Impending crisis, the broken rules of the system v the 90%

Here, Michael Roberts gives a good overview of the global picture regarding new levels of instability in the economic system. Instability is an intrinsic feature of the capitalists system we live in.

He starts as follows:

The US stock market turned volatile this week and has now erased all the gains made up to now in 2018 in just a week or so.  So much for Trump’s boast that things for rich investors have never been better.  The fall in the US market has been matched by similar drops in the European and Asian stock markets.  The all-world index has had its worst performance since the Euro debt crisis of 2012.

— Read on thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2018/10/25/correction/

What does it mean for Australia?

Australia is affected, and the impact will sharpen in the months ahead as the national election gets closer.

Living in denial is dangerous. Governing in denial is destructive. Campaigning in denial is not very smart.

That does not mean giving up. It does means re-thinking the campaigns we are active in and how we join in them, and bringing others with us. Many of our demands will be just as valid. We will have to be tougher and more united in defending and winning them.

Living … in brief

Among other things, profits and profitability will fall. There will be bankruptcies. If you are a small business employer that possibility is very sharp. If you are a worker with a job, the likelihood that you will lose it or be pressured to take a big cut in wages will escalate. If you are a worker without a job there will be downward pressure on your social welfare entitlements. Just surviving will be tougher and we will have to resist a louder call to blame it on refugees and migrant workers. It will infect our thinking and our social solidarity instincts or, it will make them stronger.

Governing … in brief

The LNP government is preparing to leave the next economic crisis to the market. Deciding to do that takes about 5 minutes and means the government is not in control.

In the meantime, they will seek to get re-elected on the basis of “their record”: current growth numbers, reduced unemployment, and very low strike figures.

Growth as GDP is barely adequate.

Unemployment has fallen. They say, for example Kelly O’Dwyer (the rather shrill and vacuous Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations), that unemployment is at 5%. She is using the volatile nominal figures not the more reliable “trend” figures that say it’s a bit higher. I haven’t seen an interview with her that deals with that.

She also does not talk about underemployment. That is now rising and more entrenched.

Campaigning … brief, but not so brief

On climate change …

Apart from the big and growing campaigns against the Adani mega coal mine there remains no coordinated national campaign. There is rich potential for this in the dozens of small initiatives and mini campaigns.

A thousand flowers blooming, each one in its own paddock, will not be good enough to win the battle to reverse climate change.

On workers rights and Changing the Rules …

The union movement’s campaign to “Change the Rules” (CtR) that seeks more power in the hands of workers to reverse inequality and poverty will be affected by instability and new crisis.

We must factor impending crisis into our strategy. Not to do so would be negligent.

Electoral intervention will not be enough.

This is true for those who want the campaign to be focussed almost entirely on getting a new Labor government. That is, an electoral strategy that focuses on the marginal seats that the Labor Party must win.

If the crisis hits not long after such a government, as it did in 2008-9, that new government – on historical form – will seek that we retreat from our most important demands. They will join with the employers, albeit with some reforms to make retreat “excusable”. Recent and longer history says that the dominant (these days) laborist tendency in our union movement will go along with that.

Compliant industrial strategy will not be enough

The CtR’s current industrial strategy is to comply with the rules (even though a percentage who attended last week’s rallies did not do that) and then whinge about them through social media and national union leader media appearances.

This is a dead end strategy because it leaves both union and non union workers fully exposed to the bankruptcies and wage cut demands that go with economic crisis.

The champions of the dead end approach are also champions of rules that restore arbitration powers to the Fair Work Commission and inspectorial and prosecuting powers to the Fair Work Ombudsman. They oppose a comprehensive “right to strike” that puts power into the hands of workers, union and non union alike.

A prospective new Labor government relies on the “dead end” champions as it prepares to win the election with the focus on the ALP National Conference in December.

A defiant strategy: electoral and industrial action before and after the national election

For those who want an strong, interventionist industrial strategy for CtR that interacts with the electoral strategy and also escalates the priority on the “right to strike”, the impending economic and climate crisis is also a big deal.

If we are “fair dinkum”, the need to change the rules by defying them – a big part of Australian history – will rise.

There is a serious option: a minimum wage increase

The National Minimum Wage Review starts soon. The Fair Work Commission will announce a timetable at any time in the next few weeks. The Review process will then start and traverse through to June 2019. This is the period leading up to and probably just after the national election.

In the next few weeks, the ACTU will prepare and present a proposal for a minimum pay increase by taking all minimum wages – the statutory and award based minimums closer to a “living wage”.

Lets start discussing that proposal now even, if necessary, before it is formalised.

Lets build an industrial campaign, reinforced by our efforts in the key electorates, that puts pressure on employer organisations, the government and the Commission to accept that proposal.

Otherwise they will dominate the public debate with the economic c risks logic of 0% increase.

All methods and tactics of campaigning can be harnessed into such a campaign.

It can be designed to appeal to all of those workers who are not in unions but who try to live on the minimum wage and those whose thieving employers pay below the minimum.

The 90% in charge

The modest efforts that the Rudd Labor government produced in 2008-9 to deal with the economic crash back then will be inadequate. They complied with the financial management rules of the day. But we know the rules of the finance system are stacked for the 1-10%, even more today. They must not be allowed to dominate “governing” as the crisis strikes and takes effect. Unless the 90 % take charge, the 90%, and the natural world we are dependent on, will suffer horrendously.

But we also have the rich working class potential to develop and win an alternative.

Not just workplace relations, a whole network of broken rules!

The ACTU’S Change the Rules Campaign draws attention to the “broken rules” – from the point of view of workers – in the Fair Work Act 2009. The campaign is borne out of a system that adds to employer power and this enables wages repression. The system thus contributes to growing poverty and inequality.

Broken rules galore

At the same time we can create a list of other “broken rules” that attack the environment we must live in, living standards, democracy and humanist values. For example:

  • First Nations peoples exploitation, oppression, incarceration
  • The finance and banking system
  • Taxation – powerful corporations pay little or no tax;
  • Social welfare payments – denying a dignified life to tens of thousands;
  • Climate change – now no rules at all;
  • Trade policy;
  • Immigration and refugee policy;
  • Corporations law.

One can go on.

Put the transnational corporations in even stronger command?

It is clear that parliamentary democracy, in its current, Australian form has seriously broken rules also.

On climate change the government has morphed into being so bad that the large corporations are saying, through the Business Council of Australia, that they will go it alone on climate change mitigation.

Maybe that has been the objective all along.

Let the most powerful have more power to control the future. After all, that’s 21st century capitalism.

Its not just the LNP government who is the protagonist, although they are at the extreme end. The ALP is a co-creator of some of them, or insipid in its efforts to “solve the problem”.

Recently, the TTP (trade policy) is a good example. A closer look at Labor’s control of the negotiations for the Fair Work Act 2009 that reproduced or established “the broken rules”, reveals another.

Broken rules: separate? Or connected?

The big question is: are all of these sets of broken rules separate and discrete?

Or, are they – in various ways – connected and mutually dependent … systemic?

If the answer to these is “No” and “Yes”, that must lead to a very different response from all of those engaged in the largely discrete struggles and campaigns against them.

The challenge from a real alternative: the seeds within the separated struggles

All of the separated struggles contain an analysis of what is wrong with the :”broken rules” and, to one degree or another, an alternative set of ideas, proposals and sometimes specific demands. Many stand well as a real alternative, new rules that are democratic and reverse exploitation of people and nature, many require further development in the realm of power and democracy.

Defeating the sets of requires a unifying programme of demands and proposals, and a strategy for a unifying Organisation that can bring them together and put them in the hands of the people for further development and political pressure. That would include an approach that “unites the identities” (gender, race, ethnicity, sexual preference, disabilities) based on a working class framework.

The driving principles would be solidarity and unifying across the struggles, more power in the hands of the people, especially at work, equality, environmental renewal, and equality.

Leaving the politics of dissatisfaction as they are now – an inadequate combination of 1) silo campaigns, 2) protest driven electing of “independent” and right wing nationalists, and 3) click activism – will not put the majority in charge of their futures.

Understanding its reality is the first activist step towards preparing for the next economic crisis

Global economy is facing a ‘perfect storm’

BIS fears that increasing protectionism could reverse decades of progress.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/global-economy-is-facing-a-perfect-storm-warns-bis-chief-20180827-p4zzzq.html?btis

You don’t have to agree with or understand all of the stuff in this summary of what one of the major architects of “our” twenty first century capitalism is saying, except that another economic crisis is just around the corner. It will dovetail with the destruction of more climate change.

Among the experts I understand the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) is the international bank of banks.

The crisis they expect will have very serious consequences for any Australian government, the Change the Rules campaign, and all Australians. It will reach into every nook and cranny of all communities of the world.

Every single democratic and social justice campaign will also be affected. All will have to work out on whose side they will stand.

Will corporations and governments be permitted so much control over the handling of the crisis that the recovery that might follow is for them only?

Will campaigns like “Change the Rules” concede major demands that give more control to workers to win the even tougher struggles that the crisis will bring? Or, will it allow new control in the hands of institutions like the Fair Work Commission to resolve conflict through “consensus” and “even handedness” and “fairness”?

This is union activist business and part of their business is to make sure, even when union and political leaders are sluggish about it, that the problem is discussed among members and potential members.

Of course this should include discussions with a prospective Labor government and the Greens – including at the local level – that drive towards a government that enables much more power in the hands of workers to deal with the destructive effects of the crisis on their lives.

Understanding the reality of another crisis enables the possibilities of a different resolution to last time, a resolution that enabled continued destruction of the environment and more inequality … and an even more destructive next crisis.

The challenge for all genuinely democratic forces is how to transfer power into the hands of the majority and to therefore break the cycle.

This means the development and popular spread of an alternative programme of change for the majority – economic, political and environmental. Much of the content of this programme already exists in the mainly separated demands of the thousands of organisations that are struggling in so many different, and mainly separate ways, against the pressures on their lives, including our precious environment.

Australians could well look towards the largely coherent programme of the Corbyn forces in the British Labour Party for an example of what is meant. And examples exist in our own history. Both the ALP and the Greens have some good material in parts of their programmes. But both end up wanting to maintain the system that causes the big problems for the majority.

The next economic crisis … are we ready?

Tricky questions for activists and their leaders

Mid September is the tenth anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the American transnational “investment” bank. Some say the collapse was the real signal for the 2007-9 financial and economic crisis that spread quickly and globally and, ruined the lives of millions of workers around the world.

What appeared to be the cause was the USA’s sub-prime housing loan default contagion. But that left begging a simple question: what was happening to the real incomes of so many workers that there was no choice but a sub-prime loan for a house to live in?

In Australia, the new Rudd Labor government, elected in 2007 off the back of 2 big campaigns, the Your Rights at Work Campaign, and the campaign for government action on climate change, inherited the management of the crisis, as its contagion spread through 2008-9.

Since then, in the period of “recovery”, rising inequality, driven by legalized wages repression, and dramatically deteriorating living and working conditions arising from climate change have occurred. For the majority everywhere it is as if there has been no recovery.

What does it mean that 21st century capitalism cannot deliver equality and environmental renewal even when it is “recovering”, or “not in crisis”? Is there any evidence that there is a capitalism that can exist without crisis?

Its possible, probably likely, that the next economic crisis is not far away. Especially in the light of Trump’s trade wars and his destruction of debt free spending power in the USA. And there are the dramatically worsening effects of the climate change crisis that interacts with that.

In Australia, the next global economic crisis may coincide with a new government that says it will break from the “trickle down economics” that is helping to bring it on.

What will the next crisis do to inequality and environmental degradation? What will the twin crises do to the lives of tens of thousands whose circumstances have been worsening while the extreme rich get richer?

Other questions flow. Should we pretend that its not going to happen? Can the crisis be averted? And, what will it do to the growing Change the Rules Campaign especially its key demands for new and “fairer” rules that enable workers and unions to reverse inequality? Can campaigning organizations prepare for such events so that the momentum they have been building is not lost? Can crisis be used to increase momentum for deeper and more meaningful change?

Such questions are relevant for all organizations and movements of the people against the “powers that be” and their government. Unless the preference is to pretend or hope that it won’t happen.

How do we know there will be another economic crisis soon?

The key word is “another”. Big economic crises are intrinsic to the way in which capitalism works, including contemporary global capitalism. They come along every 7 to 12 years and then leave in their wake millions of people whose lives are more or less impoverished by them. Experience, not just statistics but those also, tells us that recovery is for the few. Increased impoverishment contributes to the next crisis.

What was done in 2007-9?

Governments “dealt with” the crisis in various ways. Transnational corporations and global banks worked closely with governments to get a “make the public pay” policy working.

In response, Obama, governing “the home” of the crisis, dirtied his nappies by rescuing the big end of town.

In Australia, Labor’s Rudd-Swan-Gillard team applied a minimal Keynesian style solution that softened for many in the Australian 90% the worst effects of the crisis: immediate government spending and a bank guarantee. Their approach inflicted little, if any, pain on those in the 1-10% who were the protagonists in the processes that gave it birth.

Just a few years later Abbott and Hockey created their ongoing solution: harsh austerity. They were rejected for that but, under Turnbull and Cormann, this approach is not yet defeated.

And the next time around?

The next crisis will not be good for the vast majority of Australians. Some will cop it worse than others and, worsening climate change will add to an even more desperate plight for the 90%, far more than the 10%.

More specifically: what will happen to wages and inequality? To job security? To Newstart and other social security payments? Will there be new cuts to public education, public transport and public health care? Will there be development funding controlled by First Nations communities to replace the racist, bureaucratic controlled CDP? And the nation building character of the Uluru Statement? And what about the serious problems we all see in parliamentary democracy?

We know the current government, because it has the form and the genetic make-up, will insist on more austerity to far more than those suffering from it since 2008-9. Actually, there is no sign the Turnbull government is making specific preparations to prepare for the next recession. Admitting that a crisis is building would acknowledge that they have not been managing the economy very well. Their mantra that they, as an LNP government, are more competent to handle the economy better than an ALP (plus Greens?) “alternative”, was not true of the last crisis.

Labor as an alternative government?

If there is a change of government, the ALP and its co-governors (cross-benchers) will inherit (again) an economy in or about to enter crisis, through no direct fault of their own, and the massive task of climate change reversal.

As the alternative government, the ALP would prefer that the crisis hits before they win government. Then they can blame the LNP for it.

What will and should they do? Should they repeat the 2008-9 formula but with improvement (remember “pink batts”)? In whose interest should they govern? What will the powers that be in the Business Council and other employer organizations expect of them?

What about unions and “Change the Rules”?

What should our union movement prepare for and demand? Is the prospect of crisis union business? Is this the business of union members? Are our union leaders actually on to the problem?

Right now our union movement is investing primarily in a massive effort to bring down the Turnbull government, especially through the “on the ground” field campaign in marginal electorates through the Change the Rules Campaign. The ACTU trialled the campaign in the recent by-elections in the seats of Longman and Braddon. Without these union driven Change the Rules Campaigns it is arguable that Labor would not have held these seats.

The spread of these campaigns to other electorates is strengthening.

It is likely that a Labor government would push extra reasons for minimal changes only to the broken rules of the Fair Work Act 2009?

How much should our movement accommodate this, if at all? Is this just a decision for key union negotiators, as in 2007-9? The employers will expect moderation. And the “lefty” Deputy Leader of the ALP, Anthony Albanese, says Labor must work better with business. In 2007-9, as Workplace Relations Minister, Julia Gillard brought the employers into the consultation process on an equal footing. Together the spirit of consultation produced the “broken rules” that have hamstrung the workers through the years of “recovery” since. Through Albanese, is the ALP in 2018 setting itself up to repeat the dose?

Some final points: sleep walking or pro-active toughening?

Australia is a middle sized capitalist economic power. Anyone who believes that we don’t have much to worry about because of strong “growth” in the USA, continuing strong demand from China and new market possibilities in India is deluding themselves.

The character of the next crisis will be shaped by three forces, the first of which will shape the other 2.

First, from within the intrinsic global instability of the system, the contagion might start from within the financial sector again. Or, maybe from even deeper economic processes that are dependent on human labour power. The USA, again, might be the source, or somewhere else. Trump’s deliberate trade conflicts might add specific characteristics that were not so relevant 10 years ago.

The government of the USA and its interactions with “Wall Street” and other transnational corporations will be significant. What will the most powerful transnational corporations demand? Will they intervene modestly, deliberately allowing “the market” to clear out its blockages? Or, will they approve a mild Keynesian type stimulus, based on increased government social spending and money supply, especially in a form that protects their wealth and control.

Third, there will be the response of the organizations of the 90%, the working class – unions, leftist political parties, environmental, women’s and anti racist movements, and their various organizations.

Will these they allow the crisis to run its course, complain loudly, and “trust” in government to manage the process? They might advocate modest intervention in which tripartite processes of working together see it through?

Or will they intervene – put the people’s pressure on – to oppose the core dynamic of the crisis, and any tendency to resolve it by making the 90% suffer for it? What will be the demands that would make a people’s programme that protects the people”? How might such an alternative programme and effective strategy the developed?

This can only start by acknowledging how real the threat of crisis is in the first place. And behind the economic crisis there is a class based political power? Would a crisis pregnant with the possibility of new people’s power in government be encouraged? Or dampened?

Inequality and wages repression in Australia: workers’ experience is confirmed

Part 1

The latest Journal of Australian Political Economy (number 81) was published last week (click here) and reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday (click here).

This new issue provides an Australian explanation of the connections between wages repression and inequality, led by material from a symposium on this topic organised by Jim Stanford, from the Centre for Future Work, and are about “causes and consequences of the decline in labour’s share”.

Union and broader anti-poverty and social movement activists should be reading and discussing this material. It brings together a lot of stuff that has been treated to some extent, but superficially, in the daily media (mainstream and social), and also some that can be found in the ACTU and other progressive submissions to the National Wage Reviews.

The Introduction and Overview is a joint effort from Australia’s great political economist and activist, Frank Stilwell, and Frances Flanagan of United Voice (the union). They introduce and summarise all of the articles that follow.

The summary suggests that the articles reinforce widespread experience and shared data about the decline in labour share and its relationship to rising inequality, and provide new info and insights. I was not entirely convinced that we would get much insight on the “cause” of reduced labour share and rising inequality. There is no mention of exploitation in relationship to “labour’s share”, and precious little on profit.

The focus in this issue of the Journal of Australian Political Economy is on “Labour’s declining income share and economic inequality in Australia”.

Jim Stanford’s is the first and flagship article. He explains what “labour share” is, how it is measured, and what’s been happening to it. Except for a couple of important points (see more below), the exploration of “labour share” is quite meticulous and certainly enriches the capacity of labour movement activists to win debates about rising inequality.

“Labour’s share” of new wealth produced (GDP) and total national income (similar but not quite the same) is measured in Australia using data collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. All of this data is publicly available and free of charge at the ABS website. In this total data the other shares go to corporations, small employers and the self employed, property owners, and government.

First, Jim establishes that, without doubt the labour compensation” (that is wages plus superannuation and workers compensation paid) share has steadily declined from the mid 1970’s highpoint onwards. And, further, that this translates as a consequence into downward pressure on personal income.

There are up and down blips along the way but the decline is steady, and is supervised by both LNP (right wing, pro-employer) and Labor governments. The Hawke Labor government (starting 1983) is marked by steep decline in the “labour share”. There are 2 good graphs that show this. There is a sharp fall again after the 2008 economic crisis – inherited at the time by the new Rudd Labor government – that then rises from a low level before falling to its current extremely low level since the current LNP governments.

Second, since the mid 1980’s there is a steep fall in the cost of labour to employers, again with a couple of blips along the way.

Third, and this is a big one: real productivity increases steadily and is much higher than both of the 2 measures of “labour compensation” that Jim uses.

Fourth, continuing his demolition job on those (especially employers and their cheerleaders) who wish to deny the reality of the decline in labour share, Jim presents and explains the data about inflation and prices increases, again using 2 measures. Again there are blips, price rises and falls are more volatile, and he integrates these into the story of what is happening to the “labour share”.

Fifth, we have his neat summary: since the mid 70’s there has been an 8% fall in the “labour share” and a 7% increase in the share going to corporations. The shift away from “labour’s share” works out at about $150 billion per year. The share going to small business and self employed falls by 4%.

Finally, Jim compares what’s been happening in Australia with 25 other developed countries. He shows that what is happening in Australia is widespread but not universal. In one third of those 25 countries the “labour share” has been stable or increasing.

Thus, in reference to the “cause” of the problem Jim puts primary emphasis on institutional and policy pressures against workers and their wages. There is nothing about the intrinsic dynamic of capitalism.

Jim concludes that “economic growth alone will (not) ‘lift all boats’ and (will not) automatically ‘trickle down’ into material improvements for working Australians.”

From Jim’s material you can pin this down further: “Trickle down” under Wayne Swan (the Labor government’s Treasurer 2007-2013) and other Labor leaders has been almost as much a mantra, and a failure, as it was under the LNP’s Costello, Howard, Hockey and Morrison.

Labor, as a potential new government in 2019, will have to do much better and different than the ones that have preceded it. There is no sign that Labor’s leaders are up for that.

Part 2

What makes all of this useful? After all, as one Facebook friend said to me, correctly in my view, workers like him don’t need academic research to tell them that their standard of living is under pressure and falling; that their jobs are not, when it comes to wages etc, jobs they can rely on.

There is much truth in this, even more so when workmates are agreeing with each other and then thousands and tens of thousands attest to the same experience.

However, there are lots of workers who are not convinced and / or do not yet care, superficially at least. It is a part of winning the struggle to improve living standards to have the more detailed information and explanation that is available to to confirm and reinforce and, perhaps add to, what the majority know from experience.

This material helps to win workplace level debates (not just public media) that convince more workers to join in the struggle and to join in more vigorously. Further, it can provide insight for the union movement to develop a much better strategy than it has been using in the last 20 years.

Clearly, an industrial strategy (core business for unions) that accepts the broken rules (union practice since 2008) is not working; enterprise bargaining has been destructive for everyone, even for those who have had some wins under it, and the decline in labour’s share coincides also with a decline in union density and the decline in strike based struggles.

Now, some remarks about what I think is inadequate in Jim’s article.

The concept of “labour share” is actually a superficial way of describing what the “labour share” is all about. The labour share is a measure of exploitation. Exploitation is the core rationale for worker combination and unionism. It works like this. The “labour share” is a proportion of the total wealth produced (however it is measured and who by). But the total wealth produced is entirely dependent on the labour carried out by the workers who receive the “labour share”. The workers only get a part of the total they have produced. The “profit share” itself does not produce new wealth. The total surplus after the “labour share” is extracted, “stolen” sort of, appropriated, “taken” by those who have not produced any of it, from those who have.

Labour compensation therefore exists in relationship to profits. What’s happening to the “labour share” cant be fully understood without fully understanding what’s happening to “the profit share”. The continued downward pressure on wages does have a perverse logic in relationship to profits. There must be something going wrong with profits to require downward pressure on wages. Therefore, what is going wrong?

Jim treats this relationship quite shabbily and, therefore, amid all of the good stuff, he does not arrive at any satisfactory explanation about why both sides of government must help employers push the “labour share” downwards. He cannot describe the “causes” of the problem and that leaves him short on what the strategy could be to deal with it.

Let’s check this point in another way. At the start of his article Jim refers to a speech made by Philip Lowe, the Governor of Australia’s Reserve Bank, back in 2017. In that speech Lowe expressed concern about a low pay crisis. He repeated that in June 2018 in a speech to about 1000 manufacturing employers organised by the Australian Industry Group.

We can say this for sure: if you asked those 1000 odd employers what their prime obsession is, the answer would be profits. In their heads, listening to the Governor, they would be thinking through this question: “What does his message about wages mean for my profits, especially my profits relative to the capital I already own?”

This is the real world that workers must confront.

What is lost on the Reserve Bank Governor (at least in public), but not to employers, is that wages can only be understood properly in relationship to profits and the fixed capital that the labour (paid for with wages) brings to life to create new wealth, including those profits. (Among other things you might have noticed that he suggests workers ask for more, I guess just like Oliver Twist, and that employers should give them something. He does not call for industrial struggle.)

Its a worry for our movement when Jim and so many other labour (and environmental) economists make the same mistake. I look forward to reading the other articles to see if this mistake is remedied.

If we know what is happening to profitability we get a clearer sense of why there is a long term downward drive on wages. We are then truly analysing the problem and opening up the prospects of a strategy to deal with it.

Where does a diesel mechanic, including field service, a fitter, an electrician, a driver, a yardie, a trade assistant sit in the Australian income leagues tables?

Don Sutherland 27/3/16

I decided to take a close look because early last week the Australian Tax Office (ATO) released to the general public the latest stats on the incomes and income tax paid of Australians. (Click here , and look for Tables 14 and 16)

For example, we learned just how little tax was being paid by some of Australia’s highest income earners.  For example, click here.

Remember, we are talking about “incomes”, not wealth. (We know that some people can report very low incomes but somehow or other be very wealthy.)

The incomes information is in a very big table that divides income levels into 100 “percentiles” – that is, the bottom 1% of income earners, then those between the 1-2%, all the way through, percent by percent, to those earning at the very top, between 99-100%.

And, the ATO tells us how many individuals, both men and women, there are for each percentile, and where particular occupations sit. From this it’s possible to work out reasonably well what the average income is and what the median – the middle point – is in the income league table.

I have been guided by the work of Greg Jericho, a journalist who writes for The Guardian (the Australian on line edition) and the ABC program, The Drum. If you are interested, click here to take a look at Greg’s latest work. Or, follow this link: http://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2016/mar/24/the-budget-is-coming-so-standby-for-talk-of-ordinary-australians-who-are-these-people

Jericho shows the increase in incomes across all 100 percentiles compared to the previous report.

Among other things, Jericho supports the idea that since the 2007 global economic crisis the rich are paying themselves (earning?) a lot more than they are paying those who they employ. For example, he says:

“But the average income of those in the 90th is 34.9% more than in the 80th; and the average income of the 100th percentile is a jaw dropping 481% larger at $698,574

My go at Greg’s work starts here and then goes on to look at the typical engineering service / metal worker  occupations. It is interesting, also, to see how any individuals there are at each percentile, but that is not the purpose of this commentary.

Avge Tax Income Oz 040416a

So, what about the typical engineering services / metal worker?

Here in this graph is my go at a snapshot for some of the typical occupations in the industry.

EnginServs workers avge taxable income 040416

Remember!  The numbers 30, 40, 50 etc are selected  percentiles only, and each is the average at that percentile for both men and women.

Also, these are the stats for 2013-14, at the beginning of the fall in incomes associated with the fall in mine site production. These numbers also reflect very long working hours for the blue collar jobs. The current numbers (ie early 2016) would tend to be somewhat less, especially for fitters and diesel mechanics.

Anyone can compare their own actual annual income with the graph. I suspect some would be higher than the number for their occupation, and some probably less.

It is worth reflecting on the gender pay gap that prevails in the industry.

Just in case you are interested, you can also see the average taxable income of the senior executives of the type that “manage” engineering service work from their corporate boxes.

We do not know at this time what this means for the members of company Boards and owners. Secret squirrels’ business?

 

 

 

Bubbles, profits and debt – look out!

Australia is not mentioned once in this up to date rveiew of the real and severe problems in the global economy. Having said that, the story is as much about Australia’s economy as any of the countries actually referred to. Now, why should we get to grips with this sort of analysis? One important reason: it helps very much to understand not so much the effects of unemployment and underemployment but very much the causes of unemployment and what might be the best immediate and also medium to longer term policies to deal with the causes and also the effects.

On the Causes of Investment Decline in the US Economy (A Reply to Hartmann-Wolff)

I think this analysis is really important and is relvant the Australian context also. Here,the opposition to the Federal government and Business Council austerity prescription for the economy, is strong but it is built on the assumptions of Keynesian economics. In the past week I have had brief and friendly exchanges with union comrades who hve been praising Keynesian journos and commentators. I understand why: in Australia we are constantly desperate to find and promote those who oppose the barrage of neoliberal / austerity capitalist dogma that is our daily bread. Any port in a storm, so to speak. But, this is not good enough. Analysing the interactions between investment, profit, incomes etc – but at last foussing on investment is a gap that must be filled.

The lucky generation

Michael, thank you again, and this is excellent timing for us here in Australia as our current neoliberal government under PM Tony Abbott last week released the latest Intergeneration Report. You might be surprised to know that one of the main messages that the report has been propagandised to promote is that the living standards of the older are denying future prosperity for the younger.