We're not doing too badly on productivity

Rummaging through the media's rubbish bins this week, I happened upon some good news. According to the Productivity Commission's annual update, the productivity of labour improved by 1.4 per cent in 2013-14.

And get this: in the 12-industry "market sector" of the economy, it improved by 2.5 per cent in that year and by 3.7 per cent the year before.

To give you an idea, the 40-year average rate of market-sector productivity improvement is 2.3 per cent. So, despite all the worrying we've been doing in recent years about our poor productivity performance, it seems we're now doing quite well.

In which case, how come no one wanted to tell us? I can think of three reasons. First is the media's assumption that good news is of little interest to their customers.

Second is that the Productivity Commission's preference is for brushing aside the labour productivity figures and getting us to focus on the figures for "multi-factor productivity", which show an improvement of just 0.4 per cent in 2013-14 and 0.4 per cent the year before. This compares with the 40-year average of 0.8 per cent a year.

Third is that the nation's economists are engaged in a campaign to persuade us we need a lot more micro-economic reform so as to raise our rate of productivity improvement and, hence, the rate at which our material standard of living is rising.

They'd make the same argument whether our productivity performance was good, bad or indifferent, but it helps the selling job if they leave us with the impression our recent performance is poor.

Anyway, let's take a closer look at the commission's new figures. Productivity, which compares the growth in the output of goods and services with the growth in inputs of labour and capital, is a measure of the efficiency of our production. When outputs grow faster than inputs, the economy – the economic machine, so to speak – has become more efficient.

The simplest (and probably least inaccurate) way of measuring productivity is to take the increase in the quantity of goods and services produced during the year and divide it by the increase in the total number of hours worked to produce the stuff.

The main way to increase the productivity of workers is to give them more machines to work with. But the commission believes a more revealing measure is multi-factor productivity. You calculate this by dividing the increase in output by the increase in labour inputs plus the increase in capital inputs (use of machines and other equipment).

The main thing causing an increase in multi-factor productivity is technological advance – the invention of better machines plus improved ways of running businesses. But also improvements in "human capital" – the rising education and skill of the workforce.

That's all fine in theory, but it gets pretty ropey in practice. For a start, we have no way of measuring the productivity of the public sector (healthcare, education and public administration) because, for the most part, it doesn't sell its output in the market.

The market sector covers the financial services, mining, construction, manufacturing, transport, retail trade, wholesale trade, information media and telecommunications, electricity gas and water, agriculture, accommodation and food services, arts and recreation services, rental hiring and real estate services, professional scientific services, administrative support services, and "other" services industries.

That's 16 industries – though, for reasons it doesn't explain, the commission's 12-industry measure of market sector productivity doesn't include the last four industries on that list. Even so, the 12 industries account for 65 per cent of gross domestic product.

A much more serious problem is that the measurement of multi-factor productivity is quite dodgy. It's measured as a residual, meaning that any error in measuring the three other items in the sum will (and does) make the measurement of multi-factor productivity wrong.

More particularly, economists have no way of accurately measuring capital inputs. Just one of their problems is that they can't distinguish between more machines and better machines, meaning their so-called measure of multi-factor productivity excludes much of the technological advance it purports to measure.

The besetting sin of economists is the way they confidently quote their figures to a trusting public, without breathing a word about the data deficiencies and dubious assumptions that lie behind their calculations. When they fail to issue a product warning, it's the duty of the conscientious economic journalist to call them out.

In such circumstances, the commission's results need to be treated with scepticism – particular when, as was true in the noughties, they were so unprecedentedly low as to be implausible.

But let's look at the commission's breakdown of the latest year's supposedly weak result of 0.4 per cent. Half of the 12 industries – all of them in the services sector – achieved remarkably strong improvements, ranging between 1.1 per cent and 5.4 per cent.

Three industries – mining, construction, agriculture – had growing production but marginally declining multi-factor productivity. We know the problems in mining and construction are temporary. Agriculture's poor performance came mainly from drought.

The last three industries – utilities, manufacturing and transport – suffered declining production but lesser declines in inputs, meaning their multi-factor productivity deteriorated quite significantly.

We know the utilities, particularly electricity and gas, are coping with major structural changes, not helped by the earlier misregulation of poles and wires. We know manufacturing is still recovering from the high exchange rate caused by the resources boom. Whatever transport's problem is – we're not told – it will get over it.

That's the trouble with the supposedly worrying figures for multi-factor productivity. Apart from the ropiness of their calculation, when you investigate the stories for the particular industries involved you can't find anything major to worry about.

I'd say that, despite all the barrow-pushers wanting to use poor productivity figures to bolster whatever cause they're promoting, we're not doing too badly on productivity.

Read more >>

Everyone wants a slice of a higher GST

Norman Lindsay called it the Magic Pudding. Economists call it opportunity cost. In the untiring campaign by some for an increase in the goods and services tax, a new magic pudding has been created. The trouble is, opportunity cost is real, but magic puddings aren't.

Put at its simplest, the concept of opportunity cost says that if you've got a dollar, you can only spend it once. This truth might be glaringly apparent, but it's surprising how often grown men (and, less commonly, grown women) forget it.

By contrast, the original magic pudding allowed its owners to "cut and come again". No matter how many times they cut themselves a slice, the pudding would magically grow back.

Just the most recent proposal for a higher GST – of 15 per cent – comes from the Premier of NSW, Mike Baird. He wants it to help the state governments raise more taxation to help them pay for the ever-growing cost of their public hospitals and still balance their budgets.

But Baird and some of his fellow premiers aren't the only people with designs on the extra revenue a higher GST would bring. He's been spurred by the knowledge that, so far, Prime Minister Tony Abbott is sticking with the plan announced in last year's budget to move to a less generous way of indexing federal grants to the states for their public hospitals and schools from 2017, which would cause those grants to grow by $80 billion less than they would have, over the following decade.

There are people cynical enough to believe this cut was aimed at softening the premiers up and obliging them to agree to an increase in the GST as the only solution to their future funding problems.

But do you see what this means? It means a big slug of the extra revenue raised by a higher GST would go towards solving the feds' budget problems, not the states'. Suddenly, the pot of gold isn't looking so big.

But that's not all. There are a lot of economists and business people urging that the proceeds from the higher GST first be used to abolish various state taxes regarded as "inefficient" – that is, ones that have the effect of seriously distorting the choices people make.

Top of the list of inefficient state taxes is stamp duty on the transfer of commercial and domestic properties, and the tax on insurance policies. But some business people have their eye on using the GST to replace payroll tax. And a lot of landlords would like to get rid of land tax.

But why stop at eliminating state taxes? Why not use it to reduce a few federal taxes you don't like?

Big business is very anxious to "reform" the tax system by using a higher GST to cut the rate of company tax. And many high income-earners believe it vitally important to cut the top personal tax rate, lest all our top people migrate to countries where taxes are lower (Malaysia, say).

It's clear Treasurer Joe Hockey would very much like to cut company tax and the top tax rate for individuals, if only the boss could summon the courage (and Hockey's powers as a salesman were magically transformed).

But Hockey has another problem he'd no doubt like the GST's help with. He knows that the main thing he's using to allow him to project slowly declining budget deficits in coming years is ever-rising collections of income tax, caused mainly by "bracket creep" – inflation pushing people into higher tax brackets.

The trouble is, after a while, people notice the higher tax rate they're paying on any overtime or pay rise. When they do, they tend to get pretty stirred up and look for a politician to blame.

So Hockey knows that, before long, he'll need to have a tax cut that gets people on tax rates below the top one back into lower brackets. It would be nice if he could make up some of this lost revenue by increasing the GST.

See the magic pudding? There's a host of different groups pushing for higher GST, but they all want to use the proceeds to pay for something different. Between them they have plans to spend each extra GST dollar many times over.

That's true even if, as well as simply increasing the rate to, say, 15 per cent, we also extended it to cover food, education, health and financial services.

And don't forget this: because the GST is universally acknowledged to be a "regressive" tax – it takes a higher proportion of low incomes than of high incomes – it would have to come with a lot of "compensation" for low- to middle-income earners, in the form of increases in pensions and the family allowance and cuts in income tax at the bottom.

All this compensation would have a cost. In other words, the net proceeds from raising the GST would be a lot lower than the gross.

If you get the feeling the debate about increasing the GST has entered the realm of fantasy, you're not wrong. Once the more fanciful ways of using the proceeds had been eliminated, the number of people pushing for it would be greatly reduced.

If you get the feeling this means the GST won't be going up any time soon, you're not wrong, either. I won't be losing any sleep over it.

Read more >>

Tax reform push doesn’t add up

For once the Business Council has said something those who don't champion the interests of big business can agree with. We have indeed reached a new low in the nation's political leadership.

The council's president, Catherine Livingstone, said last week that "at a time of great economic uncertainty, Australia needs and deserves strong leadership, and the opportunity to discuss reform options as a community".

"Our political representatives are elected and paid by the community to implement policies that will best serve the country. Their leadership responsibility is to ensure that there is a constructive, well-informed debate, leading to implementable outcomes; it is not to undermine the debate in the cause of party political positioning."

Livingstone's rebuke was rightly aimed at both sides of politics and both levels of government. But it must be said that Tony Abbott is the worst offender. Clearly, a government has greater responsibility to lead than an opposition.

The federal opposition's responsibility is not to descend to the level of destabilisation and automatic obstruction resorted to by the previous occupant of the position. Abbott is forging new lows on both sides of the Speaker's chair.

It was Abbott who, not long after Joe Hockey made his first call for a "sensible, mature debate about tax reform", summarily ruled out reform of negative gearing and superannuation tax concessions.

Why? Because Labor signalled its intention to propose such reforms and Abbott saw a chance to wedge Labor by portraying it as high taxing and the Coalition (with all its bracket creep) as low taxing.

Hence Livingstone's reference to "party political positioning". The sad truth is, these days governments rarely propose any "reform" without using it to attempt to wedge the other side. Kevin Rudd tried it with his failed carbon pollution reduction scheme, and Julia Gillard tried it with the Gonski education reforms and the national disability insurance scheme.

There's nothing Bill Shorten would like more than to wedge the Coalition on changes to the goods and services tax (apart from being given an excuse to proclaim the return of Work Choices), but Abbott lost no time in wriggling out of promising any serious change to the GST by imposing a condition he knew would not be fulfilled: every premier must first agree to the change before he endorsed it.

Those calling for greater bipartisanship on tax reform need to remember that, of all the areas of reform, taxation is the one where it's been least evident in the past. The Coalition (and the Business Council) opposed Paul Keating's introduction of capital gains tax and fringe benefits tax.

Labor opposed John Howard's introduction of the GST; the Coalition opposed Labor's introduction of the carbon tax and the mining tax. The only instance of bipartisanship I remember is Simon Crean (foolishly) waving through Howard's halving of the capital gains tax.

The parties divide on tax because there's no issue where the two sides' continuation of class warfare is more apparent. The Coalition seeks to favour the interests of business and high-income earners; Labor tends to favour middle and lower-income earners.

While in opposition, Abbott promised his big-business backers he'd take proposals for major changes in taxation and industrial relations to the 2016 election. But the public's rejection of his first budget as grossly unfair, and his subsequent poor showing the in polls means the government is fighting for survival, with no stomach for unpopular "reforms" of taxation or anything else.

Last week we had Hockey giving a speech that pretended the tax reform white-paper process was alive and well, even though we all know it's going nowhere.

He repeated his call for a mature debate about tax reform, while ruling out various reforms – changes to super tax concessions, negative gearing, the half tax rates on capital gains, the GST – and listing the changes he favoured (at some wonderful time in the future): a lower company tax rate, cutting the top personal tax rate and doing something about bracket creep.

The government's professed goal is lower taxes and no new taxes but, apart from the rise in GST we're not having, Hockey mentioned no tax he'd be prepared to increase to pay for all those he'd like to cut.

The only way to square that circle is another attempt at sweeping cuts in government spending, or to let budget deficits and debt go up rather than down. But who'd believe that?

The tax changes he fancies are from the Business Council wish-list​, shifting the tax burden from higher earners to lower earners. They'd be just as unfair as last year's budget.

Memo big business: no fairness, no deal. You should have learnt that last year.

Read more >>

All we should be doing to protect land and water

You get the feeling Tony Abbott doesn't lie awake at night worrying about what our economic activity is doing to our natural environment.

In which case, those of us who do care about ecological sustainability – including many Coalition voters and, in all probability, Abbott's successor, whether Liberal or Labor – will have a lot of catching up to do.

This looks like being true of our excessive contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions. But it also applies to the more mundane problems of protecting and restoring our degraded land, water systems and native flora and fauna.

So what should we be doing, even if we aren't yet? The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists have produced a paper on Using Markets to Conserve Natural Capital. As the name implies, it has economists' fingerprints all over it.

In many cases the adverse environmental consequences of economic activity aren't reflected in the costs faced by producers and their customers, a classic instance of "market failure" – where the operation of market forces does not produce satisfactory outcomes for the community.

For instance, industries will continue to emit excessive greenhouse gases if there's no market value placed on retaining a stable climate system. And farming may cause land degradation if there's no market value placed on preserving the services the ecosystem provides to society by allowing us to grow food and fibre.

All this is a way of saying that the economy and the environment are inextricably linked but, left to its own devices, the market isn't capable of ensuring we don't stuff the environment and thereby stuff the economy.

Most economists accept this truth, but argue that the least economically costly way to fix the problem is to intervene in markets in ways that harness market forces to the service of the environment.

Often this can be done by getting the social (community-wide) costs of environmental damage incorporated into the private costs borne by producers and consumers. This was the rationale for the Gillard government's policy of using a hybrid carbon tax/emissions trading scheme to put a price on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The concerned scientists accept this logic and propose four market-oriented interventions to reduce future damage to the nation's "environmental assets" and to fix past damage.

Their first proposal is to change the law to impose on all landowners, public or private, a "duty of care" to prevent further damage to their land and water resources. Developing codes of practice would give landowners greater certainty about their obligations.

This reflects the principle that the community's right to a clean and sustainable environment overrides the rights of individuals to unrestricted use of their private property.

Actions of great environmental value that go beyond the standard of care required – such as fixing damage done in the past – could be purchased by governments from private owners using programs that use market-based instruments, such as Victoria's BushTender​ program.

The scientists' second proposal is for the federal government to supplement our efforts to reduce carbon emissions by paying farmers, Indigenous communities and other landowners to engage in "carbon farming" – doing things that improve the rate at which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere and converted to plant material or soil organic matter, where it stays.

If you do this right, it can also be used to restore degraded land. But it involves having a price on carbon so farmers can be rewarded with valuable "carbon offset" certificates.

However, there are risks if the market for carbon offsets isn't properly regulated. "Without complementary land-use controls and water accounting arrangements in place, carbon forests could take over large areas of high quality agricultural land and affect water availability," the paper warns.

"This could create adverse impacts on food and fibre production, and affect regional jobs that are dependent on these industries."

The scientists' third proposal is that we reform the tax system to make it one that doesn't encourage unsustainable practices, but rather encourages the conservation and repair of the natural environment.

"Subsidising or providing economic incentives for fossil fuels makes no sense because it results in increased costs to the environment, costs we will all have to bear sooner or later," the paper says.

It particularly makes no sense when at the same time we're using a tax on carbon to discourage the use of fossil fuels or, as now, spending taxpayers' money to pay for "direct action" to reduce emissions.

And yet our miners and farmers are exempt from paying petrol excise on fuel used off-road. It's the obvious tax break to get rid of – and save the government money.

The paper also recommends establishing a broad-based land tax to provide long-term, equitable funding for paying farmers, Indigenous communities and other land holders to restore and maintain environmental assets in a healthy condition.

Finally, the scientists propose government action to encourage sustainable farming practices. They say farmers need to receive a financial reward for managing their farms sustainably and suppliers, retailers and consumers need to have confidence that their products satisfy rigorous standards.

A farm is sustainable when environmental assets located on the farm are being maintained in a condition that contributes to the overall health and resilience of its surrounding region.

Environmental assets – not all of which will be on farms – include soil, native vegetation, native fauna, water resources (rivers, aquifers, wetlands, estuaries) and carbon.

The financial reward doesn't have to come from the government. Consumers will pay a premium for food that has been grown sustainably, provided they have some assurance this is so.

The government's role is to support the development of voluntary, industry-based sustainable certification of farms and to ensure such schemes are trustworthy. The government should also be active in the development of international sustainability standards so our exporting farmers can participate and benefit.

All very sensible stuff. Now we just need a sensible government.

Read more >>

Increase property tax, not the GST

Let me tell you something neither side of politics will: we'll be paying a lot higher taxes over the next decade than we are today. And don't think you could have up to 10 years before that prediction comes to pass – it's already started.

It's happening because of bracket creep. This year's budget says the present intention is to let inflation push people into higher tax brackets for another five years before our next tax cut in 2020.

The more continuing falls in the prices of iron ore and other mineral exports slow the growth in company tax collections, the further into the future the timing of our next cut in income tax.

So much for the man who says he stands for lower taxes, whereas his opponents stand for higher taxes. It does seem that Labor may summon the courage to go to the next election promising to reduce superannuation tax breaks for the well-off and to do something about negative gearing.

But continuing bracket creep plus those small reforms – should we ever see them – won't be sufficient to stop budget deficits getting ever higher as government spending – federal and state – continues growing strongly. In particular, spending on health and education are almost certain to grow faster than the nation's income (gross domestic product) is growing.

Similarly, don't believe the team captain when he claims to stand for "smaller government". We have the inglorious retreat from last year's budget – which was intended fix the budget deficit for good and all, and do so almost solely by cuts in government spending – to convince us that the electorate simply won't tolerate the scale of cuts, nor the unfairness, needed to hold our spending down to the level that receipts from our present collection of taxes are able to cover.

Usually, this is the point where the question of raising collections from the goods and services tax is raised. Either raising its rate from 10 per cent, or broadening its net to include food, education and health. Or both.

Be under no illusion, the rich and powerful of this country have their hearts set on raising more from GST. They want it not to cover ever-rising government spending but to cover the cost of cutting the rate of company tax and the top rate of income tax.

They argue that globalisation has intensified the "tax competition" between countries. Financial capital is now a lot more mobile and if we tax it too heavily it will go elsewhere. So we need to cut our taxes on highly mobile resources (company tax and income tax on highly paid executives) and increase tax on less mobile resources (consumption tax paid by punters who can't move countries).

That this would shift the burden of taxation from the well-off to the less well-off is just an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of a globalising world, we're told.

But this is where someone of consequence has said something new and different. In a paper to be released on Wednesday, the head of the Grattan Institute, John Daley, with help from Brendan Coates, argues that the obvious tax we need to raise is not GST but property tax.

He's right, and it's amazing it's taken so long for someone to say the obvious. Real estate is the ultimate immobile resource. A tax on land – with or without the improvements built on it – is very hard to avoid, even by foreign multinationals. It's also highly "efficient" in the economists' sense that it does little to distort people's behaviour. It doesn't discourage them from working, saving or investing.

Since it's the state governments that do most of the spending on health and education – and Abbott still has on the books his plan to cut his budget deficit by reducing federal grants for public hospitals and schools by $80 billion over a decade starting in 2017 – it's appropriate that the tax would be levied by the each of the states, which would keep the proceeds.

Politically, I don't imagine voters would view the prospect of higher property tax with any less hostility than they'd view higher GST. But there's one big difference: increasing property tax would much fairer.

GST is "regressive" – it takes a higher proportion of low incomes than high incomes – whereas property tax is "progressive", hitting the rich harder than the poor. It's actually a tax on one of the main forms in which we keep our wealth.

At present we pay three taxes on property: local government rates, stamp duty when properties are bought and land tax on property other than the family home.

Daley proposes leaving these taxes unchanged while adding a new "property levy" imposed on all property, including owner-occupied homes. The levy would be applied to the same tax base as used for local rates.

He estimates that an annual levy of just $2 for every $1000 of unimproved land value, or $1 for every $1000 of improved value (land plus building), would raise about $7 billion a year.

A homeowner would pay a levy of $772 a year on the median-priced Sydney home, valued at $772,000, or $560 a year on the median-priced Melbourne home, valued at $560,000.

What would we get for that? Mainly, more healthcare, giving us longer lives and less infirmity. Not a bad deal.

Read more >>

Lower dollar boosts services exports

Did you know that when the value of our dollar falls, imports become dearer? When the Business Bible learnt this last week, it got so excited it led the paper with the news.

Every smarty knows that the economic turmoil in Greece and China must spell bad news for us, so when the turmoil caused the Aussie dollar to fall below US75¢, this was obviously the start of the badness.

Apparently, it means the "global purchasing power" of Australian households has fallen. Who knew?

Immediately, our ever-vigilant media sprang into action to determine which purchases were likely to be more expensive. Don't you love the way the media can find the downside in any piece of economic news?

The fact that for months the nation's macro-economists and many of our business people have had their tongues hanging out, thirsting after a lower exchange rate, was something no one considered worth mentioning.

Nor that Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens' wish to see the dollar fall to US75¢ had finally come true.

It's true that if you view the position solely from the perspective of consumers, a higher dollar is good news and a lower dollar is bad.

However, from the perspective of Australia's trade-exposed industries and their employees, it's the other way around.

A high dollar means you get fewer Aussie dollars for anything you export, whereas the imports you compete against in the local market are now cheaper than they were.

So a higher dollar means Australian tradeable industries suffer a loss of international price competitiveness, which almost always leads to them reducing their production and their job opportunities.

In other words, a higher dollar has a contractionary effect on economic activity (which at least has the advantage of reducing inflation pressure). And that's been our story since the mining boom caused the Aussie to appreciate so strongly.

However, with mineral commodity prices having been falling since mid-2011 and mining construction projects winding up since the end of 2012, the dollar finally began falling back; though, thanks to the advanced economies' resort to "quantitative easing" (creating money), not by as much as the fall in commodity prices implied should happen.

It follows that a lower dollar has an expansionary effect on economic activity. Since our exporters now get more Aussie cents for each US dollar they earn, they're able to export more. And, since imports are now more expensive to their domestic customers, they're able to recapture a larger share of the local market.

The consequence is that our tradeable industries increase their production and the job opportunities they provide.

In our attempts to explain why relatively strong growth in employment – particularly since the start of this year – has caused the official unemployment rate to stay steady at 6 per cent, you'd have to give the lower dollar a fair bit of the credit.

That's particularly evident in the strong growth in employment in the services sector and in exports of services. Historically, services were regarded as non-tradeable, but globalisation and advances in transportation, telecommunications and digitisation are making that less true every year.

The tradeable services sector's improved price competitiveness comes at a time when Asia's middle-class is growing in size and income, with its consumption preferences shifting towards Western goods, services and destinations.

No service industry better demonstrates the lower dollar's beneficial effect on production and jobs than tourism: an industry where import replacement is just as important as exporting. The lower dollar not only attracts more foreigner visitors, it encourages Australians to holiday at home rather than abroad.

Estimates from Paul Bloxham, of HSBC bank, show spending on tourism accounts for about 3 per cent of gross domestic product, with about a third of this coming from foreign tourists.
The industry employs more than 500,000 people.

Overall, the value of tourism exports reached $14 billion in 2014, up 8 per cent. Tourist arrivals from China over the year to May were up 21 per cent on the previous year, Bloxham says. Chinese visits to Oz have increased to 920,000 over the past year, up from 370,000 five years ago.

Turning to education exports, Bloxham says international student enrolments reached a new high of almost 147,000 at the start of this year. Last year, the value of education exports reached $17 billion, surpassing the previous record in 2009.

And Joe Hockey has reminded us that the value of all services exports over the year to March was up 8 per cent, their fastest growth since 2007.

So if the fallout from the present international turmoil involves further falls in the Aussie, don't let anyone tell you it's a bad thing.

Read more >>

Slower immigration keeps unemployment steady

While we're busy scaring ourselves silly imagining all the terrible consequences that may or may not flow from the turbulence in the eurozone and China, forgive me for intruding with some good news closer to home: unemployment has stopped rising.

The employment figures we got from the Bureau of Statistics this week confirm – and so make a lot more believable – the amazing figures we got a month ago saying the official rate of unemployment had stabilised at 6 per cent.

Barring some unexpected disaster, it's now looking less likely the Reserve Bank's forecast that unemployment will rise to 6.5 per cent by June next year will be realised.

Let's cut through the month-to-month volatility that so many in the markets and media love by sticking to the smoothed seasonally adjusted estimates known as the "trend" figures.

They show that total employment grew by 215,000 over the year to June, an increase of 1.9 per cent. More than half these extra jobs were full-time.

Since the labour force – all those people either in a job or actively seeking one – grew at about the same rate as employment, this was sufficient to get the rate of unemployment back down to where it was in June last year – 6 per cent.

And this happened despite the rate of participation in the labour force – the proportion of the population aged 15 or over who were either employed or unemployed – rising from 64.7 per cent to 64.8 per cent during the year. Not bad considering the retirement of the baby-boomer bulge is working to lower the participation rate.

As I say, this is the same story the figures were telling us a month ago. So where have the extra jobs come from? Well, Kieran Davies, of Barclays bank, has used somewhat different figures – they say we had employment growth of 240,000 over the year to May – to tell us.

He follows the Reserve Bank's practice of splitting the economy into five broad sectors: household services (including accommodation and food services, education, health, recreation and other services), business services (information technology, media and communication, finance, real estate services, professional services and administrative services), goods (farming, mining, manufacturing, utilities and construction), distribution (retail and wholesale trade and transport and storage), and public administration.

Davies found very strong jobs growth in household services of, in round figures, 180,000, with strength in healthcare (90,000), accommodation and food services (50,000), and recreation and arts (40,000).

He makes the point that household services account for a third of total employment, and have driven total jobs growth since the global financial crisis.

Business services, which account for almost a fifth of total employment, have been the next most important sector, with growth of about 80,000. This was driven by professional services, up 90,000, offset by falls in employment in other categories, such as real estate services (20,000) and finance (10,000), but small gains in other categories.

Modest contributions to total jobs growth came from goods distribution (20,000) and public administration (10,000).

Against this, however, there were job losses in mining (30,000), farming (30,000), manufacturing (5000) and utilities (5000), which more than offset jobs gains of 20,000 in construction.

As you see, as well as this quite strong growth in employment overall, there's been a change in the composition of employment, with relatively small contractions in various goods industries more than offset by big increases in service industries.

If this news of strong overall employment growth comes as a shock to you, that's hardly surprising. The economy's been growing at below its "trend" (medium-term potential) growth rate of 3 per cent for a number of years.

And it's often repeated that the economy has to grow at its trend or potential rate of 3 per cent a year just to stop unemployment rising.  (This 3 per cent rate of growth in the economy's potential capacity to produce goods and services comes from labour force growth of 1.7 or 1.8 per cent a year, plus growth in the productivity of labour of 1.3 or 1.2 per cent a year).

So, with real gross domestic product growing by just 2.3 per cent over the year to March (and needing to achieve an unlikely 0.8 per cent growth in the June quarter to achieved the Abbott government's budget-time forecast of average growth of 2.5 per cent in 2014-15), how on earth is it possible for employment to be growing fast enough to hold unemployment steady?

Well, one possibility is that the economy's actually growing a lot faster than the national accounts say it is, but this doesn't seem likely.

A more likely explanation is that the economy's potential rate of growth is no longer as high as 3 per cent a year. It's more likely to have fallen to 2.75 per cent – or even 2.5 per cent, as some are suggesting.

Why? Because slower growth in the population than we've had in recent years –  slower than the econocrats were expecting – is causing slower growth in the labour force.

Population growth is slower because fewer Kiwis are coming to Oz and more are going back home where, for the moment anyway, the economy's prospects are brighter. As well, the end of the mining construction boom means fewer workers and their families are coming in under temporary 457 visas.

If the economy's potential growth rate is lower, that means we can stabilise unemployment at a lower rate of actual growth. In our present circumstances, employment growth is probably being encouraged by the lower dollar and the exceptionally slow growth in wage rates.

Note that when the economy grows more slowly because the population is growing more slowly, we're not left worse off in terms of growth in income per person. But lower immigration does make it easier to get on top of unemployment – something economists prefer not to mention.

Read more >>

Material success is coming at a social price

While there's been much worry of late that the economy isn't growing fast enough to get unemployment down, it remains true that our economic performance since the global financial crisis has been the envy of most other rich countries.

But it's old news that, while economic growth matters for employment – especially with our immigration-fuelled population growth – gross domestic product is a quite inadequate measure of the nation's wellbeing.

No doubt it was such criticism that, in 2002, prompted the Bureau of Statistics to introduce a four-yearly "general social survey" of about 13,000 households to give us more information on how Australians are faring from a personal and social perspective.

The bureau has now released the results of its fourth survey, for 2014. So what is this more humanistic second guess telling us about whether we're making progress?

On the face of it, we're doing fine. Look deeper, however, and cracks are apparent.

The survey measured our "subjective wellbeing" by asking people to assess their overall satisfaction with life – not how they feel at the moment, or how they feel about particular aspects of their life – on a scale of nought to 10.

Our average answer was 7.6, which is significantly higher than the average of 6.6 for all the countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. It was also up on what we said four years ago.

But the most useful thing to note is the categories of people whose ratings were well below the nationwide average: people with a disability (7.2), one-parent families with children (7.0), the unemployed (6.8) and people with a mental health problem, 6.6. Governments wanting to raise the nation's wellbeing now know where to start.

And when the bureau delved deeper, areas of slippage became apparent. One important factor affecting us that's ignored in the calculation of GDP – and in the thinking of most economists, politicians and business people – has been dubbed "social capital".

Social capital is seen as a resource available to both individuals and communities, arising from such things as networks of mutual support, reciprocity and trust. You can break it down into more measurable components, such as community support, social participation, trust and trustworthiness, the size of people's networks and people's ability to have some control over issues important to them.

There's plenty of research showing these things are strongly linked to the wellbeing of individuals and communities. But the survey reveals all is not well with various aspects of our social capital.

One indicator of how much we support each other is the amount of voluntary work we do for organisations. This has declined for the first time since the bureau began measuring it in 1995.

By 2010, the proportion of people aged over 18 who were volunteering had reached 36 per cent. But by last year it had fallen back to 31 per cent. There's also been a decline in the proportion of people providing informal help to neighbours and the like.

Voluntary work not only helps the people who are helped, of course, it also helps increase the wellbeing of the helpers. Not a good sign.

On social participation, the survey shows people are now less likely to be involved in social groups such as sport or physical recreation, arts or heritage groups and religious groups.

Civic participation – involvement in a union, professional association, political party, environmental or animal welfare group, human or civil rights group, or even a body corporate or tenants' association – is also down.

Of course, as the bureau notes, the way people meet and interact is changing. Some people suggest that young people in particular prefer to engage in politics by means of online activism – joining online advocacy groups or using social media to collect and disseminate information.

Other ways people support each other have been stable. In 2014, the proportion of people caring for someone with a disability, illness or old age was 19 per cent, little changed from previous years.

The proportion of people providing support to relatives living outside the carer's home, 31 per cent, was also little changed. This is likely to reflect the ageing of the population.

Last year nearly everyone – 95 per cent – felt able to get support from outside their home in a time of crisis, unchanged from earlier years. Similarly, weekly electronic contact with family and friends by telephone, text message or video link remained high at 92 per cent.

By contrast, face-to-face contact fell from 79 per cent to 76 per cent.

And people were less likely than they were in 2010 to feel able to have a say within their community all or most of the time – 25 per cent compared with 29 per cent.

There's been no change in the proportion of people agreeing that most people can be trusted – 54 per cent – but, to me, that seems a lot lower than it should be.

On the question of work-life balance, Australians are feeling time-poor, with 45 per cent of women and 36 per cent of men saying they were always or often pressed for time. This is higher than for other rich countries.

We may be doing better in the GDP stakes than most other advanced countries are, but we seem to be paying a high social price for our greater material success.

Read more >>

How growth can make us worse off

Just about every economist, politician and business person is a great believer in a high rate of immigration and a Big Australia. But few of them think about the consequences of that attitude – which does a lot to explain our economic problems.

The latest figures from the Bureau of Statistics show our population grew by 1.4 per cent to 23.6 million in 2014. Less than half this growth came from natural increase (births exceeding deaths), with most of it coming from net migration.

When I saw the 1.4 per cent growth figure, I thought it much of a piece with the 1.5 per cent growth over the year to September. It confirmed us as having one of the fastest growing populations among the advanced economies.

But, the Business Bible assured us, growth of 1.42 per cent was a big worry. It was clearly less than the 1.49 per cent average rate of the past 15 years and was, indeed, our weakest growth in eight years.

Slower population growth meant slower growth in real gross domestic product and this would also make it harder to get the federal budget back into surplus, we were told.

Really? This is crazy talk. It shows even our economists have turned off their brains on the question of immigration and lost their way between means and ends. Now they believe in growth for its own sake, not for any benefits it may bring us.

Of course slower growth in the population means slower growth in the size of the economy. But what of it? What do we lose?

The economic rationale for economic growth is that it raises our material standard of living. But this happens only if GDP grows faster than the population grows. So it doesn't follow that slower GDP growth caused by slower population growth leaves us worse off materially.

That would be true only if slower population growth caused slower growth in GDP per person. I suspect many people unconsciously assume it does, but where's the evidence?

I doubt there is any. The most significant recent study, conducted by the Productivity Commission in 2006, concluded that even skilled migration would do little to increase income per person. And what little growth the commission could find was appropriated by the new arrivals.

I doubt it's by chance that economists rarely, if ever, adjust the GDP figures they obsess about for population growth. Meaning we're constantly being given an exaggerated impression of how well we're doing in the materialism stakes. I can't remember GDP per person rating a mention in the budget papers.

Politicians are always boasting about record government spending on this or that, but they never make allowance for population growth in making such claims. (Why would they when often they don't even allow for the effect of inflation?)

As for the claim that slower population growth will make it harder to reduce the budget deficit, it reveals just how unthinking we've become on immigration. It's true enough that slower growth in the workforce means slower growth in tax collections.

But is that all there is to it? What about the other side of the budget? Aren't we assuming a bigger population is costless? Skilled immigrants and their dependents never use the health system? They don't have kids needing to be educated?

They don't add to traffic congestion, wear and tear on roads and 100 other taxpayer-provided services? Since there's often a delay while they find jobs, who's to say budgets, federal and state, wouldn't be better off with fewer immigrants?

But what's strangest about the economic elite's unthinking commitment to high immigration is the way they wring their hands over our weak productivity growth and all the "reform" we should be making to fix it, without it crossing their minds that the prime suspect is rapid population growth.

It's simple: when you increase the population while leaving our stock of household, business and public capital unchanged, you "dilute" that capital. You have less capital per person, meaning you've automatically reduced the productivity of labour.

So you have to do a lot more investing in housing, business structures and equipment and all manner of public infrastructure – a lot more "capital widening" – just to stop labour productivity falling.

The drive for smaller government – and the refusal to distinguish between capital and recurrent government spending – simply doesn't fit with a commitment to rapid population growth and a rising material standard of living.

Lower immigration would help reduce a lot of our economic problems – not to mention our environmental problems (but who cares about them?).

Read more >>

Two other ways globalisation is changing things

We're still learning to cope with a globalised world. Things work a bit differently now, and we have to adjust our thinking accordingly.

Globalisation – the breaking down of barriers between countries – is leading to increased trade between economies and increased flows of financial capital around the world, not to mention greater flows of people.

Another dimension of globalisation that's having big effects without being widely noted is the globalisation of news.

News of important happenings somewhere around the world now reaches most people in the rest of the world with a delay of maybe only a few minutes.

Because humans have evolved to continuously monitor their environment in search of threats, the news that interests us most is bad news. The news media are only too happy to oblige. They ignore all the good things that are happening, and all the everyday things as well, to give us a concentrated dose of any highly unusual, bad thing that's happening anywhere in the world.

The question is whether we're capable of absorbing this quite unrepresentative picture of what's happening around us without unconsciously reaching the conclusion that the world is in much worse shape than it actually is.

One lesson we've learnt is that everything in different parts of the world is now much more interconnected. That's true – particularly in the global economy – but we can take it too far.

The classic example of the heightened economic effects of globalised news was the global financial crisis of 2008, when news of crashing sharemarkets and teetering banks in America and Europe was beamed into living rooms all around the world every night for a month.

Ordinary people in distant countries such as Australia had to judge how this absolutely frightening news might affect them. They assumed the worst. Business and consumer confidence plunged and households and businesses began battening down the hatches, moving money between banks and cutting their spending.

It turned out all our banks were safe. Thanks to our tight supervision of them, they had no "toxic debt". But the government did have to help them when the international financial markets in which they borrowed stopped operating briefly.

The point is, our consumers and businesses were so frightened by all they'd heard about troubles overseas that we could have had a local recession anyway, had the Rudd government – and the Reserve Bank – not acted so quickly and effectively to calm people down with "cash splashes" and news of its plans for stimulus spending.

Now the big news is Greece's financial troubles, about which the media assume our curiosity knows no bounds. The obvious question for news consumers to ask is, how will this affect me?

Short answer: probably it won't. We can feel sorry for the Greeks, or not, but we need to remember Greece is a country of just 11 million people, with an economy representing about 0.4 per cent of the world economy and the tiniest share of our exports.

It is true that, should Greece exit the eurozone, this would raise uncertainly about pressure on the other weak and heavily indebted member countries, and this could lead to the euro currency union coming to a messy end.

If that were to happen – which wouldn't be any time soon – it would have flow-on implications for every country. But you'd have to say that, just as living on a Greek island would be a good way to get as far away as possible from any problem in Australia you were trying to escape, the reverse also applies.

Another way we're still adjusting to how globalisation is changing things concerns the way we've always measured international trade. This story is told in the Productivity Commission's annual report on trade and assistance.

Every country has always measured the "gross" value of its trade. The full value of each exported good or service has been attributed to the last industry that handled the item and to the country it was sent to.

But the advent of "global value chains" – where the production of manufactured goods in particular is spread between countries, with parts coming from various countries to be finally assembled in another country – has made this gross value approach ever more misleading.

So the World Trade Organisation is now making more use of individual countries' "input-output tables" to measure exports on a "value-added" basis. That is, each industry sector that contributed to the production of an export item gets the credit for the value it contributed to the final price.

Doing the numbers on this more accurate basis makes a big difference. The final price of manufactured goods, for instance, includes the value of raw materials provided by agriculture or mining, plus the value provided by service industries such as transport and providers of professional and scientific services.

Looking globally, manufactured goods' share of total world exports drops from 67 per cent to 40 per cent, while services' share doubles to 40 per cent. The shares of agriculture and mining increase from 13 per cent to 20 per cent.

The new story for Australia is different because our exports are dominated by primary products. Using the most recent figures available, for 2008, the commission estimates that manufacturing's share of our total exports drops from 36 per cent to 14 per cent, while services' share jumps from 18 per cent to 42 per cent.

Agriculture's share is unchanged at about 4 per cent, while mining's share drops only a little to 40 per cent.

As for the destination of our exports, looking at the period from 2002 to 2011, North America and Europe's share rose from 23 per cent, measured on a gross basis, to 32 per cent on value-added. The shares of our Asian customers fell.

One lesson: we should worry less about the decline of manufacturing and think more about the rise of the services economy.

Read more >>

Security scare intended to hide economic failure

Am I the only person who isn't cringing in fear, looking for a rock to hide under and hoping Tony Abbott and Peter Dutton will save us from the tide of terrorism surging towards our shores?

As is their wont, the media are enthusiastically indulging our desire to dwell on all the gruesome details of a spate of terrorist acts in faraway countries of which we know little.

But this seemingly innocent nosiness is leaving us with a quite exaggerated impression of the chances of our ever coming into contact with such an event.

Apparently, all you have to do to be in mortal danger is attend the making of an ABC current affairs program. It's a field day for any attention-seeking nut of Middle Eastern background.

Would you say our Prime Minister is seeking to calm our overblown fears or is playing them for all he's worth?

Precisely. And I'll tell you why. Because he's discovered he's not much chop at leadership - at inspiring us with a vision of a better future, at explaining and justifying necessary but unpopular measures - but he is good at running scare campaigns, to which the Aussie punter seems particularly susceptible.

But, above all, because he wants to divert our attention from the hash he's making of managing the economy.

In opposition, and facing a Labor government that lacked all confidence in its own ability as an economic manager, Abbott assured us the Liberals had good management in their DNA. I thought he had a point, but what we didn't discover until too late was that he and his chosen Treasurer just didn't have that gene in their bodies.

They started by telling us that, apart from the immense damage being done by Labor's carbon and mining taxes, the economy's big problem was the budget, something they, being Libs, could fix in a jiffy.

They had one go at fixing the budget, got themselves into terrible trouble in the polls, then gave up. Pretty much the sole purpose of this year's budget was to reverse their poor political standing by ditching or modifying many of their unpopular policies.

From that day to this, we've heard little more of the evils of debt and deficit. Almost all of what little improvement in the budget deficit is expected will come from bracket creep.

Fortunately, the budget deficit and the still-small level of public debt to which it has given rise was never the central, pressing problem for the economy the oppositional Abbott & Co made it out to be.

We will have to deal with the deficit eventually, but it's not pressing. And fortunately, thanks to the good offices of Peter Costello, primary responsibility for the day-to-day management of the economy was long ago shifted from the politicians to the econocrats of the Reserve Bank.

Trouble is, no matter how many more times the Reserve cuts interest rates, it's having little success in getting the economy moving at a satisfactory clip. And with more mining construction projects being completed as each day passes, the economy is in danger of drifting into recession.

It may not happen, but the possibility that it will is too high for comfort. The Reserve has been calling out for help from Canberra, but Abbott and Hockey have been turning a deaf ear, far too busy coping with the confected national security crisis.

Now we've received a very could-do-better annual report card from the International Monetary Fund. Far from urging Abbott and Hockey to redouble their efforts to reduce deficit and debt, it's telling them they have plenty of "fiscal space" relative to other advanced economies - room to increase debt - and should be doing more to encourage spending on infrastructure by the state governments.

The problem is that while the Reserve has been using too-low interest rates to get the "non-mining" private sector moving, the public sector has been doing nothing to help. Indeed, despite the incessant talk - federal and state - about the greater efforts being made to ensure the adequacy of our infrastructure, nationwide public capital expenditure actually fell by 8 per cent over the year to March.

The decline came from the state governments, not Canberra. But since it's the national government that's primarily responsible for the health of the national economy, this provides Abbott and Hockey with no excuse.

That covers the Abbott government's poor performance in the immediate management of the economy. But it's just as ineffectual in dealing with the less pressing, more structural need for us to lift our economic game if our continued material prosperity is to be assured.

Despite the ever-growing pile of reports it has commissioned on the financial system, competition, industrial relations, taxation and federalism, it's becoming increasingly clear that, having wounded itself so badly in last year's budget and still being behind a weak-led opposition in the polls, the government has no stomach for taking reform proposals to next year's election.

Economists, business people and even the government's own intergenerational report are warning that our productivity isn't likely to grow fast enough in coming years without further reform, but to no avail.

If the Liberals do have good economic management in their DNA you'd think by now they'd be turning to others among their number with greater leadership skills. But not, apparently, while they can hide behind the charade of concern about threats to national security.

Read more >>

Debt-and-deficit brigade may bring us down

If the economy runs out of steam in the next year or two – and maybe even falls backwards – with unemployment climbing rapidly, there'll be plenty to share the blame: federal and state governments, federal and state Treasuries, and the utterly discredited credit-rating agencies.

The one outfit that will deserve little blame – but will get plenty – is the Reserve Bank. It shouldn't be criticised because it's had its monetary accelerator close to the floor for ages.

The official interest rate has been at or below 2.5 per cent for almost two years, but growth in real gross domestic product has remained stubbornly below trend.

If the economy does run out of puff it will be for a reason macro-economists have known was a significant risk for several years: the mining construction boom – which at its height accounted for about 8 per cent of GDP – is now rapidly coming to an end, with little likelihood that non-mining business investment (or anything else) will be strong enough to fill the vacuum it's leaving.

It's possible the Abbott government's surprisingly poor management of the economy is damaging business confidence, but the more powerful reason business isn't investing is simply that it has plenty of spare production capacity and doesn't see that expanding its capacity would be profitable.

So what can we do to reduce the risk of the economy losing momentum? It ought to be obvious. The Reserve has been dropping hints for months and earlier this month governor Glenn Stevens came right out and said it.

Fiscal policy – broadly defined to include state as well as federal budgets – needs to be pushing in the same direction as monetary policy (interest rates), not pulling against it. As Stevens pointedly noted, "public investment spending fell by 8 per cent over the past year".

Breaking down that contraction, it was caused by the states, not the Feds, with NSW by far the greatest offender. I suspect its poles-and-wires businesses have slashed their investment spending (no bad thing), with general government failing to take up the slack for fear of losing its precious AAA credit rating. So much for all last week's boasting about record infrastructure spending.

All this may have escaped the notice of Joe Hockey and his state counterparts – not to mention their federal and state Treasuries – but last week's statement by the International Monetary Fund's review team gave it top billing.

"The planned pace of [budgetary] consolidation nationally (Commonwealth and states combined) ... is somewhat more frontloaded than desirable, given the weakness of the economy, the size and uncertainty around the resource boom transition and the possible limits to monetary policy," the statement says.

"Increasing public investment (financed by more borrowing rather than offsetting measures) would support aggregate demand [GDP] and ensure against downside risks." Hint, hint.

"It would also employ [construction] resources released by the mining sector, catalyse private investment, boost productivity, take advantage of record-low borrowing rates, and maintain the government's net worth." Oh, that's all.

"Indeed, IMF research suggests that economies like Australia – with an output gap [spare production capacity], accommodative monetary policy and fiscal space – benefit most from debt-financed infrastructure investment, with the growth boost largely containing the impact on the (low) debt-to-GDP ratio."

The statement says the Feds should broaden the scope of investments they support – which may be, and certainly ought to be, a hint that they should be supporting urban public transport projects, not just yet more expressways.

And as well as direct funding, the statement says, the Feds could consider guaranteeing states' borrowing for additional investment, which "would keep accountability with the states but reduce their concerns about credit ratings".

That's one way to overcome the state governments' obsession with the credit ratings set by outfits that contributed greatly to the global financial crisis by granting AAA ratings to securities ultimately written off as "toxic debt".

State governments are letting these operators decide what's responsible and what's not? It's time state Treasuries stopped paying these characters to set arbitrary limits on borrowing for infrastructure spending, and state governments stopped putting retention or restoration of their AAA-rating status symbol ahead of their duty to provide their states with adequate infrastructure.

As for the Feds, Treasury should make it easier for its political masters to walk away from all their debt-and-deficit nonsense by abandoning its age-old objection to distinguishing between capital and recurrent spending.

These two artificial Treasury disciplinary devices – bulldust credit ratings and pretending all federal spending is recurrent – threaten to cause us to slip into an eminently avoidable recession. If that happens, we'll know who to blame.

Read more >>

Why inequality is bad for growth

As any economist will tell you, it's all very well to care about "fairness" – whatever that is – but efforts to reduce the inequality of incomes in the economy usually come at the cost of lower economic efficiency.

So if you insist in reducing inequality you'll have to settle for slower economic growth. Much better to put up with inequality and enjoy a faster rise in our average material standard of living.

For decades that's been the economics profession's conventional wisdom on the question of inequality. But, next time some economist assures you of all that, it will be safe to assume they're not keeping up with the research.

Either that or they prefer sticking to their long-standing political preferences rather than changing their views in line with the empirical evidence.

That's the point: the economists' age-old assumption that "equity" (fairness) and efficiency are in conflict – that more of one means less of the other – fits with their theories, but is now being contradicted by empirical studies, many of them coming from such authoritative institutions as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Monetary Fund.

Last year staff at the fund published a study finding that income inequality between households, as shown by an overall measure such as the "Gini coefficient" – which is zero when everyone has the same income, rising to 1 when one person has all the income – adversely affects economic growth.

Last week the fund's staff published a new study building on this analysis by looking at the experience of people in different positions at the bottom, middle and top of the distribution of incomes, in almost 100 advanced and developing countries over the 22 years to 2012.

The new study confirms that a high Gini coefficient for net income (income earned in the market, less taxes and plus government cash benefits) is associated with lower growth in real gross domestic product over the medium term.

But it also finds an inverse relationship between the size of the income share going to the rich (defined here as the top 20 per cent of households) and the speed at which the economy grows.

If the income share of the top 20 per cent increases by 1 percentage point, GDP growth is 0.08 percentage points lower in the following five years, suggesting that the benefits do not "trickle down" to the rest of us.

By contrast, if the income share going to the poor (the bottom 20 per cent) increases by 1 percentage point, GDP growth is 0.38 percentage points higher in the following five years.

This positive relationship between shares of disposable income and higher growth continues to hold for the second and third quintiles (blocks of 20 per cent) which, following American practice, the authors refer to as the middle class. (This must mean that people in the second top quintile are the upper middle.)

The paper's authors quote other studies to help explain why higher income shares for the poor and middle class are growth-enhancing.

They note research showing that higher inequality lowers growth by depriving lower-income households of the ability to stay healthy and accumulate physical capital (a home, a car, a heating system) and human capital (education and training).

"For instance, it can lead to underinvestment in education as poor children end up in lower-quality schools and are less able to go on to college," they say. "As a result, labour productivity could be lower than it would have been in a more equitable world."

Other research finds that countries with higher levels of income inequality tend to have lower levels of mobility between generations, with parents' earnings being a more important determinant of children's earnings.

As well, increasing concentration of income at the top could reduce total demand (spending), and so undermine growth, because the wealthy spend a lower fraction of their incomes than middle and lower-income groups do.

"Extreme inequality may damage trust and social cohesion and thus is also associated with conflicts, which discourage investment," the authors say.

Inequality affects the economics of conflict as it may intensify the grievances felt by certain groups or reduce the opportunity cost of initiating and joining a violent conflict. If you're poor you've got less to lose.

So what should governments that want faster economic growth be doing to promote it?

"Redistribution through the tax and transfer [welfare benefits] system is found to be positively related to growth for most countries, and is negatively related to growth only for the most strongly redistributive countries," they say.

"This suggests that the effect of stability could potentially outweigh any negative effects on growth through a dampening of incentives."

The redistributive role of the budget "could be reinforced by greater reliance on wealth and property taxes, more progressive income taxation, removing opportunities for tax avoidance and evasion, and better targeting of social benefits while also minimising efficiency costs in terms of incentives to work and save".

"In addition, reducing tax expenditures [tax breaks] that benefit high-income groups most and removing tax relief – such as reduced taxation of capital gains, stock options and carried interest – would increase equity and allow a growth-enhancing cut in marginal labour income tax rates in some countries."

Then there's the reform of the labour market. "Appropriately set minimum wages, spending on well-designed active labour market policies aimed at supporting job search and skill matching can be important."

"Moreover, policies that reduce labour market dualism, such as gaps in employment protection between permanent and temporary workers – especially young workers and immigrants – can help to reduce inequality, while fostering greater market flexibility.

"Labour market rules that are very weak or programs that are non-existent can leave problems of poor information, unequal power and inadequate risk management untreated, penalising the poor and the middle class,' they say.

Sounds like our economists have a lot to learn.

Read more >>

Oldies screw young in the labour market

If you're ever tempted to doubt that the world is run by older people who organise things to suit themselves and don't worry about any blowback on the young, consider how commonly employers resort to the practice of "natural attrition".

It's something businesses do when times are tough. They could lay off workers, but they choose a more considerate path: just stop hiring any new people, including replacing people who leave, and eventually get your numbers down to where you need them.

And all the oldies breathe a sigh of relief. Problem solved in the nicest possible way.

Except for one little thing: the oldies have just passed the buck to some unknown bunch of young people. What causes natural attrition to get quick results is the decision to abandon the annual intake of young people at the entry level.

For youngsters there's a form of bad luck that isn't widely recognised by those of us already ensconced in the workforce: to have the misfortune to be leaving school or university at a time when the economy has turned down and few employers are taking on recruits.

Kids complete their education bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, only to discover the world of work doesn't want them. It might take them a year, even 18 months, to get a proper, full-time job. That can be terribly dispiriting.

It's common at such times for young people to be caught in a trap where they can't get a job because they lack experience, but they lack experience because they can't get a job.

It's an appalling thing for the rising generation to get off on such a wrong foot. It can take years to recover, if you ever do.

At the time of the global financial crisis in late 2008 and 2009, we were all hugely relieved when, as it turned out, we escaped serious recession. The official rate of unemployment rose from 4 per cent to just 5.8 per cent before falling back.

We were all off the hook. Well, only the oldies. The truth is there was a sharp downturn and employers did react by going into natural-attrition mode, with some even moving briefly to four-day weeks.

Great. What few people noticed was that much of the burden of adjustment was shucked off on to that year's crop of education leavers. How much concern for their welfare? Not a lot.

We do hear a lot about the trouble some older people find in regaining employment should they lose their jobs. It's a genuine problem and one we should care about.

But the unemployment problems of the old seem to attract a lot more public attention – and sympathy – than the similar problems of the young.

Research by the Brotherhood of St Laurence using HILDA – the household income and labour dynamics in Australia survey – finds those aged 55 and over account for just 8 per cent of the unemployed, whereas those aged under 25 make up more than 40 per cent.

So unemployment is concentrated among the young. And, historically, the sad truth is it's concentrated among the less educated and less skilled.

In the modern technologically driven workforce, there are many fewer jobs for people who quit school early and for those who don't acquire post-school trade or tertiary qualifications. What unskilled jobs remain tend to be casual and occupied by university students or mothers.

In 2008, according to the Brotherhood's figures, 45 per cent of the unemployed had failed to complete year 12, with another 20 per cent having gone no further than year 12. That's almost two-thirds.

People with trade qualifications made up just 16 per cent of total unemployment, with those with university qualifications accounting for an unusually high 19 per cent.

In more recent years, unemployment has been rising slowly while, within that, the rate of unemployment among 15 to 24-year-olds has risen more rapidly. Among those teenagers who are either in jobs or actively seeking them, the rate of unemployment earlier this year was 20 per cent.

But now get this: by 2012, according to the HILDA survey, the proportion of the unemployed with uni qualifications had jumped to 25 per cent.

To me, that's easily explained: years of weak growth in the economy are leading many employers to engage in natural attrition, which is limiting job losses among established workers, but making it much harder for university leavers to find work.

Governments can't be blamed for the employment practices of businesses, but they can be held accountable for their punitive treatment of the young unemployed – even if they are reflecting the adult world's lack of sympathy for youthful job seekers. Oldies seem convinced that the young's only problem is that they don't want to work and so need to be starved back to the grindstone.

The dole has been allowed to fall way below the age pension so that it's now less than $260 a week for a single adult. The "youth allowance" is even lower. Now the ever-so-caring Abbott government wants to raise the age of adulthood from 21 to 25 and extend the non-adult waiting period from one week to four weeks.

And that's before we get on to the way successive governments' high immigration policy is allowing employers to neglect the training of young workers.

Why young voters cop this cruddy deal so meekly I don't know.

Read more >>

A flush budget staying tight for bad times ahead

Something tells me that when Mike Baird went to Sunday school he studied fully the story of Joseph (he of the lairy sportscoat) and Pharaoh's dream about seven fat years being followed by seven lean years.

Joseph's advice to Pharaoh was to save like mad in the fat years and use the proceeds to tide the Egyptians over the lean years.

It seems Baird and his Treasurer have taken that advice to heart.

With property booming, the government's revenue from conveyancing duty has doubled in the past three years to more than $7 billion a year, with Treasury predicting further growth of 12 per cent in the new financial year, a forecast that could easily prove too cautious.

So Gladys Berejiklian's "barns" are full to overflowing, with operating surpluses stretching as far as the eye can see.

And yet she is maintaining a tight rein on government spending (for which read public sector wage rises).

Though it's possible to point to some wasteful spending – subsidies to the thoroughbred racing industry, grants for real estate development by church-owned schools, and an excessive share of infrastructure spending going to rural areas to buy off the Liberals' country partners – the government's case for hanging tight is persuasive.

For a start, remember that all the operating surplus is used to help fund infrastructure spending without adding to borrowing and jeopardising the state's AAA credit rating. (Whether we should worry so much about ratings is another question.)

But, urged on by Treasury, the government is full of forebodings about revenue threats looming on the horizon, a good reason to save rather than consume in the good years.

For a start, the property boom won't go on forever, and the longer it lasts, the bigger the ultimate budgetary hangover.

For another thing, while it was nice to get our cut of Western Australia's mining royalties windfall from the resources boom, in the form of a higher share of national collections of the goods and services tax, now it's WA's turn to get a cut of our property boom windfall via the same mechanism.

Once the state's poles-and-wires businesses have been partially sold off, Treasury will be getting a smaller flow of dividend income, but that would have happened anyway now the national electricity price regulator has belatedly stopped those businesses from overcharging us (while their state government owners looked the other way).

Perhaps the greatest threat of lean years to come is Tony Abbott's plan, announced in last year's budget from hell, to cut federal grants to public schools and hospitals by $80 billion over 10 years from 2017.

NSW would cop about 30 per cent of the cuts. Berejiklian says they would be "unsustainable" and she's right, meaning they're a bigger problem for the Feds than for her. They're just the last bit of 2014 political stupidity remaining on Abbott's backdown to-do list.

Berejiklian claims the credit for NSW growing faster than the rest of Australia, after lagging in the years before the Coalition returned to office.

But it's a swings-and-roundabouts thing. Does she really want us to believe it was she who brought the mining construction boom to a halt? Or she who cut interest rates to record lows?

At least she'll be ready for the next downswing in our fortunes.

Read more >>

Don’t believe Abbott stands for lower taxes

Tony Abbott did so well at the last election with his scare campaigns against the carbon tax and the mining tax it seems he thinks his best chance of re-election is another scare campaign on tax.

An obvious conclusion from voters' overwhelming rejection of last year's budget as unfair was that the attempt to fix the deficit almost exclusively by cutting government spending - without touching any of the "tax expenditures" on the revenue side of the budget - was crazy.

So it wasn't surprising to see, a few weeks back, Joe Hockey edging towards the idea that repair of the budget would have to involve reform of the hugely generous superannuation tax concessions to the well-off.

With Labor making similar noises, Hockey might even eventually have edged as far as promising to do something about the "negative gearing" loophole, had Abbott not stepped in and stopped him in his tracks.

Why? Because Abbott thought he saw a brilliant opportunity to wedge Labor. If Labor was promising to fix super tax concessions and negative gearing, why not promise the Coalition wouldn't touch 'em?

That way, Labor could be portrayed as the party of high taxers, whereas the Liberals could portray themselves as the party committed to lowering taxes, implacably opposed to all tax increases. If you want to pay much higher taxes, vote Labor; if you don't, vote for us.

Not bad, eh? Abbott has telegraphed his game plan so clearly it will be interesting to see if Labor keeps its nerve and offers voters a genuine alternative.

But Abbott's claim to be opposed to all tax increases is not one to be believed. As the former top econocrat Dr Michael Keating has pointed out, this year's budget shows increased taxation is expected to be the main way the government is planning to get the budget deficit down.

In the Labor government's last year, 2013-14, total federal government revenue (including more than just tax collections) was equivalent to 22.8 per cent of gross domestic product. In the coming financial year it's expected to have risen to 24 per cent. And by 2018-19 it's supposed to be 25.2 per cent.

So the government is projecting that revenue will rise by 2.4 percentage points of GDP over the five years. At the same time, the budget deficit is projected to fall by 2.7 percentage points.

"Clearly," Keating writes on John Menadue's blogsite, "these figures show that revenues are doing almost all the work to reduce the budget deficit". Government spending is expected fall by only 0.3 or 0.4 percentage points of GDP over the five years.

So what's the story? Where will Abbott be getting all this extra revenue from? Does he have some new tax hidden up his sleeve? Is he counting on a big increase in the GST?

Well, some part of it will come from the changed accounting treatment of the annual earnings on the Future Fund. But, for the most part, it will come from what, in an earlier chapter of the Libs' professed campaign for lower taxes, Malcolm Fraser and John Howard used to call "the secret tax of inflation".

These days it's more commonly called "bracket creep" - as your income rises over time to (you hope) at least keep pace with the higher prices you're paying, a higher proportion of it is taxed at higher rates. This happens even if you aren't literally pushed into a higher tax bracket, but it happens with a vengeance if you are.

Keating says receipts from personal income tax are projected to increase from 10.4 per cent of GDP in 2013-14 to 12.1 per cent in 2018-19, and this increase of 1.7 percentage points is a rough measure of the contribution of bracket creep to the budget bottom line.

According to his figuring, bracket creep will account for 63 per cent of the projected improvement in the budget deficit over the five years to 2018-19.

But how politically realistic is such a projection? Already it implies that someone on average weekly earnings can expect to move into the second-highest tax bracket in the coming financial year. They'd be paying 39c in the dollar on the last part of their income and on any pay rise.

Keating says that, according to the budget projections, someone on average earnings would see their average tax rate (the rate paid on every dollar) rising from 21.7 per cent to 27.4 per cent over the next decade.

Don't worry, it's unlikely any politician would allow that to happen. But it does warn you not to believe Abbott's claim to be a low taxer.

Read more >>

Why monetary policy still packs a punch

Perhaps the biggest question in macro-economic management today is whether monetary policy has lost most of its power to get the economy moving. To many of us the answer seems obvious. But this week a Reserve Bank heavy popped up to challenge the newly emerging consensus.

Whether you look at the way the major developed countries' resort to massive "quantitative easing" (creating money) hasn't exactly got their economies booming, or at the way our big cuts in the official interest rate haven't seen us return even to average ("trend") growth, it makes you doubt if "monetary policy" - the manipulation of monetary conditions - still packs a punch.

Consider our story. The Reserve Bank began cutting the official interest rate as long ago as November 2011. By August 2013 it had reduced it by 2.25 percentage points to a historic low of 2.5 pc. This year it's made more cuts to 2 per cent.

And yet the economy continues growing below trend and isn't expected to return to healthy growth before 2016-17.

Enter Dr Christopher Kent, an assistant governor of the Reserve. In his speech this week he didn't deny the facts: interest rates have been very low for a long time without there being any noticeable pick-up in growth.

But he did dispute the conclusion that this meant monetary policy had lost its power to stimulate economic growth. His point is that when we look at the position in the way I've just done, we're implicitly assuming "ceteris paribus" - that all else remained equal while the only thing that changed was the level of the official interest rate.

Obviously, a lot of other things changed over the period. To take just the most obvious examples, the big fall in coal and iron ore prices, the movement in the dollar and the impact of "fiscal policy" - the effects of the federal and state budgets.

To try to take account of all the things that change, not just interest rates, you need to use a sophisticated econometric model of the economy. And when Kent's people at the Reserve do this, their estimates "tentatively suggest that the overall effect of monetary policy has not changed significantly in recent years".

Such models have two kinds of variables "exogenous" and "endogenous". Exogenous variables are set by the modeller, whereas endogenous variables are determined by the model and its assumptions about how the economy works.

Kent says that in modelling work using a "dynamic stochastic general equilibrium" model (don't ask), estimates of the endogenous relationships based on the figures up to 2008 (the time of the global financial crisis) are about the same as estimates based on figures since then.

"This suggests that the period of below-trend growth in gross domestic product over the past few years may not reflect a change in the monetary policy transmission mechanism," he says.

"Rather, the model attributes below-trend growth to sizeable exogenous forces or shocks. The sharp fall in commodity prices has played an important role of late. Also, weakness in private investment - beyond that which can be explained by subdued domestic demand and falling commodity prices - has made a sizeable contribution to below-trend growth."

I think here he's alluding to the adverse effect on business investment of the still-too-high dollar.

"The model also suggests that consumption growth has been a bit weaker than in the past," he says.

Measuring the effects of monetary policy in isolation from other changes that may be happening at the time, this modelling tells us that a cut in the official interest rate of 1 percentage point will lead the level of real GDP to be between about 0.5 per cent and 0.75 per cent higher than it otherwise would be in two years' time.

It will also lead the level of prices to rise by a bit less than 0.25 percentage points a year more than otherwise over the next two to three years.

Of course, one part of the economy that has strengthened in response to low interest rates is housing construction. It's up by about 9 per cent over the past year.

Kent says housing is typically the most interest-rate sensitive sector and its response to date is "broadly consistent with historical experience".

Consumer spending, however, has so far been "a bit weaker over recent years than suggested by historical experience".

But much of that history captures the unusual period, from the early 1990s to the mid-2000s, of adjustment to the easier access to housing credit permitted by the deregulation of the banks and to the economy's return to low inflation.

In that period, household debt increased substantially and household saving fell to rates much below earlier norms. This allow households' consumption spending to grow faster than their incomes.

Since then, however, households' behaviour has reverted to its earlier norms, with a higher rate of saving and greater emphasis on repaying mortgages as early as possible.

If you ignore the growth in borrowing for investment property, but take account of the rising balances in mortgage offset accounts, the rest of household debt has fallen by 4 percentage points of annual household disposable income since early 2000.

Kent thinks many households are using the lower rates to repay their mortgages more quickly (rather than to borrow and spend more) and that some retired households are responding to their lower interest income by limiting their consumption.

As for non-mining business investment, businesses will start expanding their activities when they're closer to running out of spare production capacity. Business investment doesn't usually lead, it follows.

Kent concludes that monetary policy is working pretty much the way it always has, but is pushing against "some strong headwinds", including the huge fall-off in mining investment, tightening budgets at state and federal level and an exchange rate that's still higher than you'd expect it to be considering how far export prices have fallen.

Read more >>

Governments let oldies screw the younger generation

When I see the way the Abbott government – like its Labor predecessor – happily presides over a system stacked against the younger generation, it makes me wonder why they're not rioting in the streets. Answer is, it's thanks to the evil genius of our politicians.

Young people tend to be more idealistic than those of us who've lived longer and seen more. So when they see the low level to which standards of political behaviour have fallen – the promises so casually broken, the lies told, the way the pollies profess to care about the welfare of the next generation but don't walk the walk – they're even more inclined than the rest of us to turn their back on politics and public policy.

Which means, of course, that most young people have only a vague inkling of the extent to which successive governments have been screwing them.

The pollies' problem is that they'd love to please everyone, but don't have sufficient resources. So they have to short-change someone, and the victims they pick – apart from those who have no friends to stick up for them – are the people who aren't paying attention to what the pollies are up to.

The people who pay most attention are the oldies – whose number is being swelled by the retiring Baby Boomers – who have so little else to worry about they even imagine injustices that aren't real. The great majority of oldies own their own homes, but other home owners are equally zealous in protecting their privileges.

This is the most topical instance in which governments are allowing the old to screw the young. Apart from the fact that our homes get bigger and better over the years, house prices rise when the demand for them exceeds their supply.

Both sides of politics believe in high levels of immigration, but haven't bothered to ensure sufficient additional homes are being built to accommodate the growing population. So reducing impediments to the building of additional homes – mainly a responsibility of the state governments – is the fundamental solution to the problem of housing affordability.

But distortions in our tax laws – distortions other countries long ago corrected – are adding unnecessarily to the demand for houses by making them a tax-preferred form of investment. This is "negative gearing", which means first home buyers are having to compete against well-established older investors with a lot more collateral.

It wouldn't be a problem if negatively geared investors were adding as much to supply as they are to demand, but they prefer buying established homes.

The government could easily fix this distortion, and do it in a way that didn't precipitate an immediate exodus of investors from the market but, to date, neither side has been prepared to do so.

Why not? Because the pollies are much more afraid of the anger they'd arouse among oldies benefiting from the tax lurk – and all the business people who see themselves as getting a cut of the proceeds – than they are of all the young people who don't quite understand how they're being worked over by their elders.

The fact is that the rate of home ownership – which once was as high as 70 per cent – is steadily falling as higher and higher proportions of people in younger generations fail to make it onto glittering merry-go-round of owner-occupation.

So, having got themselves ensconced on the merry-go-round, the older generation and the politicians in thrall to it are now effectively repelling boarders.

This means a high proportion of the younger generation will be renters all their lives, including in retirement. And that means they'll get screwed by the system which, in the name of encouraging home ownership, has always been loaded against renters.

For a start, our tenancy laws afford renters less security of tenure and fewer rights than in European countries where life-long renting is the norm.

But tax and benefit arrangements also discriminate against renters. Invest in your own home and you escape paying capital gains tax when you sell it; invest in anything else and you don't.

Own your home when you retire and its value, no matter how high, is excluded from the assets test in assessing your eligibility for a full pension; choose to save in any other way and you're zapped.

This crazy arrangement discourages the old from selling the family home and moving to something smaller and more appropriate.

The truth is, living on the age pension is bearable provided you own your home. In other words, the people who have most trouble getting by on the pension are those obliged to rent in the private market.

When Kevin Rudd inquired into the adequacy of the age pension he was told it was really only the private renters who had a big problem. He ignored the report, granting a big increase to single pensioners regardless of their housing status, plus a smaller increase to people on the married rate so they wouldn't feel left out.

All this is of little interest to young people, of course. They know they're never going to get old.

If I were a youngster I mightn't be rioting in the streets, but I certainly wouldn't be voting for any party that wasn't promising to fix negative gearing. If you're more afraid of greedy oldies than you are of me, I'll be voting against you.

Read more >>