The attached graph shows the unemployment rate (those who are looking for work but can't find a job) and the underemployment rate (those with some part time work but who want to work more) over the last ten years.
Two points to note. While movements in the two curves generally mirror each other, you can see how the gap has widened over the least two years. I think that reflects in part the continued rise in part time work. The second point is that the combined total of those out of work or who are underemployed is now well over 14% of the workforce.
So what we appear to have is a steady increase in the combined un/under employment rate at the same time that the work force is declining as a percentage of the overall population.
Just at the moment, the country needs to maintain workers as a proportion of population and increase the utilisation of those who want to work. I don't think that we are doing an especially good job of either.
7 comments:
Jim's analysis, of course, ignores the two elephants in the room, which is one more than he usually points to: the growing numbers of old people, and the capacity for the fertile among us to procreate.
So the question might be rephrased as - why are we as a nation so unwilling to discuss both euthanasia and forced sterilisation?
Unsavoury - I accept - but Jim's concentration upon just one aspect of a far larger, administratively complex problem - the correction of the graph - will I suspect involve the efforts of not just one but many ministeries, and sacrifices made by us all :)
kvd
Laughs. You know kvd, that does illustrate rather nicely if in an extreme the way statistics can guide us in wrong directions. Euthanasia and forced sterilisation would address the immediate statistical question by increasing the proportion of the now smaller population in the workfoce. We could also reduce the unemployment rate by commissioning Border Force to forcibly deport the unemployed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is actually my cat's comment. I think it means that he is fully 'employed' as a preventer of his Mummy doing anything significant or important on the computer.
That definitely sounds like a cat!
Completely and totally off-topic Jim, but this from the ABC website re Senator Day:
The ABC understands legal advice given to the Government suggests Mr Day's electorate office arrangements may have breached the section.
Though the Commonwealth paid no rent for his office space, it does have a lease agreement in place with the owners of the building.
Mr Day used to own the building but sold it to associates after he was elected.
He backed the loan his associates used to pay for the sale, creating the possible constitutional breach.
Wot I wanna know is if this might affect the far more direct common activity of receiving daily LAHA while living in a Canberra house owned by your wife/husband/trust?
kvd
Never mind. Seems as if some of the commentary have stopped wetting themselves on the makeup of the Senate, and are starting to muse on this.
kvd
They are indeed, kvd. I have only read some of the commentary at this point.
Post a Comment