James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree

MOAB meets Afghanistan

April 21, 2017 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

America once again participates in its favourite past-time of bombing countries that can in no way retaliate. There is a word that describes people who act that way, but the name alludes me.

It’s not just Trump or republicans for whom this is an engaging “sport”, as the last few administrations have bombed the “proverbial” out of Afghanistan. Worth noting: The Obama administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs in 2016 alone, although distributed unevenly across seven countries (and of course Afghanistan received some of that “rainfall”. The seven countries he did bomb were Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia and Trump’s national Muslim ban included 5 of these countries.

This time, however, America set about to destroy a facility they built in Afghanistan. At least you can assume that the MOAB bomb was dropped with pin point accuracy to cause the most damage. Especially since the CIA would have likely retained the blueprints of the facility they built in collaboration with Osama Bin Laden. Spending $314M building a bomb – that by itself cost $16M each – is an expensive way to destroy a constructed facility which had cost untold millions in the first place.

All this for a country that can’t afford the “horrendous expense” inherent in serving meals to the elderly, as Trump decides that Meals on Wheels is a burden the economy can’t afford. As many a pundit has observed, money to conduct war is always in plentiful supply. For example, here in Australia, $195B on defence is affordable, but increases in spending on health, welfare and education are not. The hypocrisy and bullying of nations previously beaten into submission to the point that – because of America – a violent caliphate arises called Daesh/ISIS. It has repeatedly been said “wars against states which do not pose an imminent threat to America’s national security increases the threat of terrorism“. Having done that, it doesn’t help if you start funding and supplying equipment to these terrorists as America did for a long time for ISIS.

The shock discovery for the American senate, for example, that Toyota appeared to be supplying ISIS with massive numbers of Toyota vehicles, was ultimately revealed to be sourced from the America US state Dept dropping crate loads of vehicles into Syria. Without America, ISIS would never have been as well armed, trained or supplied. It would have died as a movement in the Middle East without the American military education and equipment to support them. Presently America is bombing their creations in both the insurgency they funded and the facilities they build and funded, yet they apparently can’t spare to resolve the poverty of their own country.

Not unlike, in an obscure manner, Gerhard Richter taking to 60 of his photo-based paintings with a box cutter and matches. Odd coincidental numbering, but wasn’t that the number of Tomahawk missiles fired at Syria recently at an Airfield that was operational 24 hours later? OK, OK, I am stretching my analogues to the point of ridiculousness but perhaps my weird segues will induce you to remember the facts. The truth is that neither America or Australia should be putting air-force, troops, or bombs into the region. That is presuming we want to establish peace in the middle-east, which admittedly is probably an invalid assumption.

It is small wonder that when Wikileaks revealed this rampant corruption and hypocrisy by America that the CIA director, Mike Pompeo, branded them a “hostile intelligence service“. Odd change of face as Mike was apparently a fan when the information Wikileaks supplied suited his agenda. But for now, Julian Assange is the “bad guy”? Really? So what does that make America in the light of everything else!?

Debt Collection

January 19, 2017 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Centrelink has been fraudulently issuing debt notices to people who owe no money. Persons so identified are then harassed and threatened to the point that they pay this un-owed debt rather than being penalised by a system, which they already know actively disparages them.

Labor’s Anthony Albanese, while being concerned about this government’s debt collection said, “No one would argue [against] that if someone has a debt from Centrelink, had payments to which they were not entitled, then it should be repaid“. I would argue to the contrary.

The Poverty of Welfare.

Centrelink’s services exist to ensure the disbursement of social security payments whether that be for unemployment, or aid for families, carers, the disabled or indigenous. That financial aid in many cases has rarely increased, and in some has decreased in terms of CPI value. In the case of the baseline unemployment benefits, though indexed to the CPI, “there have been no legislated changes to real Newstart rates in over 20 years”, in fact since 1996.

Government benefits verses the poverty line

This has raised legitimate concerns that the Newstart allowance is well below the poverty line, which is an issue championed by:

the Unemployed Workers Union,
the Australian Council of Social Services,
Anglicare,
and the ABC (although that was prior to it’s current management).

Rorters! from Welfare or Multinationals?

The erroneous perception of the wealth of welfare

These inadequate payments entrench poverty, inhibiting rather then aiding workforce participation. Mobility, presentation, education, literacy, and skill acquisition all cost money. Financial stress adds to social marginalisation. Bullying by the job networks and policy victimisation generates social ostracisation in the community, and also limits possibilities for the unemployed and disabled. So sorry Anthony, but I am very much inclined to believe that if anyone got a little more money out of this dysfunctional system than the government was prepaired to provide, then they deserve to keep it. Any extra money would only increase their chances of improving their lot, including their ability to contribute to the economy and to finding work. Instead of attempting to recoup $3.5 billion in alleged “welfare debts”, why is the government not energetically recouping $6 billion from the tax dodging multinationals?

What about getting a Job?

The divergence between the Government's unemployment numbers & Roy Morgans. — The divergence between the Government’s unemployment numbers & Roy Morgans.

Numbers don’t lie but as the ABS knows, how they get presented matters. Apart from the financial constraints, there is the statistical improbability of finding work in any way. Roy Morgan demonstrates unemployment figures in December 2016 were 9.2%, which involves 1.186 million people. In fact, when you take into account underemployment, which has risen another 10.8%, the pool of potential job seekers rises to 2,584 million. All of these job seekers are competing for approximately just 163,100 jobs Australia wide. (Nov 2016 Dept. of Employment IVI stats.) In the worst-case scenario, there are at close to an average of 16 people for every single job in the market and that doesn’t take into account the following:

the new year’s rush of young school leavers,
foreign workers with reciprocal work rights,
current workers seeking to change jobs or
the new entrants to the unemployment lines as car manufacturing in this country vanishes.

And now, just to add to the psychological and financial pressures inherent in looking for work, the government has come up with a new strategy to inhibit your search, by occupying your time with digging up old payroll records. The news of this new tactic is ever-present. 20,000 people a week receive notices of debts – allegedly to recoup incorrect welfare payments. All of which are triggered by an automated debt recovery system, which is under intense criticism because of what is essentially, the (intentionally?) flawed logic of a computer algorithm.

Erroneous mathematics.

Centerlink’s computers (IBM machines in case you were wondering) are attempting to match tax office data with Centrelink records to determine if there are discrepancies between Centerlink financial information and Tax office records.

But an inherent incompatibility exists between these two data sources, and it is a matter of timing. Centerlink has information about its payments made fortnightly, and possibly data relevant to jobs which clients were offered and accepted. Centerlink is unlikely to be aware of the continuing circumstances of that job or subsequent ones found independently in the course of any given financial year. The tax office has only an annual summary of income. There is no breakdown into weeks, fortnights or months. There is no breakdown of pay rates, when it was specifically known they earned it, or what changes to income streams occurred in the course of the year. The tax office data is therefore incompatible with Centerlink’s data. The government is comparing apples with oranges.

Despite this, Centrelink’s algorithm takes your yearly income as reported to the ATO, and averages it over each fortnight of the year. As any primary school age statistician would recognise, an annual “average” apportionment cannot measure individual fluctuations and is a flawed measure in any given fortnight. To assumes absolute consistency for all fortnights is absurd on a number of levels. The only group that may get close to this pattern are the fully employed and even then, there are allowances, overtime, uneven hours, holidays, sick leave, RDOs, wage rises, wage falls, changes of roles, and any manner of occurrences that will alter the payroll for any individual over any given week/fortnight. Certainly, the most unstable employment group and the most likely to have variants are the unemployed. It is common sense that if you are dealing with people who move in and out of employment in any given year where they may move from poverty one fortnight to sufficiency (or if lucky, excess) the next. It is common sense that averaging their yearly income will produce inaccurate results by which to measure any given actual fortnight.

Guilty before proven Innocent!

So what does Centerlink do? They take the ACTUAL fortnightly records held by Centerlink along with any limited volunteered data and try to cross-reference it against a fortnightly averaging of annual taxation income data. The normal presumption of statistical probability would tell you the likelihood of such figures matching for this demographic, is extremely unlikely. You would have to presume the mismatches will be the most common occurrence. Any programmer (and I worked as one for most of my career) would tell you such a matching is deeply flawed. Therefore clients should be approached with the assumption of innocence. In the absence of specific information in Centerlink’s internal records for discrepancies, inquires should be made tentatively as to why there might be a prima facie case for a mismatch in numbers. The onus of proof should also be on Centerlink (and not the client), as the process is so obviously flawed. Something fully recognised internally within Centerlink, if not by the political policy makers. In the face of the inherently flawed logic of this approach, innocence till proven guilty would be the legally prudent course of action.

Debt assessment is followed in 3 weeks with debt claims

So what does the government decide is the best course of action? To implement a process that presumes people to be guilty (of debt) till proven innocent. 20,000 Welfare recipients a week have been receiving notices that they have 21 days to prove their “innocence”, or be hit with penalties. These include a 10 per cent debt recovery fee, jail time, a restriction on travel. The event for which they are being investigated may be anywhere up to six years in the past. Some recipients are paying up, not because they accept that they actually owe the debt, but simply because they can’t locate evidence from past years, or because they fear the repercussions of a punishing government bureaucracy. If you have ever had to deal with Centerlink or any of its private job network partners you will be well aware of how punitive they are. Surprisingly to the government – apparently – this is producing a backlash.

Flaws and error rates.

Tudge's apparent ignorance — Tudge’s apparent ignorance

Human Services Minister, Alan Tudge, insists the automated process is not flawed and despite protests to discontinue the letters he is forging ahead with gusto. For Trudge to declare, “he wasn’t aware of anyone who was completely convinced they don’t owe money but have been given a debt notice” is either grotesque wilful ignorance or a lie in the face of a growing body of evidence otherwise. When even “Liberal Senator Eric Abetz acknowledged there seemed to be problems with the system“, then you know it has to be disastrous.

The one aspect of this (that nobody appears to be talking about) is the sheer workload this must be creating for Centerlink. Let’s assume Alan Tudge is correct that the error rate is only 20%, which is contrary to what centerlink whistle-blowers reveal is the case. Giving him the full benefit of the doubt, 20K letters a week represents 4K fraudulent claims a week. Which is 16K a month and 192K a year. After 1.04 million data matching discrepancy letters in a year, they will not even cover all the numbers of unemployed in this country (1.186 million – see above), let alone all the other welfare recipients for other reasons. Alan Trudge expects the system to “generate 1.7 million compliance notices”, which by his own estimates means at least 340,000 letters in error. Of course, the Centrelink compliance officer whistle-blower that spoke to the Guardian suggests the percentages of errors are vastly larger. Given that all of this was not only easily identifiable but unavoidably self-evident prior to the system being switched on, how is any of this not fraudulent?

Voters & workers affected.

At the current letter-writing rate (if they can maintain it) this will take over a year and a half to complete, although Mr Trudge thinks it will take 3 years. By then Australian Lawyers will be in a feeding frenzy of class action suits with minimally 340,000 clients with legitimate grievances with the government. This will presumably still be an ongoing issue by the next election. According to 2014 Centerlink data there were 14.459 million Social Services payments made in the March 2014 Quarter to 50% of the population – interestingly, a reduction from previous numbers. There are only 13.5 million voters – according to AEC – who voted in the last election. This is not a vote winner. But presuming you are not expecting to win the next election, leaving this mess on another party’s door to cleanup provides a damaging handicap. The amazingly short-term memory of the public, gives the coalition an advantageous opportunity to disparage what the next government will have to do to rectify the situation.

Access issues for Centrelink online facilitates debt being levied

Putting aside the legal costs, consider then the other real cost in man-hours for Centerlink to resolve each erroneous issue when there are minimally 4000 cases a week. To keep on top of the “erroneous” case load – if Mr Trudge is correct – requires the equivalent of 105 Centerlink officers processing each claim within an hour in a 38 hour week. This presumes the ability for each officer to address, research, confirm and redress an error on each letter in one hour and do no other administrative work. There appears to be mounting evidence it takes much more time. Plus that does not factor in the equivalent of the 421 Centerlink officers devoting a single hour in a 38 hour week, that you’d need to process the claims – and not fall behind – which Mr Trudge believes are valid. But these figures are conservative. As I previously explained, the error rate is far larger according to the Guardian’s Centerlink whistle-blower. The backlog of work is just going to be extraordinary, if it isn’t already. No wonder it is so difficult to get through to Centerlink on the phone. It was nearly impossible to get Centerlink on the phone when there was only 20,000 debt recovery letters sent in a year but now that they are doing it every week …. ? As for other means of communication, even compliance officers are complaining they cannot access the Centerlink online system efficiently, let alone customers.

Opportunities or Overload?

In truth, even if Alan Trudge did put an end to it; Centrelink will probably still be spending thousands of man-hours dealing with the consequences of this flawed and fraudulent system. The same would be true if the Commonwealth Ombudsman began investigating Centrelink’s debt recovery system and put a stop to it – disregarding the costs in legal redress, which are sure to follow. Nothing about this course of action makes any logical sense, except to see this as class warfare against our vulnerable and easily disparaged citizens.

Well at least, it will probably increase employment opportunities in the community at Centerlink that will giving a few folk some extra, well sought after work. But wait, isn’t there a public service full time employment freeze?

——//——

P.S. 03/03/2017

Senate inquiry into Centrelink launched from 8th Feb 2017.

I add this postscript because I wish to cover one of the points of mystery I’d not been able to discern. How the government (Alan Tudge in particular) could repeatedly claim Centrelink’s average wait time on a call was 12 minutes. Despite:

when repeated anecdotal evidence said it was much longer. Statistical evidence being more credible (if collected accurately) than anecdotal.
the government’s claims were not in accordance with the aforementioned backlog , as logically it should have been longer.

As you may be aware the Senate on the 8th of February confirmed an inquiry into the automated debt system would be launched. A Senate question raised by Labor senator Louise Pratt finally got to the bottom of this mystery on Thursday 2nd of March.

“A transfer to a new line becomes a new inquiry, and the clock would start again,” Human Services staffer Barry Jackson said during a Senate estimates hearing.

Basically by Centrelink staff transferring your call to another phone on a regular basis and only measuring time between two specific phones, then the “wait-time” is kept low. Centrelink does not measure the total time any client spends on the phone but how long you are connected to a specific phone within Centrelink.

It is a contrived and deliberate deception so Alan Tudge can make a claim that call waiting times are short.

Cuba – farewell to Fidel

December 27, 2016 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

The passing of Fidel Castro marks a change that a generation the grew up with the drama of the missile crisis through to the first visit by an American President to Cuba. A period of history of high drama and political upheaval, he will be remembered by a diverse range of opinions. This is just mine.

Dictator

Issues such as Fidel Castro are never black and white. Yes, he was a “dictator” in so far as he led his country for 47 years after overthrowing American backed Batista. Yes, people died, were shot or imprisoned during and after the rebellion, but no man is entirely one thing or another. His story need a few shades of grey. A grey not conceded when Mike Pence described him as a tyrant and suggested the Cuban people were oppressed and in need of freedom and democracy. An interesting take from his “democracy”.

Who bombed what?

I note that America has bombed 7 countries during the last president’s term of office which was a fraction of Castro’s presidency. Castro dropped doctors in third world countries while America dropped bombs. Mike Pence was very critical of Fidel on his death suggesting too that having been “starved of Democracy” that they might welcome it now. But America castigating Fidel is like the pot calling the kettle black. How many countries did Cuba bomb and what contribution to the worldwide mass movement of refugees displaced from their homes is Cuba responsible for? Did he jail and torture people to the extent America has? Guantanamo is run by which country? Which country has the highest incarceration rate in prisons on earth (including China) and despite falling crime rates? [I’ll give you a clue, it was imprisoning 2.2M in 2013] Which country created, funded and armed Isis? Which country has consistently undermined the Middle East?

Celebrations or mourning?

Thousands of people gather at Revolution Square Antonio Maceo during a public tribute to late Cuban leader Fidel Castro in, Santiago de Cuba, Cuba, 03 December 2016.

Why are Fidel’s own people people not celebrating his departure if he was so evil? Why are they mourning him in the thousands in streets where herds of people are so thick and miles in length for his funeral? Have a googled look at the crowds recorded in “Plaza de la Revolución Antonio Maceo en Santiago de Cuba” for his memorial service. That’s not what you’d think “oppressed” folk might do. When Thatcher died the country was positively jubilant. The upper class were outraged at how happy folks were singing “The witch is dead!“.

Children & Justice

Which is the only country in the Americas that is not only without child malnourishment but was described by the UNICEF as “the best example of protection of children” (by Juan José Ortiz) especially as it had the lowest child death rate and negligible homeless street children? Not so many homeless adults for that matter. People are accommodated because housing is kept cheap. Yet in America the number of foreclosed houses outnumber the homeless. Yes, I know some of Cuba’s accommodation has been in Jails for some. Arbitrary detentions and short-term imprisonments are far more prevalent in America. The citizens of Cuba walk the streets and have homes to go to. Incarceration even on a per capita basis compared to America (510 per 100K in Cuba verses 693 in America – and that does not include juveniles, inmates in US territories or American military facilities – have I mentioned Guantanamo? — Oh yes I have.). Political prisoners, restrictions on freedom of expression (i.e. Snowden) travel restrictions and prisoner conditions are criticisms that can be leveled at both Cuba and America. Who do you think is better or worse?

Health Care

Which country has had produced over 124,000 health professionals who have worked in over 154 countries since 1961, hosts 3432 medical students from 23 nations studying medicine and exports hundreds of them to fight diseases in foreign third world countries ? The US secretary of state, John Kerry, was praising which country for sending “165 health professionals and it plans to send nearly 300 more” in 2014 to fight Ebola in Liberia, Sierra Leone & Guinea? Just what did America send? Instead of Doctors, they sent troops. I get why civil control is important in an outbreak but what does it tell you about the differences in the countries when one sends doctors and the other troops? Which country developed 4 vaccines against cancers including lung cancer (but has all their pharmaceuticals blocked by the USA) and was the first country to eliminate mother-to-child transmission of HIV as validated by WHO? Which country suffers from greater rates of obesity and diabetes? Which has the higher rates on drug and alcohol abuse? Which has the higher rates on School gun violence, rape on campuses, pollution, suicides, spousal abuse, etc … need I go on?

Education

With that health record, an education record that creates a Student:Teacher ratio of 12:1, and a youth illiteracy rate in Cuba is close to zero and is the best education system in Latin America, I have to ask, what does America offer in terms of Health and Education? Certainly not an education system that is 100% subsidised by the government. And Obamacare? Please don’t make me laugh. In Australia we have Medicare and it pi**e* all over Obamacare, even if our current neo-conservative government is trying desperately to dismantle it. Actually there are a lot of countries who’s health care systems could do that!

Democracy?

Instead the MSM’s coverage is insular & compliant with the “official narrative” story without a perspective on how the third world looked at Cuba. It’s a very first world capitalist perspective. Cuba has flourished in it’s own manner and even survived while under an embargo by the most powerful country in the world. As for Mike Pence hoping that Cuba would welcome “democracy” now, if he really thinks any country in the world wants your “democracy”, if the result is “Trump”, then he is delusional. Dude, you have no hope of installing “democracy” there, if America is the example!

The myth of Jobs Growth

December 22, 2016 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree 1 Comment

Turnbull’s “Jobs and Growth” campaign inspired many in Australia to vote for whom they believed were the better economic managers of our economy. In the first quarter of their second term in office, Australia is showing declining growth in the economy and a similar decline in full-time jobs.

The Slave Trade

The Hebrews and Greeks regarded work as a curse because “work” was performed by slaves and the underclass. Placing a positive moral value on “work” is a relatively recent invention emerging out of the Protestant Reformation. Max Weber, a German economic sociologist, wrote the book, “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism“ coining the term the “Protestant work ethic“. The concept of the religious work ethic became secularised to support the mounting new industrial system which required workers who would accept long hours and poor working conditions.

The unionism of the 19th century reshaped much of the makeup of “work” as we know it today. Consider ‘fair and reasonable’ wages (the 1907 Harvester Decision), better wages for women (as high as 54% of male wages by 1930), weekend penalty rates (from 1947), shorter working hours (down to 40 hrs in 1948) and four week holidays (from 1973). Work health and safety reforms (commencing in 1984) and more consultative supervisory styles & policies (Industrial Relations Reform Act 1993) continued to transform working relationships.

In 1996 Howard introduced the Workplace Relations Act which was later amended in 2005 (known as Work Choices). Workplace industrial relations began to change, but not necessarily for the better. Anti-union rhetoric accelerated despite as Greg Jericho noted the lack of “strong evidence that changes to the IR system will actually improve economic growth or productivity“.

Diminishing working day

The problem for many Australians is having access to paid work in the first place. A full day’s work (38 hr/weeks established in 1981) for a full day’s pay is a diminishing luxury in Australia. Full-time worker numbers are diminishing are diminishing in preference for part-time work. The “fair day’s pay” principle suffers as wages are increasingly stagnating.

Australian economy unexpectedly contracted 0.5 percent

The economy’s poor performance has been reflected in the September Quarter GDP’s figures, contracting by .5%. Australia has not experienced a contraction in GDP that severe since the GFC of 2008. This result was predictable, despite the Treasurer’s rhetoric talking up the economy. While some factors affect failing economies, our poor employment record is one, as Victoria University Senior Research Fellow Janine Dixon said, “Fixing unemployment would boost production, incomes and living standards.” Into this environment came the Coalition mantra proclaiming they were the party of “Jobs and Growth” that we voted for at the beginning of this contracted quarter.

The Measures of Unemployment.

So, are we putting our growing army of eager workers, to good use to recharge our vitiated economy? The International Business Times claimed misleadingly, “From 5.7 percent in July, Australia’s unemployment rate further went down to 5.6 percent in August. It is the lowest joblessness rate since the Coalition government came to power in September 2013.” While some conservatives may claim we were back on track, it does not stand up to scrutiny. The workforce size when the LNP took power was smaller, and of course, percentages are relative to that magnitude. Using percentages hides real numbers. These are:

ABS’s 5.6% = 697,100 people unemployed in Sept 2013 with workforce of 12,343,000
ABS’s 5.6% = 705,100 people unemployed in Sept 2016 with workforce of 12,652,000

In term of actual numbers unemployed 5.6% in 2013, is 8000 less than 5.6% in 2016.

Bloomberg's observations — Bloomberg’s observations

For the Australians that can acquire jobs, the makeup of that employment has changed. In September of 2013 full-time employment was increasing at a greater rate than part-time work but this has incurred a reversal. A trend which has not escaped international attention. As Alan Austin has pointed out in November 2016, “Over the last three years, there has been a significant shift from full-time to part-time jobs“.

To keep this critique relevant to the GDP downturn the statistics herein are pertinent to the September quarter unless otherwise stated. (October’s ABS stats for unemployment were the same and November’s worse.)

September end of quarter stats

The Australia wide Dept of Employment IVI index for job vacancies for September was 161.5K. Vacancies were down from 163.5K in August. The ratio of vacancies to unemployed was 1:4.4. However, ABS’s standard for measuring unemployment hides thousands of unemployed people as I’ve explained in a previous article. The more accurate Roy Morgan’s unemployed statistic is 1.101 million or 8.5%. The ratio is then 1:6.8! If you add their underemployment numbers, you reach 2.103 million or 16.2%, and the ratio becomes 1:13.

Quarterly variation between ABS & Roy Morgan

How then do we consider the Australia residents, who are not significantly measured by ABS as part of our workforce because of the 12/16 month rule? For example, foreign citizens with reciprocal work rights (i.e. Canadian, British, New Zealanders, etc). On October 31, 2016, there were 1,472,640 potential temporary foreign workers in Australia, 660,000 of which New Zealanders, 486,700 of which were students. Then there are the much maligned 457 visas holders in Australia, which the Dept of Immigration September Statistics number at 172,178. (Primary & secondary applicants)

What else should be accounted for here? Available vacancies examined in a report by Anglicare’s Jobs Availability Snapshot. Leon Moulden said on the nature of job vacancies showing that only 13.1% were for low skilled jobs. Applying the same maths Leon did to the vacancies available; this would represent only 21,000 vacancies Australia-wide apply to people without significant skill levels and education. The ACSF from the Board of Studies in NSW scores literacy and numeracy into five levels. The program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies shows that 60% of people not in the labour force have competencies of less than Level 3. While people “not in the labour force” is a wider net than the unemployed, 60% of Roy Morgan’s evaluation of 1.101 million unemployed people is 660,000. While this is only a rough estimate with a significant error variant, 660K people competing for only 21K vacancies with little skill entry is a major obstacle to entry. Now to absorb any possible margin of error, I have not factored in under-employed and foreign workers.

Enough with the numbers!

Let’s now depart from the maths and discuss the sociological issues that prevent people from finding work. Some media love to amplify the perception that everyone who is unemployed, is a dole bludger, or the latest put down acronym, NEETS. It’s their dominant strategy to divide welfare from the working class without a single consideration of any other mitigating factors, such as:

location suitability (interstate travel, home locality, & costs/inconvenience of changing residence),
employer discrimination, (bigotry, racism & misogyny),
accessibility limitations, (limits of public transport, car, bus, train, disability ramps, etc.),
boundaries of literacy, skill, experience, qualifications & education levels,
competition for jobs, (705K [smaller ABS nos. only] people writing 20 letters a month for 161.5K jobs = an average 87 applications a month per vacancy),
financial limitations (For many surviving off the dole puts you below the poverty line),
financial burdens (family, mortgage versus inadequate wage levels),
injury, health & pre-existing illness or disability issues,
occupational risks inherent in the job, (i.e. firemen, riggers)
your status as the principal carer of a child, (i.e. single parents or guardians)
security clearance issues (i.e. Defence Force, ASIO, child safety, commercial sensitivities),
illegal under award payment, shockingly poor wages or condition by employers.

In summary, there are not enough jobs and the majority of available jobs are only accessible to highly skilled, mobile, and versatile workers.

Back to first principles – slavery?

This picture isn’t yet complete. The Australian workplace for low skilled work is notorious for underpayment of wages (see 7-Eleven convenience stores, food distributors, restaurants and cafes). These are just the ones we hear about when addressed in court. Consider also those where actions are not taken, such as the Wollongong student’s vent on social media about employers paying far below award wages. But the apologists might cry, at least they are receiving some money! If you’re still of that view, then you didn’t read the last link to the concluding line which said, “Not only are employers looking for free labour, young people are putting themselves forward for unpaid work trials in the desperate hope they lead to a job“. So what has been our government’s response? An institutionalisation of the PaTH to slavery in a government underfunded internship program which I have criticised previously.

Christmas Hopes

It is nearly Christmas, and we have just had the largest fall in our GDP since December 2008. What budgetary measures can our Treasurer possibly come up with to stimulate our economy and its employment to save us from the official possibility of a recession? The next quarter ends on the 31st of this month. When 2.9903 million live below the poverty line, what real chances do people have to find a decent job with a decent wage, in the new year?

There’s been a Fall

December 13, 2016 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Winter is coming!

This winter was cold apparently, and Australia slipped on the ice. No limbs were broken in the fall, but the economic dilatometer for Australia’s GDP has demonstrated contraction. Not a surprise when you consider a full range of economic indicators for the Abbott/Turnbull Government. The September quarter revealed a .5% shrinkage in our GDP, not seen since the Queensland flood affected the March 2011 quarter. The time before that was during the Global Financial Crisis. It has not been an unexpected fall given the low growth figures each of the last year’s quarters. In June 2015 quarter it was our accounting standards that defer payment recordings that recognised a 41.5% jump in government defence spending that secured a tiny growth rate. There was no defence spending finalised to save us in September 2016.

Will the Wall hold?

The Coalition team were quick to allay fears of recession, as was the media. The Treasurer blamed the deterioration on the lack of opportunity to provide tax cuts for corporations. The same corporations that by in large provide little to no tax revenue to our bounty and often relocate locally generated profits overseas. On the radio, Christopher Pyne blamed poor performance on the distraction of Australian and American elections but commented that now these were over, things would be better. What?

Build your walls higher!

The largest contributor to the fall in GDP growth according to the Australian National Accounts was the reduced output of the construction industry. Construction work had continued to tumble for the 3rd consecutive quarter taking its biggest fall of 4.9% in September’s quarter. Some are blaming poor weather (i.e. rainfall ) for a fall in building activity. Aside from the fact that we are now in the wet monsoon season meaning things will get worse, is the industry suggesting “construction” doesn’t make allowances for rain? To be fair, the Bureau of Meteorology had been reporting higher rainfalls than normal for July thru September, but it has also reported a long term decline in rainfall of around 11 per cent since the mid-1990s in April–October in the continental southeast and 19% in the southwest of Australia. Forgive me the pun, but does rainfall as an excuse, hold water? Might there be other factors in the construction downfall?

Letting “investments” through the gates.

The rise of Foreign investment in Australia

An August News article showed foreign investment approvals had shown a sharp increase in Chinese natio nals particularly in the last few years. Now the previous linked News article suggested the tightening of bank lending was unlikely to affect Chinese enthusiasm for Australian real estate adversely. But is this true? Concerns about Chinese investors laundering money in the Australian housing market was exposed by the Four Corners program “The Great Wall of Money” in late 2015. Three significant events occurred in the period after this program went to air.

Despite much procrastination because of the economic risks to the banking system, the prudential regulator of banks, APRA began to enforce some of their own rules on high-risk lending.
Australian Banks uncovered evidence of numerous and sophisticated fraudulent income statements made by Chinese borrowers. To mitigate risks they have begun to restrict lending to offshore investors.
The Chinese Government began cracking down on Money laundering corruption.

Three consequences have been reported in the media.

Robert Gottliebsen reported in August that “The mass of Chinese property buyers who snapped up Australian apartments “off the plan” on the basis of a 10 per cent deposit have started to walk away from their agreements in Sydney”. Melbourne has larger volumes of Chinese buyers.
To secure sufficient financial collateral and because banks consider development projects high-risk ventures, developers depend on being able to provide evidence to banks of “off-the-plan” purchases of apartments.
Risk avoidance by the banks is resulting in restricting or pulling finance on the Chinese markets. This risk means construction became nonviable and added to buyer pull out; it may likely be the greater cause of any given developer may ceasing or stalling development.

Chinese interest in Real Estate & Renewables

While not wanting to “rain” on anyone’s parade, a more likely reason for a drop in construction might be the exit – of what was last year a massive influx of Chinese Buyers. In fact, given the huge influx of Chinese buyers in the market in 2015, it could be hypothesised that Chinese consumers were keeping our economy afloat.

Closing the gates on the wall.

The strong and weak performers from last year

So what hope is there left in the final month of this quarter for us not to discover some time in February that we are in a recession? Because two depressed GDP terms is an official recession and we have less than one month to go of the 2nd term.

Manufacturing? – Ford is gone, Holden  fired-up the final V6 motor at its Port Melbourne plant on the 29th of November and Toyota is in palliative care expecting to pass away next year.
Renewable energy market? – The government is slashing support for that industry
Mining? – Mining investment fell for the twelfth consecutive quarter & the seasonally adjusted estimate fell 0.8%
Exports? – Exports of goods fell 0.3% which is a bit surprising given how cheap our dollar is.
Retail? – This is the first decline in over three years as the seasonally adjusted estimate fell 0.8%, so perhaps that is just a glitch.
Real estate industry services? – which fell by 2.4% which is no surprise – given the continued unaffordability of the housing market.

Industries such as Education, health, power, hospitality, transport, professional & scientific services, etc. contributed virtually nothing. So where are our economic booms?

Information Media & Telecommunications? – rose 1.6% driven by rises in telecommunications and internet services, so be thankful for Youtube, iView, Netflix and Facebook but it’s a pity we don’t have an innovative & internationally competitive NBN.
Farming & fishing? – driven by rises in grains, cotton and livestock production it had a 7.5% increase, so the social well-dressed participants at a BBQ with beef burgers may yet save the day.
Finance & Insurance services? – Up by .1%, so insurance salesmen are still the best sellers around and we are still buying their spiel.

It’s either Jon Snow to the rescue or …

Unless the government can quickly pay off a huge defence “lay-by” as they did last year, it’s in your hands people. Our consistently strong industries have been Retail and Services Industries driven by household expenditures which have been traditionally strong areas of our economy. It’s Christmas, the retail and services industry awaits your patronage if you still have a job that pays a decent wage. You have one month left to buy us out of a recession. Buy up big for your kids, travel and stay in a nice motel. God help Australia, but is our last hope to avoid recession, “Santa Claus“?

Trump – fascist or fascistic?

December 5, 2016 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Philosophically changing landscape.

Just before the election, President elect Donald Trump, published his intentions for his first 100 days in office. It is insular and sequestered towards his take on focused American interests. From building walls to encouraging non-renewable pollution builders like shale, oil, natural gas and coal, which will result in undermining climate rectification. Withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a boon many would welcome, as alternative RCEP will be far more beneficial to the Australian economy.

Post-Truth world.

Tony Abbott the masterful beguiler of the Aussie Punter!

Whatever your values on these intentions, what is emerging, is that since the election, he’s made statements that are at variance with the dialogue from his rallies and his initial plans. That “lies”, featured in Trump and Clinton’s campaign dialogue, has become par for the course for political bargaining with voters. This “post-truth” phenomena drew criticism that the Trump campaign countered with assertions that the media should not be ‘fact-checkers’. Since the election, building walls, the death of Obamacare, the mass deportation of illegal immigrants, and the demise of the Iran peace treaty are all being quickly watered down in Washington. At least Tony Abbott waited a few months before he instigated proposals to make cuts to education, cuts to health, change to pensions, increasing GST and cuts to the ABC and SBS. While the Senate foiled many of the LNP’s valiant efforts to break their promises, much of the public showed their willingness to ignore Abbott’s apparent about-face. But lies are a negotiation the public has struck with politics for decades. Unless one engages in extensive fact-checking and pragmatic reasoning, such lies remain unchallenged; and many can’t be bothered to do so.

Observations of Fascism.

Some folk listened to their Grandfather's stories — Some folk listened to their Grandfather’s stories

Trump’s plans or renegotiations (or “lies”) are admittedly not standard Republican ideology. His thinking is hard to pin down, echoing sentiments from across the political spectrum. Trump is something else altogether. An interesting observation was made by an American teacher, which has landed her in hot water. She was teaching students about the parallels between the rise of Trump and German dictator Adolf Hitler. It’s an observation that has also been made by veteran Jewish Americans who fear the rise of a “new Hitler”.

Gianni Riotta in the Atlantic disagrees with the assertion Trump is a fascist. She talks about a “brand of fascism” defined by Mussolini’s original Partito Nazionale Fascista rule. Being of Italian heritage, she is very wed to that being the only legitimate fascism. For folk like Riotta, unless they are goose-stepping down Broadway, it isn’t fascism. As though the final goal defines the process, but not, until you get there. Fascism deniers hold to the rather odd presumption that unless we have set up gulags in the manner that former Italian fascists did, then we are not there yet. Perhaps we should poll the unwilling residents of Guantanamo Bay, Manus and Nauru.

As Robert O. Paxton in his book “The Anatomy of Fascism” says, “Fascism does not rest explicitly upon an elaborated philosophical system, but rather upon popular feelings about master races, their unjust lot, and their rightful predominance over inferior peoples. […] In a way utterly unlike the classical “isms,” the rightness of fascism does not depend on the truth of any of the propositions advanced in its name.” So Riotta attempt to define it as an elaborated philosophical system or fixed creed rather than a syndrome or a “beehive of contradictions“, lies on somewhat erroneous premises. Or as Nicholas Clairmont (also from “The Atlantic”) explained, “But the debate over the definition of fascism is much richer than Riotta covered.“

Jobs and Growth.

It is not an insignificant difference that America is a mature democracy, where Germany was not, at the time of Hitler’s rise. Hitler was elected Chancellor in January 1933 in what was a relatively new democratic system established in 1919. And in this latter American variation, there are both systematic differences and protections in place to stall degeneration into the Nazi’s historical outcomes. Nevertheless, striking similarities remain. Like America, the German economy had hit rock-bottom and was at the time recovering. Hitler also vowed to pull out of the Versailles treaty and repayments, much like Trump is pledging to renegotiate NAFTA and cancel the Pacific Trade Agreements. Both were promising to protect internal jobs and build infrastructure. In short, the familiar politico battle cry of “Jobs and Growth” was on both their agendas.

As Llewellyn Rockwell writes, “He suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public-works programs like autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national healthcare and unemployment insurance, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits.“

Can Trump can be similarly successful? Trump’s immediate promotion of jobs growth was very similar in manner to Malcolm Turnbull’s approach in providing jobs for unemployed friends. Trump has engaged the former mayor Rudy Giuliani (if you go to the link, note Rudy’s unusual nickname), former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, retired Gen. Michael Flynn, and former federal prosecutor Jeff Sessions. Not unlike Malcolm Turnbull’s recycling of former MPs or George Brandis’s job stacking, Trump is “bringing jobs back” … to lobbyists and republican insiders. One of his more controversial “jobs for the boys” decisions has been the selection of Steve Bannon as Trump’s chief strategist. Bannon is the chairman of “Breitbart” the alt-right anti-semitic, anti-Muslim, misogynistic, racist, bigoted, conspiracy filled news site. No doubt some readers will find that description a little harsh, and I’d have to concede that “news site” is probably inappropriate. Trump’s choice of a strategist, is emboldening the rise of identity politics in America. Reminiscent of a familiar Nazi German salutations, “Hail Trump” echoed from attendees at Richard Spencer’s recent annual conference of the National Policy Institute in Washington.

Historical similarities & differences.

Like Trump, Hitler was not the popular candidate. Political machinations got Hitler into power, as he controlled the largest block of seats. For Trump, his path to power was winning the electoral college, not the popular vote. Both leaders lead a racist mass movement, along with being misogynistic and ultra-nationalistic, eliciting violent reactions from their attendees at national rallies. The difference in Hitler’s case was protesters who tried to shout him down, were ejected by Hitler’s army friends armed with rubber truncheons. Trump was not so organised, but his followers still ejected peaceful protesters, violently. Trump displays contempt for liberal democratic norms and has identified a class of people he is quite happy to direct blame for America’s failings. Muslims replace Jews as the preferred targets despite the unconstitutional nature of his desires. Hitler, equally, had contempt for the Weimar Republic Constitution which changed Germany from a monarchy to a parliamentary democracy. The original Nazi party was filled with disenfranchised youth as a movement, whereas the Tea party Republican adherents found their primary support from older white men. Trump represents an avatar for their anger, marginalisation and resentment. In both points of history, the people had lost faith in the ability of their government to look after them. Coupled with a loss of confidence in the civil system, they sought a political option that came from outside the “system”.

Precluding Minorities.

Neither Hitler, not Trump spoke about exterminating the ethnic minority they were using as scapegoats, in their pre-election period. Hitler only talked about expelling Jews and removing their civil rights. Trump’s platform was to deport 2 million illegal immigrants, to eliminate birth right citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants and keeping Muslims out of America. There are differences worth considering here too. In the 1930’s data retention machines were primitive, but still, IBM rose to the challenge with a punch card sorting/cross indexing system to evaluate the census data to locate, identify and catalogue Jews. Without IBM’s help, the mass extermination of the Jews would have been logistically impossible. Today’s technology is streets ahead of anything IBM had then. IBM’s census collecting apparatus is so more sophisticated and accurate now, despite the issues Australia suffered via IBM on their last census. The American government with access to the NSA’s extensive data records on Americans – as Edward Snowden has revealed – can so quickly identify ethnic minorities.

Hitler promised to make Germany great and restore national pride. In echoes of Charles Lindbergh‘s “America First” isolationists rhetoric, Trump claimed, “I promise to make America great” and then spoke of isolating America. Hitler threatened and did persecute his political opponents, and Trump threatened to jail Hillary Clinton during public debates. He has since reneged on that, but his earlier rhetoric was worrying. Honesty among politicians in a “post-truth” era is unexpected, but even in Hitler’s time, a former finance minister described Hitler as thoroughly untruthful. Washington Post gave Trump 3.4 “Pinocchios” (as compared to Hillary Clinton getting 2.2), and noted of the 92 Trump statements that were fact checked, only 11 were found to fall into the category of mostly true or neutral. Attitudes towards women by both Hitler and Trump were quite simply appalling and deeply misogynistic. Hitler and Mussolini declared themselves as opposed to feminism, while Hitler’s predominant offence was in objectifying women for reproductive purposes. As for Trump’s Billy Bush conversation, I am opposed to giving that any more oxygen than it already, by linking to it here. If perchance you don’t know to what I refer, then all I can say is, “Welcome back, I trust that your absence from civilisation over the last few months has not been unduly traumatic”.

The results of Fascism take time.

Under Hitler, unemployment figures began to drop. Public work schemes were introduced, and the German Labour Front was set up to “protect” workers. Measures to ensure the leisure time of the work force was entrenched. It was a good month after he was “elected” in 1933 before Hitler began suspending several constitutional protections on civil rights. Jews didn’t lose their citizenship until 1935; about the same time conscription was brought in. Government income increased to ℛℳ15 billion Reichsmarks by 1939 (from ℛℳ10B in 1928) but then spending increased too. The invasion of Poland didn’t occur till 1939. Hitler had been in “legitimate” power for seven years by then. If Trump stays in power for two terms, he will have eight years to bring to fruition what he desires and the fact that four of the last five presidents served a full eight years is not encouraging. If you hold to the belief that Trump isn’t intimately aware of Hitler’s strategies, then you don’t want to read this.

What have you done?

Of course there are subtle differences. It is 80 years later, after all. But in essence, how is any of this not similar in spirit (if not exact fact) to the rise of Hitler’s Fascist German Nazi Party? And on that point, I should acknowledge the impeccable research work of my wife, who provided me with far more comparative information than I could fit into this one article. Perhaps as Jeet Heer says, ”even if Trump is only fascistic rather than a fascist, that’s more than scary enough“. However you phrase it to make yourself feel more comfortable and sleep well at night, in the end the question remains, where will the rise of Trumpism take America and the rest of the world? Good luck America!

WTF Trump!?

November 10, 2016 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

When even Murdock’s “Daily Telegraph” leads off the day after the American election, with the letters “W.T.F” in 72mm high characters in reaction to “a political triumph that seemed impossible 24 hours ago“, you know something major has happened. Mind you, given how supportive Murdoch’s media influencers in Fox News was initially for Donald Trump, it is disingenuous for the Telegraph to be milking the global shock reaction. But of course, the Telegraph knows such a response will sell papers, and as usual the profit motive “trumps” ideological approval of the result. Turnbull very quickly – as he does so often – capitulated to the ultra-right and affirmed his alignment with the new administration.

Two rather interesting and telling reactions to the growing realisation that Trump would win were the markets plummeting and the Canadian immigration website collapsing. While the markets have made something of a recovery there is an element of nervousness in the future because of his unpredictability. In regards Canadian immigration website, one can only infer Americans began immediately exploring their options at leaving America. Like our Australian Census website, the canadian site was not built to withstand so much “natural” traffic and failed.

When my Father was alive, he made a number of efforts to have myself and my family relocate back across the border from NSW to Queensland. As he pointed out on one occasion that over a thousand people a week were moving up to Queensland from New South Wales. Like the appeal now to moving to Canada, my Father promoted it as the choice sane, rational and smart people were making. I agreed with him, at which point he joyously reveled in his apparent “win”. It was at that point I raised the point that my wife as a psychologist, made a living out of treating dysfunctionality. I countered that, the migration of smart and sane people to Queensland meant greater opportunities for my wife to ply her trade here and less in Queensland. He replied with “Touché!“. And so we stayed put. Perhaps now we should hurry to America. I suspect now the Canadian immigration will be inundated with people contacting them once they restore their website. Certainly, the Chaser, is satirically suggesting that to the south, the Mexican border may now be swamped with fleeing Americans.

Trump as the 45th President embraced so wholeheartedly by middle America is fueling anger amongst democrats and socialists in America. But it is not leveled so much at Trump – although some has, as riots have shown – but at an introspection at the failures of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Many articles reflected that the choice of Hillary Clinton was a choice of the lessor of two evils. Certainly Dr Lissa Johnson’s pre-election analysis did this. In terms of the lesser of two evils, Clinton was not the popular choice, although she was the corporate choice, as evidenced by her significant corporate donors list. It is becoming apparent that many Bernie supporters simply abstained from voting or voted for minority candidates or even switched to vote for Trump. This although was offset by another rather ironic development. Many Trump voters couldn’t vote – as evidenced by the many complaints on the right-wing “4chan” online hangout – because they didn’t register to vote. The sheer irony of the alt-right trolls complaints on the day of voting, that many forgot to register (or didn’t realise they had to) was amusing to some. Clinton – on the other hand – had made ensuring supporters registered was a major part of her strategy, which Trump had largely neglected.

The question remains as to what was the offset difference between Bernie voters abstaining or voting for Trump verses non-registered Trump supporters. Certainly the overall effect – whatever it may have been – did not hamper Trump’s success. The Democrats although, created a rod for their own back. The DNC corruptly undermined Bernie Sanders when he clearly had the more popular following but failed to take corporate money and therefore be beholden to them. Hillary gladly accepted her donors and the faustian bargain was completed. She got the nomination. The DNC have only their own corrupt internal arrogance to blame for this failure to beat Trump. Sanders was never behind Trump in the polls, although to be honest the polls did not predict a Trump win. So polling should be approached with large pillars of salt. If the final choice weren’t so disastrous, I would say it served the DNC right. Their arrogant complacency and willingness to bend over to bow to the will of their corporate donors has handed America over to a racist, misogynist, incompetent, liar and failed business man who has run a trail of corporate wreckage behind him. Political party’s need to wake up and start listening to their supporters, not their donors and internal lobbyists and factional politics. It’s the same in Australia. Political donations by corporates are well overdue for review.

The media was also complicit in handing America to Trump. I would just like to quote former Democrat Senator and now Greens member, Arthur Chesterfield-Evans’s reflections on the media. “But if the level of disgust in the process of government is enough to turn a US Presidential election, one must also wonder about the effect of the media. For years, news has been replaced by infotainment. What is important is replaced by what is titillating or exciting. News is trivial, what is important is often not covered, particularly things like falling middle class jobs and stagnating wages. […] So the non-expert, pontificating and criticising overcomes the expert discussing sensibly- how many of those are on TV? The shock jock has become more important than the politician. So why are we surprised when it now happens in real life? The shock jock beat the politician. And the pollsters got it wrong again- just like in Brexit.”

The American political élite were not inclusive of what they regarded as the Hoi polloi of the population. The people who once engaged with Obama have turned on the Democrats as they have continued to cater to corporate interests. The grass roots support for Bernie Sanders demonstrated this. But DNC undermined Bernie Sanders when he was clearly more popular and with far less baggage. Given the turnaround in voting patterns there had to be many former democrats who changed their allegiances and not merely because of a racist or misogynist agenda – even if Trump represented that. There were other influences that guided Americans. The Hoi Polloi saw an establishment that bailed out banks rather than implement banking regulation on Wall Street. The brutal destruction of the Occupy Movement by a coordinated national effort led by the FBI won no favourable impressions. Despite long-term unemployed Americans having dropped by 614,000, it was still 761,000 higher than at the start of the Great Recession at the beginning of 2016. Home ownership dropped and while worthy projects such as the Heidelberg Project converted abandoned houses into Art works in Detroit, that such a project even exists, is telling of the America’s economy. The myth of the “great American dream” for opportunities for success have been dashed as the administration has failed to provide genuine opportunity for social mobility amongst Americans. This administration continued to fail to facilitate a lack of educational opportunities for the masses. Interestingly, the largest significant characteristics of Trump voter demographics was an apparent absence of a college degree. And of course their foreign policy which resulted in America bombing seven countries during the last administration and adding to the huge worldwide mass of refugees on the move through out the world, is winning few friends. (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria, in case you weren’t keeping track.)

Exit polls have shown that Trump maintained a strong lead amongst white Anglo Saxon men supported by the conservative religious right. Which leads us into examining the category of folks who had other reasons other than simply rationalising their disillusioned with the performance of the current administration. There is that group of white Anglo Saxon men and women who aligned with Trump’s core values. They who sought to assert their claim to racial dominance and hierarchical social control. As with Australia, many Americans rejected egalitarian pluralism for bigotry, misogyny and racism.

The “right to be Bigots” (as Brandis lobbied for) has been implanted in the moral ethos of three major western democracies. Brexit for Britian, Trump for America and Turnbull’s capitulation to the neo-conservatives of his party for Australia. All the progress in values, morality, fairness and equality which so many folks at the grass roots in this generation witnessed slowly emerging, have been dashed on the shores of hatred, pettiness and division. The blow to egalitarianism that Trump represents has been a crushing blow many are still reeling from. But having been hit so hard we can not stay down. We can not surrender to the hatred. Like the followers of Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu or Martin Luthor and the like, we have to pick ourselves back up off the ground. We have to face they that defile our hopes and stand for true freedom from oppression, racism, bigotry and misogyny. The battle for a more progressive, egalitarian and inclusive society continues and we cannot let these defeats define us.

Population Ponzi Scheme

September 20, 2016 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Is Australia facing a crisis of overpopulation and do we have enough resources to continue to expand our numbers by bringing in more immigrants into our country? Should we persist in growing our population, allowing immigration, consuming limited resources or close our borders, therefore, limiting population growth and over-consumption? Or is there something else at play of which we are not factoring?

The Government and media often imply that increased population growth is needed to prop up growth in the economy. The premise is that economic demand is only sustainable in Australia through population growth. These adherents note that Australians are exhibiting a spiralling decline in fertility, and rising mortality and permanent departures from the country. They observe that the only reason our population grows at all is immigration. So despite our inherent xenophobia entering the public dialogue, immigration is still officially encouraged.

Australia's net population Growth — Australia’s net population Growth

The slow total Australian population growth, courtesy of immigration, was evident in 19M in 2000 to 24M in 2016. Opponents to population growth, argue that the earth’s finite resources make it necessary to limit population growth.

Ponzi Scheme?

More radical opponents have gone as far to describe growth in population as an unsustainable “Ponzi scheme”. A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays a return to investors from new capital rather than from profit. In this case generating a new population of tax payers to support the earlier “investors” or older people. While a Ponzi scheme does not destroy anything, it does not create anything new either. Although it generates the illusion it does, eventually finite limitations prove it unsustainable, and it fails. The opponents of population growth in this country have suggested the population “Ponzi scheme” is failing and our economy is showing signs of it. They claim that the population Ponzi scheme is responsible for the failures in environmental, resourcing, consumption, borrowing, credit, homelessness, debt, food supply, health care, jobs, etc. While it is true Australia’s economic trajectory has shown a glut of economic indicators depicting downfalls in these areas, is the Ponzi scheme of population growth responsible? Is population the scapegoat that generates these downturns? Just which of these failures are the responsibility of this “scheme” or is the population Ponzi scheme argument a red herring stopping us from considering more relevant factors.

Overloading Australia

The only time in the last two decades that we have experienced a sharp (and temporary) rise in population growth rates (predominately due to immigration and partially due to a sharp fall in death rates and increase in birth rates) was in 2007/2008. In the wake of this rise, Mark O’Conner wrote “Overloading Australia“. ABC’s Quentin Demster wrote an article on Mark O’Conner’s book and the Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) advocacy group in 2010. Mark outlined his concerns for population growth in both articles and was reported as pointing out:

We don’t need population growth to support a stronger taxation base to, in turn, support our ageing population.
That we were not suffering from a skills shortage which could only be resolved through skilled immigration.
Faith in human ingenuity is not sufficient to generate solutions to critical resource shortages.

Revised levels of inequality in Australia

All well-supported arguments, but will a zero growth rate change these either way? Are these issues arising from population or policies of inequality? One of the inherent faulty assumptions behind the population Ponzi hypothesis is that all people are regarded as equal consumers. Our environmental impact and consumption is anything but equal. The Ponzi arguments often overlook the role of public policy decisions which are driving inequality. The following paragraphs will illustrate where these policies make a greater contribution to unsustainable consumption, ageing population support, unaffordable housing, transport congestion, job vacancy absences and risks of recession than population demographics.

Be born, .

Diminishing population growth rates in Australia

The SPA has mounted criticisms at Baby bonuses, child care rebates and family tax rebates because it presumes to promote population growth. Australia’s commitment to these policies has been half-hearted at best. The reality is these bonuses and rebates do not offset how expensive it is to bear children in this country. Australia’s has the world’s most expensive childcare and rising economic cost of children. So the SPA’s concerns are hyperbolic. Hence the Federal Government’s abolition of the Baby bonus among other spending cuts “reform” for families, reflects the real lack of commitment to supporting any population growth, despite their verbal claims to the contrary. Did anyone seriously imagine Peter Costello’s call to increase the birth rate with “One for Mum, one for Dad and one for the country” was a patriotic call that any family took seriously? Excuse me if I think any Treasure’s image or public “patriotic” call into the Australian bedrooms was anything of an incentive? Despite a blip in 2007/2008, our continuing experience has been the falling birth rates of the last few decades. There are a few grounds for concern here for the SPA, as the government’s efforts are lacklustre at best. On the other hand, the costs of immigration to bring in workers, to facilitate 457 visas, and even to pay them for working in our economy, is nowhere near as expensive as rearing children. Certainly, elements of corporate Australia would prefer to boost our population via this means, then use Australians, as foreigners can be bought cheaply. Abuse of visa workers is certainly not uncommon. So the question should be, is the need to boost the population to provide support for our economy, which or to facilitate exploitation and inequality?

Travel to work, .

Transportation congestion while being an issue in Australia is a product of an ideology that favours roads over public transport. The ongoing failings of planning and the dubious justifications of WestConnex’s impact on the Sydney transport are illustrative of a political ideology that is rewarding corporate road builders who donate heavily to political parties, over and above developing good public transportation. Not so much a factor of the population but a failure of political impetus to build sustainable infrastructure that should have easily met our population growth.

Borrow to Buy, .

Government Debt is not in any manner like yours.

Governments tend to favour population increases to spread the burden of public debt bond borrowings, raise revenue and stave off recession, presuming our population has the discretionary income to transact. The over-focusing on our tiny public debt (despite it growing from 10.1% to 18.3% of our GDP under the coalition), ignores the real recessionary pressures in Australia. These being credit growth and our unsustainable private debt at 123% of our GDP. While certainly a by-product of the population, perhaps we should focus on evidence-based conclusions for what debt levels we ought to be concerned about. Providing better regulation of banks to alleviate our society’s over-consumption of debt, serves Australian’s interests more than does current ideological policy.

Consume, .

Erratic Household Consumption in Australia.

Australia has a high rate of consumption, but our household consumption is not rising at the same consistent or relative speed as the population in Australia. There are many inconsistencies generated in our entrenched poverty and social inequality in Australia. This makes the links presumed between consumption of housing and population tenuous, especially as the housing construction rate is exceeding demand needs. For example, Sydney is already a city of 90,000 unoccupied homes and Melbourne with 83,000 vacant residences. Blaming population for the risks of Recession and Housing booms/busts as suggested by Michael Janda’s ABC article ignores the effects of policies that support un-quarantined Negative Gearing Capital Gains concessions and facilitating Asian laundering of cash needs. Even where population contributes, inequality breeds erratic consumption levels and greed consumes far more than its fair share.

Invent to Sell, .

Expectations of Job losses to Technology

Technology is often considered labour-augmenting as it increases GDP without an accompanying growth in population. It might have been labour-augmenting in a pre-industrialised society but the onset of technological innovation is changing the playing field. Malcolm Turnbull’s “innovation nation” has an often unpredictable capacity to destroy jobs. The consequences of automation, is disappearing more jobs than outsourcing has ever done. This is evident when we consider the MIT modelling on the relationship between machine learning/technology and job decline. In fact, “Gartner Inc, the technology research firm, has predicted a third of all jobs will be lost to automation within a decade“. This technology overreach will create a shortfall in jobs often inaccurately attributed to over-population.

Produce more, ..

Despite Productivity gains it has gone without rising compensation — Despite Productivity gains, it has gone without rising compensation

Despite the productivity growth over the last couple of decades in Australia, it has not been accompanied by corresponding increases in jobs and wages earnings. Technology and falling remuneration’s impact suggest, paradoxically, that the human component (population) is becoming less relevant to the emerging economic, wealth generation structures. This has implications for the assumption that GDP growth is being fuelled by population growth. Demand and need, certainly continue to exist, and to grow with increasing population, but the relationship between economic and population growths is not proportional. For economic growth to be driven by demand then there must exist a capacity for supply to meet demand. But what if supply can not be paid for, because fewer individuals hold jobs?

Work and slave, ..

Full-time employment has slid 64K since December while part-time work has risen by 136K.

Jobs earn income, and public services provision is dependent on adequate collection of income tax. Already 13.9% of Australians live below the poverty line (including 17.7% of all children). Full-time jobs are diminishing in preference to part-time positions and the top earners/corporations utilising tax avoidance means tax collection will only diminish. Internships providing unemployed labour for minimal costs favour corporations who already pay minimal tax. When population movement does not provide equitable changes in internal revenue collection for distribution into the economy then it can’t serve a population at any level.

and age to Die!

The lower economic quintile spend & stimulate the economy — The lower economic quintiles spend & stimulate the economy

A rising life expectancy has contributed to an ageing population. The justification to pay for this through an increase in younger income earners ignores how increasingly more expensive over time children are to bear and rear. It also overlooks how the aged baby boomers actually contribute financially to the economy and the young (as even Mark O’Conner recognised). While the public purse is quite capable of supporting an ageing population, the lack of political will to do so impedes us. Solutions such as social cooperatives for aged care delivery, lifelong education, taxation on assets, corporations and superannuation are solutions we are unwilling to implement. In fact, the aged – well supported by the public purse – would result in greater spending inside our economy, in the same way as providing for the impoverished would. The ideological and political redirection generating vast inequality is more responsible for a deterioration in support for the aged, than population numbers and longer life expectancy.

What of we who Survive?

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the ponzi accusation for Australia’s population is somewhat limited by our “surviving” population density. Australia outside of it’s capital cities has the smallest by a long shot. You probably don’t think that if you live in Sydney but then a fifth the population for our entire country lives there. Perhaps we can find a localised ponzi population effect in Sydney? Outside of our capitals you may have to move south to the Antarctica to beat Australia for a lower population density. Yes, it is a semi-desert continent and our capacity for rural production will be victim to climate change but again, the failures of government to support rural Australia should not be laid only at the door of population. So perhaps a country whose population is only .3% of the global population on 5% of the world’s land mass, the population is not the primary problem?

The real Ponzi Scheme

The burden of tax debt falls on the middle class

The ponzi scheme that is failing, is not population, but the redistribution of per capita wealth. Given no appropriate investment in infrastructure for our population to generate jobs, create wealth and hence taxes, where lies revenue growth? Instead the government is desperately fighting a rear guard action by cutting services and talking of deficits limiting redistribution. Instead they speak erroneously of inter-generational debt and budget to commit $50 Billion to reduce company taxes. This economic insistence towards trickle down economics despite all the evidence of it not working to generate any significant economic growth. Morrison’s argument that Australia is being more divided into the taxed and untaxed is only relevant where he is talking about income taxes (which as Ross Gittons points out is “only a little over half the federal taxes we pay”). What Morrison fails to observe though, is the untaxed (from his limiting perspective of taxes) occur at both ends of the income spectrum. They that pay little or no Tax who farm their profits offshore to remove it from our economy and they who are increasingly impoverished (currently 2.5M live under the poverty line), who make too little to pay income tax! It is the diminishing middle class that have a larger tax burden (although small by international standards). Cutting taxes for the wealthy reduces their contribution to any redistribution of wealth via taxation. The unwillingness of the government to re-distribute income to that portion of the population that spends the majority of their income in the economy is counter-productive to our larger national wealth. These policies are merely provisioning for the inevitable revenue winter to come.

What does matter?

Mark O’Conner while acknowledged these issues still berates political emphasis on wanting Australia’s small population base to continue to grow. They that call population growth a ponzi scheme often ignore the reality that the fallout of Australia’s “unsustainable population growth” is far more realistically expressed as unsustainable government ideology driving public policy. Zero population growth will alleviate none of these issues but changes in the ideological policy of inequality can reap benefits for all Australians. While excessive population growth is undesirable and may even be contributing, what effects it is having are masked by the more significant and destructive social and financial inequality. It is impossible to measure the effects of the ponzi population failure in Australia and know what is actually attributable to it when so much social damage is driven not by population but evidence-less ideologies and political corruption via lobbying and donations that drives our policy decisions. Coupled to corporate & political greed, the drivers for excessive private debt, a lack of infrastructure development resulting in job vacancy absences and concessional welfare for the wealthy and we have an economy risking a recession that no absence of population growth will correct.

Banning Muslims

August 12, 2016 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree 1 Comment

Calls to ban Muslim immigration are irrational and economically unviable since Australia’s Muslim community, and tourist visitors have brought peace and prosperity — not terrorism.

Our Australian borders, “Girt by Sea”, apparently, require strict border protection. Is the Government’s security claim justified and should we ban Muslim immigration?

In the light of fears expressed by Sonia Kruger and Pauline Hanson calling for a ban on Muslim immigration and Morrison and Dutton’s harsh detention policies for any desperate enough to approach our shores, justified?

Asylum Seekers are not Terrorists

All despite no asylum seeker arriving by a boat ever being implicated in political terrorism in Australia! Yet “Reclaim Australia” adherents and government MPs keep raising the fear levels. They imply terrorists are trudging from country to country, risking life and limb in leaky fishing boats for the expressed purpose of carrying out terrorist acts. Hiding as victimized refugees defies logic, rationality, and common sense, especially when it is easier to fly in simply. This really this is seriously the type of expressed argument by politicians like Cory Bernardi, Jacqui Lambie, Pauline Hanson and George Christensen.

The closest thing to any “Muslim terrorist” we have experienced in the last decade flew in on a comfortable plane on a business visa with the expressed approval by the conservative Government of the day. Granted a protection visa in 2000, Haron Monis became a citizen in 2004. Aside from having a criminal & psychological history and fallouts with the Australian courts for implications in crimes, it was evident that Man Haron Monis only thought of using the “terrorist” angle for his actions in the Lindt Café, as an afterthought. His request for an ISIL Flag to be brought into the cafe reflects the lack of intent of an organised act of terrorism, and is more accurately described as a “violent rampage by a narcissistic and mentally unstable man”.

Perhaps we should stop cutting mental health programs as a mitigating effort? Even if you do consider this an act of political terrorism, (and let’s generously give it the widest definition possible), the death of one person (the police killed the other person) might bring the death toll due to “terrorism” in Australia to five. That number includes the 1978 Hilton Hotel bombing (which killed three) and perhaps adding the Turkish consul-general murdered in Sydney in 1980. Adding this murder as a “terrorist death” is stretching credibility.

It’s hard to manufacture any numbers of significance for actual terrorist acts in this country. Of course the strict interpretation of section 100.1 of the Criminal Code’s definition of a “terrorist act” would suggest only the Hilton Bombing is relevant. If you count world-wide terrorist deaths of Australians killed since the 1978 Hilton bombing, then only 113 deaths are represented. At an average of 3 a year, frankly horses kill more Australians (at a rate of 20/yr). I curiously await the announcement of the closure of the horseriding, rearing and racing industry and sport. Really? <sigh> We tend to become hysterical about hypothetical possibilities, while inadequately dealing with more prominent causes of mortality. (i.e. women’s deaths from domestic violence).

Domestic Terrorism

Australia spends billions on the negligible threat of “terrorism”, while our conservative government had reduced by $300 million the amount we spend on risk mitigation for domestic violence. Kate Stone reported 79 Women were killed last year yet while resources for domestic violence have shrunk, counter terrorism measures for the theoretical possibility of death, has increased by $1.2 Billion in 2016.

White Terrorism

Frankly, the most significant post World War 2 loss of lives on Australian shores due to a single individual was accomplished by a blue eyed, blonde, Caucasian (non-Muslim) man at Port Arthur named Martin Bryant in 1996. Before that, there was the Queen Street Post Office massacre by the Catholic Caucasian Frank Vitkovic who killed nine people (from which the term “going postal” entered the Australian vernacular). In the same year, 1987, the right-wing Caucasian non-Muslim Australian Army officer, Julian Knight killed seven people. In fact the more you examine the history of massacres in Australia (and in particular the ones before the World Wars), the more you realise the real profile of mass killers is very similar to the American experience. The lessons are, restore mental health programs and beware of white, Catholic, right-wing, non-Muslim Caucasians!

We are content to ignore the fact that the vast majority of Muslims worldwide are peaceful law abiding citizens, who are more often the victims of radicalised elements within their society. They have a greater risk of death by terrorism than any non-Muslim Australian.

That doesn’t include deaths instituted by the Western government’s ‘war on terror’ which estimates have put at 4 million people.

So many terrified of so few

Yet death by Muslim terrorist rates as a fear that preoccupies our social media chatter, our racial vilification, our TV talk show conversations. Our irrational fear of barely 2% of our population who are Muslim (a third of which are Australian born) is odd in the face of so many other more fatal causes.

Between 2003-12 the ABS recorded a few causes for deaths many of which were outlined in Crikey’s article. Still, we will spend billions on anti-terrorism.

Are you a Muslim?

With the return of prominent racial vilification on the national political agenda with Hanson’s “One Nation” party returning to power, new calls for action have emerged.

The proposal that we should lock out Muslims from entering our country poses some significant issues. Not unlike the Donald Trump response to the threat of ISIL by locking down borders to any Muslims, the identification of Muslims is problematic. Given Muslim culture is expanded by conversion and spans beyond typical skin colour demographics, do we adopt the Trump methodology of discerning Muslim identity by having Border Force, ask each entrant “Are you Muslim?”

Would we oddly expect a person who is entering the country intent on doing us harm to answer honestly? Who would we then stop? How would Sonia Kruger’s ban be implemented?

Are you a Refugee?

Muslims enter the country as refugees, immigrants, or for education, business or tourism. Refugees & immigrants, historically, add considerably to the economic welfare of our nation. Not only do this asylum seeker population NOT generate terrorist incidents, but they do create economic wealth in Australia (and not by taking jobs so much as creating them). The example of Karen refugees making $40m worth of contributions to the economy in Nhill, Victoria, is a classic case. Spending 1.2 Billion a year to keep them in detention, when they could be boosting our economy by millions is wasteful. So, if it is not refugees that are a threat, then what of the alternative group that fly in on a plane every year? Which industry in Australia are we prepared to damage to allay our fears?

Of the 7.78 Million visitors to Australia, for reasons of holidays, business, employment or education; many originate from Muslim countries.

Tourism.

While Tourism from Japanese has been decreasing, Asian and Muslim countries have been on a long running increase.

In 2015, visitors from Malaysia (with a 61% Muslim population) generated $1.1 billion in total expenditure. Indonesia (with an 87% Muslim population) generated $0.6 billion and the Middle East (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates with a combined 82% Muslim population), about $1 billion. ¹

Tourism Queensland has been marketing to Arab travellers for quite some time and definitely would find Queensland’s Pauline Hanson’s call for a ban, detrimental.

Education.

International students contribute $19.7 Billion to the Australian economy and while Islamic students tend to concentrate their numbers at the Universities of Melbourne, Griffith and the Western Sydney, preventing Muslims from participating in Australian education would have a significant economic impact. If – like the Australian population – Muslims represent less than 2% of university students, then we might be discussing a $400M hit to our economy.

Business

Then there are the business and 457 visas, which facilitate Muslims entering the country for employment or trade. Trade for goods, services and technology with the Middle East & North Africa (MENA) is a $16 Billion industry.

The Economic rationalisation?

The question we need to ask is how much of the billions of dollars in tourism, education and business markets are we prepared to sacrifice or adversely affect? All this in the name of a hypothetical possibility, we haven’t seen actualised in 38 years? If we’d only stopped sabotaging funding for mental health programs perhaps we’d have less murderous events we like to call “terrorism”, inappropriately? To what extent will we lock out the Muslim world from Australia because of this disproportionate fear? I thought true conservatives sought to be prosperous, measure real risk rationally and be economically responsible? So why choose an economically irrational and highly expensive path based on an obscure risk with negligible statistical occurrences? Will the Coalition Government ignore it?

——//——–

TTF submission into the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade inquiry into trade with the Middle East – Nov 2014

Growth Rate Indicators

June 24, 2016 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

With many economic indicators over the past few years showing a downturn as Alan Austin has pointed out, it interesting that growth in the economy is a mantra for the conservatives. The LNP government’s assertions inherent in their three word slogan of “Jobs and Growth” presumes we are experiencing these in certain quarters. Let us begin examining a few.

Australia’s net population growth is still positive. Moving steadily from 19M in 2000 to 24M in 2016. The net populations growth by itself is the product of accumulated ebbs and flows. For example, in 2012-13 a total of 91,761 people indicated that they left Australia permanently. Many of them professionals but only half of them were actually born overseas. A concern for the department of immigration which sees it as “a loss of skills and experience as well as a loss of social investment in fields such as education, training, health services and settlement costs of immigrants”.

The growth rate per year although, has been decreasing over time. From it’s highest point in 2008 of 1.22% it had fallen steadily to 1.09% in 2014 according to Miguel Barrientos founder of IndexMundi. From this site other statistics from multiple sources have been garnered. Australian birth rates have been steadily dropping from 13.08 in 2000 to 12.19 per 1,000 persons in the population (per 1K/Pop) in 2014. Death rates since 2000, have been increasing as would be expected our ageing population dominating and rose to 7.07 per 1K/Pop in 2014. So why, with thousands leaving, a growing death rate and slowing birth rate do we have a steady total Australian population growth? The answer to that and the anomaly of change you may have noted between 2007 and 2008 on all the graphs, is migration. The influx in migrants, whether they be asylum seekers, visa holders or all manner of foreigners, maintain our growth. Much to the ire of many red-neck Australian “tea party” proponents who would rather we send even more “back where they came from” than the 91K we lose in a year. While the Department of Immigration is optimistic that net migration rates will increase in the future – and has published optimistic forward estimates figures – the actual historical statistics shown no such trend. Net migration rate which was at 5.74 immigrants per 1K/Pop in 2014, has been steadily decreasing since 2008 when it was 6.34. Despite the annual departures without the larger influx, the total Australian population growth might be in serious decline. Given the financial, social and intellectual contribution the likes of migrants, including asylum seekers, have proven to supply Australia, it remains economically irrational to be restricting their entrance. They don’t take jobs as that irrational argument by some protests, they create them. The example of Karen refugees making $40m worth of contributions to the economy in Nhill, Victoria, is a classic case. Spending 1.2 Billion a year to keep them in detention, when they could be boosting our economy by millions is both wasteful and sheer economic vandalism. Taken for reasons that have more to do with politics of fear mongering that is pandering to the emotional insecurity of a racist Australian population. It certainly has nothing to do with good economic management of a resource that is, desperate to be here and that we are blocking. So if we are socially & politically inhibited in using the resources of people to aid our economy, are we working well with the population we have in seeking to grow our net wealth?

Our economic results are reported as positive news. Recent quarters have shown Australia’s economic growth has beaten expectations. This is particularly good news especially after our total GDP dipped in US dollar terms from 2013 to 2014. Unfortunately the growth rate in GDP despite numerous fluctuations, has been showing a falling trend generally since 1999. GDP per capita although, has shown a stead increase over the same time. It looks prosperous, provided you fail to account for wealth inequality.

One of the noticeable absences from Joe Hockey’s Intergenerational Report (IGR) last year, was no indicator of the Gini coefficient (a normally standard reporting indicator in previous IGR’s for socio-economic impact of policies). The Australian National University has noted that wage inequality has increased steadily from early 1980s onwards [1] and ACOSS has noted an increase in numbers of citizens living below the poverty line.

Poverty numbers in Australia thrust upward to 2.55 million in 2014 (over .6 million of that being children). This continues the long-term trend of growing inequality in Australia. This factors certainly skew the per capita growth in GDP towards the already wealthy demographic.

So many conservatives hope the coalitions focus on Jobs and Growth is a progressive step in the right direction to shift the burden of growing poverty and provide jobs that can lift our limited growth population out of poverty. So are jobs the solution and have jobs increased? Scott Morrison is loudly boasting, “yes they have!” And if you want to retain that shallow positivist joy, this is where you should stop in your examination.

Participation in the labour force has continued to increase to just over 12.78 million in May 2016. It was just over 12.46 million when the coalition government came into power. Unemployment has of course increased while available jobs in the market have decreased. Jobs growth (according to the Coalition) of 300,000 since they came into power, is not actually keeping up with labour force growth, let alone expanding to overcome the decreasing population growth rate aforementioned. When you consider that we have just turned over 11 months of consistent part-time job increases measured against the fifth straight months of full-time job decreases, then it is not hard to know where the real “Jobs and Growth” are occurring.

When Scott Morrison got excited about apparent jobs growth in recent ABS statistics, he did not delve too deeply into their makeup. But isn’t any job even if it is a part-time one, at least “a job”? Probably not when it cuts you off from Newstart support but just like “Newstart”, still leaves you in poverty. The recent years have seen the rise of an unemployment problem called “the working poor”. A phenomenon where working families who are subsidised by wages, live below the poverty line. Another unique employment issue (even recognised by the Telegraph who have a reputation for a lack of sympathy for the unemployed) is the homeless but fully employed demographic. The National Coalition for the homeless claimed 44% of homeless people have jobs and that was a claim from back in 2009. Given that the ABS does not rate you as unemployed if you have worked for as much as one hour in a month, none of these homeless demographics register as “unemployed” but they do qualify as part of the “jobs growth solution” boasted about by the Liberals.

But at least if you have one of Joe Hockey’s “good” jobs (or your family needs a couple of them) and can afford a home, you have to be making some leeway? Chances are, if you are not a baby boomer who has finally paid off your home and retired, you are burdened by an enormous amounts of private debt. Millions of Australians are lumbered with housing debt. Private Debt zipped past our GDP to loom above it by over 123%. The over $2 Trillion in private debt is being chased by it’s little brother, “Foreign Debt” who has only grown to over $1 Trillion but has ambitions. Australia is already living beyond its means with faint ambitions by the average wage earner to grow their wealth.

It is therefore a shame that Morrison’s “growth” part of the equation doesn’t include Australia’s hourly rates of pay. These have been steadily diminishing over the term of this government. Even the Reserve Bank has expressed their concerns over the how wage growth has declined markedly in Australia over the last few years. What has been growing at a rate that is outstripping our economic growth – that Morrison can boast about – is housing. As the global property guide proclaimed. “House prices rose by 11.4% in Australia´s eight major cities during the year to end-Q3 2015 (9.72% inflation-adjusted), up from an annual rise of 9.23% in a year earlier and the highest y-o-y increase since Q2 2010, based on figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.”

So in summary, Debt and housing costs are growing but wages to afford the debt and housing is not. If I were to provide advise, it would be if you have a full-time job, don’t leave it. They are vanishing and there is only growth in part-time jobs. If all you can find is a part-time job, the chances of you descending into poverty are statistically significant. Don’t live in major cities. Given there are at least 8 times the number unemployed as there are jobs in the market, your chances of getting a job,- even a part-time one – are slim to none. Australia won’t allow highly motivated foreigners – like asylum seekers – into the country to boost our economy, as they have historically proven to do over decades. In fact we would rather spend billions abusing them in offshore gulags, then give them that opportunity. This is the price of being insular and parochial. Conservatives with a reputation for a love of money would rather spend billions on locking people up when you could be exploiting them to create millions. Am I the only one that is puzzled by this? So with a slowly diminishing rate of growth for population, GDP, hourly wages, full-time employment, and innumerable other economic indicators and a rapid rise in debts, housing prices, part-time employment, poverty and inequality, has it occurred to anyone that something is wrong here?

The record of the current government is laid out in its last three years of office. On July 2^nd you have a chance to ensure this continues. That choice is your’s Australia!

——–//——–

[1] “Is Inequality Increasing?”, Powerpoint Presentation for Parliamentary Library Vital Issues Seminar, 10 October 2012 by Peter Whiteford, Crawford School of Public Policy

July afterthought.

With a heavy heart, I have only one comment to add to this article in the July that followed that election.

Australia, you have failed again! <sigh>