Ahead of a National Manufacturing Summit, a new report outlines the industry’s dogged resilience in difficult times, its importance to the Australian economy, and its more hopeful future prospects.
Commonwealth Treasurer Scott Morrison tabled his 2017-18 budget in Parliament House on May 9, and the Centre for Future Work’s Director Jim Stanford was there in the lock-up to analyse its likely impacts. Here are some of our main impressions and comments:
The Fair Work Commission has ruled that penalty rates for Sunday and public holiday work in the retail and hospitality sectors should be reduced, which would reduce hourly wages on those days by up to $10 per hour. Business lobbyists predict this will spark a hiring surge in stores and restaurants, as employers take advantage of lower wages to extend hours and ramp up operations. The economic logic of this claim is highly suspect, however – especially in light of the fundamental factors which truly limit employment in these sectors (namely, the sluggish growth of personal incomes). 78 Australian economists have signed a public letter debunking these job-creation claims, arguing that the FWC’s decision will lead to more inequality, not more employment.
On April 1, Australia will surpass the Netherland’s old record to mark the longest unbroken expansion of real GDP in modern history. While this result permits much chest-thumping on the part of some politicians, we should never assume that there is an automatic correlation between GDP growth and the well-being of people, society, and the environment.
Analysis from The Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work has shown that proposals for phasing in lower penalty rates for work on Sundays and holidays will not “protect” the workers affected by those cuts, and in some cases would make things worse. Simulations of various proposals from political and business leaders for deferring lower penalty
The Fair Work Commission unveiled its long-awaited decision on penalty rates for Sunday and holiday work this week. Penalty rates for most retail and hospitality workers will be cut, by up to 50 percentage points of the base wage. Hardest hit will be retail employees: their wages on Sundays will fall by $10 an hour or more. For regular weekend workers, that could mean $6000 in lost annual income.
The Fair Work Commission’s decision to reduce penalty rates for Sundays and holidays in retail and hospitality jobs will reinforce wage stagnation and further widen income inequality, which is bad news for the economy as a whole, according to Dr. Jim Stanford, Director of the Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute. “It’s painfully
As the Senate continues to debate the proposed Australian Building and Construction Commission, new research from the Centre for Future Work challenges the government’s claim that construction labour costs have pushed up Australian housing prices.
The Centre for Future Work is proud to host this year’s Go Home on Time Day. It’s the eighth annual edition of this event, which draws light-hearted attention to a serious issue: the economic, social, and health consequences of excess working hours.
You know that the tides of public opinion are starting to turn, when even the head of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Mr. Rod Sims, will come out in public and criticize the usual claims that privatization is good for efficiency and national well-being.
The rise of anti-globalization sentiment, including in Australia, poses a big challenge to mainstream politicians who’ve been trumpeting the virtues of free trade for decades.
It was a “sleeper” issue in the recent election, and led to the defeat of some high-profile Liberal candidates. But now the debate over penalty rates for work on weekends and public holidays shifts to the Fair Work Commission. The economic arguments in favour of cutting penalties (as advocated by lobbyists for the retail and
We have prepared six shareable infographics based on material in our research paper, “Jobs and Growth… and a Few Hard Numbers,” which compared Australia’s economic performance under the respective postwar Prime Ministers.
Voters typically rank economic issues among their top concerns. And campaigning politicians regularly make bold (but vague) pronouncements regarding their competence and credibility as “economic managers.” In popular discourse, economic “competence” is commonly equated with being “business-friendly.”
For someone who piously bemoans an “us versus them” mentality in political culture, Treasurer Scott Morrison certainly drove a deep wedge into the social fabric with one of the centrepieces of his budget. There are four thresholds in the personal income tax system; Morrison chose to increase one of them, supposedly to offset the insidious effects of “bracket creep.” The third threshold will be raised from $80,000 to $87,000.
In the lead-up to tomorrow’s pre-election Commonwealth budget, much has been written about the need to quickly eliminate the government’s deficit, and reduce its accumulated debt. The standard shibboleths are being liberally invoked: government must face hard truths and learn to live within its means; government must balance its budget (just like households do); debt-raters will punish us for our profligacy; and more. Pumping up fear of government debt is always an essential step in preparing the public to accept cutbacks in essential public services. And with Australians heading to the polls, the tough-love imagery serves another function: instilling fear that a change in government, at such a fragile time, would threaten the “stability” of Australia’s economy.
The latest “big idea” on tax policy from the Coalition government is to grant independent income tax powers to the states. This would be accompanied by a devolution of funding responsibility for big-ticket services like health care, hospitals, and schools. Prime Minister Turnbull argues that forcing state governments to raise the money they spend will
Was it really the Treasury’s economic modeling that convinced Prime Minister Turnbull to abandon his plan to raise the GST and cut income taxes? Treasury simulations indicated the trade-off would have no significant impact on growth. Or perhaps it was another kind of calculation – electoral – that convinced the Coalition to drop the idea, and the economic numbers just provided political cover.