Australias official unemployment figures rely on narrow definitions and exclusions that mask the true scale of joblessness and economic insecurity, writesJohn Haly.

THE METHODOLOGY of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) is the default source for how the media and government measure and discuss Australian unemployment.

Yet, these measures are arbitrary and contrived by Capital to misrepresent the true state of affairs. Note, for example, how the default description is always interms of percentagesagainst a rarely explained or estimated amorphous labour-force base and never in absolute numbers. Percentages rather than absolute numbers are a means of camouflaging the rising unemployment numbers in the Labour force.

In Australia, the absolute number of jobless people, as reported by the ABS, has been consistently climbing since late 2022, following the post-pandemic decline. ABS is not the only measure of unemployment as a metric of the concept of individuals without compensated employment or secured income via a job. How you arbitrarily define that concept can exclude or omit numerous individuals from the tally of the unemployed.

The ABS methodology incorporates many arbitrary criteria for unemployment and is constrained by institutional structures, which, if modified, would completely change both the absolute number and ratio. This also applies to what is and isnt considered the base Labour force, against which the ratio is measured.

Australias labour market is softening, with rising unemployment and sluggish job creation putting full employment at risk.

An individuals inclusion or exclusion from these estimates is determined solely by a nations adherence to, or interpretation of, a series of methodological guidelines established by theInternational Labour Organisation. Any shift or deviation in a nations methodology yields different results.

For example, determining the definition of an active job search can change the estimated number. For instance, limiting active job searches to the past four weeks yields a specific unemployment number. Extending the timeframe to longer periods, although not in accordance with ILO standards, such asItalys six-month search cutoffsin the North and 12-month cutoffs in the South, would yield very different amounts.

Availability as a criterion yields similar variations.In Europe, the unemployment definition prescribes an unemployed person as one currently available for work in the next fortnight, as opposed to the more immediate availability-for-work requirement imposed by Australias ABS. This results in divergent unemployment rates.

How a nation assesses gig employment under zero-hour contracts indicates what the eventual unemployment measure will be. If, like Australia, all that matters is ajob attachment, than any gig, irrespective of any lack of hours or income, is nominated as underemployment. Even though it exists as a productively and financially indistinguishable alternative to unemployment.

A countrys unemployment inclusion is solely determined by these prescribed regulations and the class for which those guidelines are established. The unemployment rate is based on the cut-off specified within the methodology and the demographic it is intended to serve. For whom the bell tolls (to citeJohn Donne) is significant and the bell tolls for class divisions in Australia. The ABS, in particular, rings its bell for the capitalist class.

By capitalist class, I refer to theVeblen Institutionalists subdivision of the traditionalMarxianruling class. This category encompasses enterprise owners and managers whose income is derived from profits, as they accumulate capital through asset ownership and predominantly possess the means of production [Pluta & Leathers, 1978, p. 128].

The statistics primary domestic use is to impose unimpeded access of the working class to the capitalist class. It is essential to recognise that ABS statistics are deliberately constructed to not encompass all individuals without paid employment. I will substantiate my argument by scrutinising the ABS methodology, some of which is furnished in their2023 online publications.

ABS measures encompass an arbitrary subset of real unemployment. One where people are not only unemployed but also lack any source of income (outside government welfare or family support) and are subject to a list of exclusions. This subset is constrained by age limits, active job-seeking behaviour, immediate availability, the absence of distractions and the absence of any potential impediment to engagement in capitalist exploitation at any time. That is a vastly limited subset.

Over 65 still complying with ABS job search requirements (Graph by John Haly)

Its size is unfailingly a half to one-third smaller than the physical count of individuals to whom the Australian Government disburses unemployment welfare (JobSeeker and Youth Allowance). I should also note that the number of individuals compensated by Jobseeker has increased since mid-2023, despite penalties banning thousands of people.

When confronting media andpoliticians statements, such as those by TreasurerJim Chalmersand members of the Labor Cabinet, in multiple Twitter messages, claiming unemployment is low, I would argue that this is entirely misleading. Irrespective of whether it is reported intentionally, naively, consciously, or otherwise, it is misleading.When regurgitating that absurdity, give sceptical contemplation to the agenda and propaganda of the capitalist and ruling class.

It also has consequences for the employed, including affecting theRBAs Taylor Ruleand promptinginflationary interest rates. Is there a more accurate depiction of unemployment that furnishes a more accurate assessment of individuals without compensated employment?

Investigate the results ofRoy Morgans methodology, exemplified in Figure 2, and consider its relative correlation to past poverty measures by ACOSS. Including my prediction for the last figure, based on the likely prevalence of child poverty, to determine its likely to be close to 4 million. Children under 16 are not factored into any unemployment measure, so poverty figures will always be larger than under and unemployment aggregates.

Over the last decade, the Australian Council of Social Service(ACOSS) has found thatchild povertyis within two per cent range of 16%, except once when the Government raised unemployment welfare above poverty levels. It should be noted that the roughly 1.5 million thatABS claims is its underemploymentand unemployment aggregate total has no reasonable correlation with poverty figures that can be explained by children, rendering it highly unrealistic.

A common theory that there are bounteous employment opportunities in Australia is incorrect.

Roy Morgan insinuates that Australias unemployment rate has been in double digits for most of the year to date. The combined unemployment and underemployment rate has floated above 20% and is more closely correlated withACOSSs independent poverty figures. But even were one to be naively constrained to accept ABS figures, there is no denying that like Jobseeker payments and Roy Morgan unemployment has been trending upwards in absolute numbers ever since Labor came into power.

Further to the issues of unemployment, a cursory examination of Figure 2s two measures of job vacancies (with theirown issues with arbitrary measurement) and those originating from distinct governmental sources and methodologies is woefully inadequate for our employment needs. Worse still, as unemployment is rising by every apparent measure, job vacancies are falling by every applicable measure. This is our economic malaise, about which next to nobody in the media is conceding.

While the present government may have exemplified greater political stability than the preceding decade of neoliberal conservative rule, which was characterised by dysfunction,corruption and scandals under the Liberals, it is still, in itself, only marginally less neoliberal and conservative. Irrespectively, it remains suboptimal for the literal millions in Australia suffering from poverty, which ironically, theMorrisonGovernment demonstrated it could alleviate.

Yet unemployment has not improved, regardless of the methodology one prefers, and the Government refuses to intensify its efforts to rectify this situation, as state capture guarantees its capitulation to the capitalist class.

There are solutions such as aFederal Job Guarantee. Although that will face vehement opposition from the capitalist class (Hail, 2021). We should minimally advocate forFull Employmentpolicies reminiscent of those that resulted in less than 2% unemployment for most of the 25 years following Prime MinisterJohn Curtins initiative. At a minimum, we must banish corporate and political rhetoric, no matter our political affiliations, that claims Australia has low unemployment.

John Halyis a freelance writer who manages a freelance business,Halyucinations Studiosin Sydney.

Related Articles

• Full employment under threat as labour market weakens
• Employment opportunities? Sorry, no vacancy
• 1.5 million Aussies out of work and the immigration solution
• Joblessness: Another photo op, no follow up disaster
• Incompetence, not the pandemic, has wrecked the economy