From the Jericho Sell-out today:
But all is now good? Are we back to where we were when things were booming?
Not by a long shot. Our economy has massively changed since then, and that includes who works and what type of work is done.
Over the past decade, the growth in employment among prime-aged workers has been very much women-based, and very much in part-time work:
Consider that in August 2008, 88.4% of prime-aged men were employed – now it is just 86.7%; whereas back then 72.4% of women aged 25-54 were working, now it is 74.2%.
In effect, since August 2008 the rate of prime-aged men working has fallen by 1.7% points, while it has risen by the same amount for women:
The reason is because of the changing economy.
Over the past 10 years, five of the eight industries with the biggest employment growth have been in industries such as healthcare, accommodation and food services, and education, which have an above-average level of women employed and a below-average level of full-time employment:
But there has also been big differences in age of the workforce.
A good, quick guide for judging how well the economy is doing is looking at the employment rates of younger workers. They are always the first retrenched in slow periods and the last to be re-hired when the going gets good.
Since early 2008, the rates of 15 to 24-year-olds employed has fallen from a high of 65.1% to the current level of 59%:
By contrast, since the GFC, older workers have been staying in work longer than in the past – both overall and in full-time employment – possibly as a result of concerns about the ability to afford to retire, as well as a long-term trend of older workers remaining in work as the baby boomer generation has neared retirement age.
The past 10 years have seen great changes in our economy. While as many people aged 25 to 54 work now as did then, fewer men do, and much fewer men work full-time. The decade has also seen jobs for younger workers disappear and not return, while older workers have stayed in the workforce longer than in the past.
It’s a combination that makes for low wages growth and a lot of spare capacity as workers seek more hours in industries that are historically lower-paid.
Excellent work. We totally agree. So why on earth would you want to pile the rolling supply shock of mass immigration on top of this structurally weak labour market? Because to not do so is racist! Formerly from Jericho:
Immigration – because there are many desperate to hate – must be treated with extreme care by politicians and journalists, and certainly with more care than Abbott seems capable. The inherently racist parties will seek to use any discussion and any seeming evidence of the negative impact of migrants as fuel to burn their fires of hate.
You’ve jumped the shark, mate. Get back on the correct side of things.
Meanwhile, Atlassian boss Mike Cannon-Brooks is even more absurd:
Atlassian boss Mike Cannon-Brookes has warned of massive economic and social pain to come if Australia does not face challenges posed by automation and technological disruption, declaring ‘this is not science fiction’.
Mr Cannon-Brookes addressed a senate committee on the future of work in Melbourne Tuesday morning, putting his case that the country’s visa system was broken and declaring that planning is needed now to maintain Australia’s economic prosperity. He said uncertainty around 457 visas has directly hurt his company’s ability to hire, and Australia’s success in the future will rely on its ability to attract the world’s best tech talent.
Massive robot job destruction…pause…boost migrant labour supply…