Latest Unemployment Figures

The latest figures are just out, and it’s worse than expected with unemployment now at 5.7% (the consensus was 5.4%)

More to follow…

UPDATE:

The Australian reports:

AUSTRALIA’S unemployment rate has climbed to 5.7 per cent, with nearly 40,000 workers losing their jobs in March.

Economists had forecast the unemployment rate to rise to 5.5 per cent with more than 30,000 workers cut from the market.

Several leading job indices had March falls, indicating the employment market may be drying up faster than expected.

The number of internet and newspaper job advertisements slumped by 8.5 per cent in March to a seasonally adjusted 147,804 ads, according to ANZ job ads survey, 61 per cent lower than the peak reached in November 2007.

Skilled job vacancies also fell with the Federal Department of Education, Employment (DEEWR) reporting a 10.8 per cent fall in March to 40.7 points.

The Federal Government revised their employment forecast earlier this month, with Treasurer Wayne Swan conceding the unemployment would soar above 7 per cent.

Similarly the world’s leading economic advisor, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), tipped unemployment to reach an average of 10 per cent across the developed world in 2009.

Advertisements

17 Responses

  1. At least we have our wealth

  2. oops, I meant ‘health’

  3. Worst in country areas. What wealth / health? They are both deteriorating rapidly.

  4. As a country person, things have always been fairly crook in the country. Is there a breakdown as to the demographics?

    That is the newspapers report X jobs lost in the mining industry, but this is normal Christmas-Easter.

    Re

    The number of internet and newspaper job advertisements slumped by 8.5 per cent in March to a seasonally adjusted 147,804 ads, according to ANZ job ads survey, 61 per cent lower than the peak reached in November 2007.

    As posted (somewhere else!) I would like to see more specific numbers as ‘usual’ used to be the same job advertised 20 times plus ‘expressions of interest’. With a belt tightening one could end up with a scenario of 1 job advertised only 5 times =

    newspaper job advertisements slumped by 8.5 per cent in March

    And so what we’ve been saying for eons, that ‘job advertisements’ are not anything approaching a reasonable assessment of unemployment.

    I would like to know where the 40,000+ jobs have come from as this is an indicator as to the area which needs things immediate and decisive…

  5. When I saw the unemployment figures I had to check to see who was in charge. I thought we had a Keating redux on our hands.

  6. I thought we had a Keating redux on our hands.

    Which shows you didn’t really think very hard. The figures are about what they were under Howard in 2004 or thereabouts when the global economy was is full upswing mode.

    Not bad figures considering the global economy is now in full downswing mode.

    Fortunately the figures are not as bad as they were under treasurer Howard in the recession of the early 1980s, when we had:

    double-digit unemployment
    double-digit interest rates
    and double-digit inflation

    … all at the same time. The Liberals are the only party in history to presided over all three indicators in double digits simultaneously. You can read about it in this article at Crikey:

    http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20070627-Why-John-Howard-never-made-the-cover-of-Euromoney.html

  7. Job cuts yet still massive profits for some companies. Makes you wonder who some companies are working for. Not the workers it seems.

    N’

  8. No chocolates for you Caney.

    US Bureau of Labour Statistics:

    Unemployed in Oz from ’75 – ’83; expressed as a percentage; 4.6 4.7 5.7 6.3 6.2 5.9 6.2 9.0

    Unemployed in Oz from ’83 – 94; expressed as a percentage; 9.6 8.6 8.0 8.3 7.8 6.6 6.2 8.3 10.3 11.0 10.5

    Fancy the world’s greatest treasurer working his miracle and paving the way for 11% unemployed.

    “This is the great coming of age of Australia. This is the golden age of economic change.

    Q: “How much credit do you take?”
    A: Oh, a very large part.

    Paul Keating being interviewed on Channel 9, Midday, September 18, 1987.

    The show went to an ad break probably to allow someone to continue masturbating on national TV. I wonder who that was?

  9. Any photos nasking?

  10. Damn, this economic downturn woulda been a great opportunity for the Right-Wing to create full employment:

    N’

  11. If I remember correctly this is the same as the last Recession: http://www.theage.com.au/national/quarter-of-a-million-teenagers-in-no-mans-land-20090409-a24r.html

    And so we then ended up with a skills shortage, which was amplified due to JWH’s subsequent under-investment in skills training.

  12. Well of course Min. It can only be the neglect of JWH.

    By the way, when was it that the states ceded their responsibility for TAFE, secondary education and the apprenticeship system?

    Still, the states had NOTHING to do with the underfunding of these sectors. Nothing at all.

  13. I didn’t say that Tom. In fact the States are very much at blame. I said that it was ‘amplified’ by JWH’s under-investment in skills training.

    Anyway whichever, we have now reached the spot where we now stand. So where to from here?

  14. Min, just regarding “amplification”

    As a matter of interest I tried a search of TAFE funding, and how the contributions of state and federal government had changed.

    I found this interesting.

    http://www.qtu.asn.au/tafe_budgetsubmission_2008_2009.pdf

    It seems (at least in Queensland), using 100 as the base in 2002, federal government contributions reached 110 by 2006. The state contribution had fallen to 86.1.

    Perhaps someone knowledgeable could explain. But it appears that the states simply abrogated their responsibilities in TAFE funding.

    Min how much more do you think the federal government should have contributed?

    Really, where do you think the responsibility for the underfunding occurred?

    I don’t wish to (again) be accused of being a “Howard Hugger” etc, but don’t you think people are a little too lazy and too easily apportion blame to the previous federal government? Particularly when the states are so often responsible.

  15. Tom from: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/aug2008/teac-a15.shtml

    According to NSWTF documents, between 1997 and 2006, the federal government cut funding to TAFE by 25 percent, while the NSW government cut was even deeper, at 30 percent, a shortfall equivalent to $3 billion over nine years.

    So we ended up with a skills shortage due to under-investment in our young people. Hopefully we will do better this time.

  16. Yes Min, perhaps if we blamed all the politicians, rather than singling out (for example) JWH for being responsible for “amplification”, comments would have more balance.

  17. Tom. I am very balanced. I am a Libra. I don’t see you at all as a ‘lazy Howard hugger’ at all. The difficulty me-thinks is that we could have done a lot better. The evidence for this is that Howard lost not only government but his own seat.

    An example of how government (state and federal) has responsibility is son. He joined the Navy as an aviatian technician in training. He was only 3 months short of qualifying when the government pulled the plug..because as it turned out, the SeaSprites were duds. The above was all the Fed’s responsibility.

    This is of course not to say that people do not have their own responsibility such as the huge number of students who bomb out 1st year uni. But then on the other hand if they were supported financially instead of kids having to live away from home having to rely on the pizza run….

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: