In Australia, the media and government utilises unemployment statistics sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), which indicates that the jobless rate has been a rising trend since late 2022 following a decline post-pandemic. I am not referring to percentages, which is a function of total labour force (also trending upwards), but rather to “real” numbers. However, I have to ask about the authenticity of these figures. National unemployment metrics are delineated by a methodology that seldom characterises it as individuals without compensated employment or those unable to secure jobs, but rather within a paradigm that restricts or omits qualifying individuals without work from being included in the count. The orthodox economic model posits that unemployment is influenced by supply and demand dynamics. In orthodox economic theory, “supply” refers to workers seeking employment who possess a reservation wage that they are prepared to take. This is absurd considering the desperation for employment among many; but, let us proceed anyhow. To assess the disparity between supply and demand, we employ an unemployment survey administered by the ABS, which necessitates active job searching and the absence of gig employment to qualify as unemployed. Unavailability, any association with a gig role (regardless of compensation), or lack of proof of a current job search during the past month results in disqualification.
The official unemployment measure is entirely arbitrary and constrained by an institutional structure that reflects only a subset of the actual unemployed population. The individuals included in the count are strictly determined by a nation’s specific interpretation of a series of methodological guidelines, which may adhere closely or loosely to the regulations established by the International Labour Organisation (Sorrentino, 2000). Each shift or deviation of the methodology specific to a nation, garners different results. For instance, limiting active job searches to the past four weeks yields a particular unemployment rate, whereas extending the timeframe to five or six weeks produces a likely smaller number. In Europe, the unemployment definition allows for the commencement of work within the subsequent two weeks, as opposed to the immediate requirement set by Australia’s ABS, resulting in a variation in the unemployment rate (Eurostat, 2010). The rate a country defends is solely determined by the prescribed regulations and the class for whom those guidelines are established. The unemployment rate is contingent upon the cut-off specified within the methodology and the demographic it is intended to serve. “For whom the bell tolls” (to cite John Donne) is significant — and the bell tolls for class divisions in Australia. The ABS, in particular, rings its bell for the Capitalist class.
ABS statistics are designed to benefit the capitalist class. By “capitalist class,” I refer to the Veblen Institutionalist’s subdivision of the traditional Marxian ruling class, which comprises enterprise owners and managers whose income is derived from profits, focus on accumulating capital through economic activities and who predominantly own the means of production, distinguishing them from the Leisure Class or political elite (Pluta & Leathers, 1978, p. 128). The statistic’s main domestic use is to assess the unimpeded access of the working class for procurement by the capitalist class. It is imperative to understand that they do NOT represent individuals without compensated employment or those unable to secure jobs. The exclusions by the ABS render this quite evident. Let us examine a few restrictions of the methodology to substantiate my argument (ABS, 2023).
- The exclusion of individuals unable to commence immediate employment, as highlighted in Gareth Hutchens’s articles in the ABC, excludes thousands of unemployed individuals (Hutchens, 2021). Why? Due of their lack of immediate unavailability to the Capitalist Class.
- Exclusions for uncompensated labour in a familial enterprise, busking or street vending. Why? Due to your engagement in other demanding tasks, you may not be instantly accessible to the Capitalist Class.
- Excluding individuals participating in the government unemployment programs such as the PaTH initiative. Why? It is necessary to exit such programs prior to embarking in properly compensated labour for the Capitalist Class.
- Excluding Australians employed for zero hours due to ‘economic reasons’ yet maintaining a Gig attachment. Why? Being committed to a “job attachment” (as termed by the ABS), which is fully unpaid due to the absence of employment provided, serves as an obstacle to the exploitation by the Capitalist Class (ABS, 2021). By the conclusion of 2024, the estimated figures were projected to range from 80,000 to 90,000, while in 2020, the numbers fluctuated between 200,000 and over one million individuals. (see Graph 1)
- Excluding unemployed individuals lacking evidence of actively seeking employment due to familial, personal, or other obligations. Why? To prevent distraction from the Capitalist Class’s request for their engagement.
- Exclusions of transient foreign individuals in the country pursuant to the 12/16 regulation (see ABS, 2023 again). Why? Lack of acquaintance with the culture, work, and social environment can hinder fully assimilated employment engagement by the Capitalist Class.
- Excluding those who have been employed by any other entity for over one hour within a month. Why? During the designated “reference week” or the four weeks preceding its end, you were not available for exclusive employment by anyone in the capitalist class.
- Excluding anyone over the age of 65, regardless of their active job seeking status. Why? Your age, physical ability, and other factors may restrict your potential for complete exploitation by the capitalist class. We live in an ageist society that dismisses individuals long before they reach 65, regardless of their experience or abilities.
ABS measures represent are an arbitrary subset of the labour force that is not only unemployed and lacks any source of income, (outside of government welfare or family support) but has an extended list or exclusion. This sub-group is characterised by age limits, active job-seeking behaviour, immediate availability, absence of distractions, and no potential impediment to engagement in capitalist exploitation whatsoever at any interval of time longer than an hour in four weeks. That is a rather limited subset.
Its size is consistently half to one-third smaller than the actual count of individuals to whom the Australian Government disburses welfare for unemployment (Jobseeker). I should additionally declare that the number of individuals compensated by Jobseeker has also increased since mid-2023.
When encountering media or social media statements such as “The unemployment rate is currently at a 48-year low,” as reported by the ABS, I would argue that this is entirely misleading. By reiterating that nonsense, reflect on your complicity with the agenda and propaganda of the capitalist and ruling class, regardless of whether it is done intentionally, naively, consciously, or otherwise. What is a more accurate depiction of unemployment? Is there data that provide a more accurate assessment of individuals without compensated employment or those unable to secure jobs?
Examine the results of Roy Morgan’s methodology presented in Graph 2, and then assert that the unemployment rate in Australia, nearing 10%, and the underemployment rate, over 20%, can be characterised as “LOW.” Both ABS and Roy Morgan indicate that numerically, unemployment has increased since late 2022, but which do you consider to be “real”?
Examine the two measures of job vacancies which, although also arbitrarily measured, originate from distinct governmental sources and methodologies—one being the ABS—that you may overlook due to their proximity to the abscissa (X-Axis) on the Cartesian plane. Examine the disparity between existing vacant positions and numbers of people who are either unemployed or unable to secure adequately sufficient employment.
At election time, such news is often politically undesirable, particularly as we seek to prevent a resurgence of the dysfunction characteristic of the ultra-conservative governments we have evaded for the past three years. However, drop the rose-coloured glasses of idealised preferences. The present government may have demonstrated greater stability than the preceding nearly ten years marked by dysfunction, corruption, and scandals under the Liberals, however it remains less than optimal (Seccombe, 2023). Unemployment has not improved, and the government must enhance its efforts. I would advocate for a Federal Job Guarantee; nonetheless, it will likely face vehement opposition from the capitalist class. We should advocate for Full Employment policies reminiscent of the ones which resulted in dominantly under 2% unemployment for 25 years following Labor PM John Curtin’s initiative, but minimally we must dismiss the corporate and political rhetoric that claims Australia has low unemployment.
