fiasco...) 


Quote:

took a while for the public to vote in favour of Indigenous getting the vote... again the same applies... it wasn't 'fought for' - it was given as a fair thing.

"Aboriginal men living in South Australia had the right to vote since the passing of the South Australian Constitution in 1856. While the right to vote under colonial laws was extended to South Australian Aboriginal women in 1894, they were often not informed of this right or supported to enrol to vote. In some cases, Aboriginal people were actively discouraged from enrolling or voting.

At the Ngarrindjeri mission at Raukkan (then known as Point McLeay), a number of Aboriginal women insisted on enrolling on the electoral roll and voting in the 1896 election, even though they were actively discouraged by the white manager of the mission.

The 1902 Commonwealth Franchise Act removed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s right to vote in Federal elections. This right was reinstated in the 1962 Commonwealth Electoral Act, however it was not until the 1967 Referendum that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were included in the census."

...one step forward, two steps back.....an interesting result of federation.


Quote:

Now we are seeing Men disenfranchised in countless ways..... and still there is no backlash.... again proving that the majority of men are highly civilised here...

How are men disenfranchised today?