The Rudd government is claiming to have created jobs. Not saved jobs, mind you, but to have created jobs.
“In the past year we have created 112,000 jobs.
“As we look around at the rest of the world’s data, in America in the same period of time, 5.8 million jobs were lost.”
Mr Rudd was marking the first anniversary of Labor’s $42 billion stimulus program.
When you look at the ABS data and the stock on employed people between December 2008 and December 2009 there is an increase of about 114,000 people so on that basis the statement may be correct. But the problem is that the unemployment rate has increased and the numbers are in the context of the stimulus package.
What I have done is graph the size of stimulus pacakges releative to 2008 GDP and the increase in unemployment for several OECD economies. All data are from the OECD and the increase in unemployment is calculated as the difference between June 2009 and the 2007 unemployment rate. Australia is the red dot.
Notice that our increase in unemployment is much less than the size of our stimulus package would suggest. One interpretation, that the government would like, is that this just proves how successful the package was. Another suggestion is that our package was far too large (bearing in mind that even now a lot of the money is yet to be spent). There are a number of economies that also had low increases in unemployment but also had smaller stimulus packages.
Unfortunately the amount of data I have right now is limited – as more becomes available hopefully it will be possible to update the analysis with more economies.
I wonder if the Myer results are isolated? A few shaky retail numbers would have ‘em reaching for the cheque book again.
Infidel Tiger
4 Feb 10 at 7:48 pm
The only jobs the government has created are government jobs. It has even created an extra layer in the bureaucracy with the ‘associate secretary’ level sitting between a secretary and deputy secretary. We should be flattening the structure not deepening it.
Samuel J
4 Feb 10 at 11:10 pm
Sinc, I think the simplest thing to do is just judge Labor on their own criteria. They used to complain about the lack of full time jobs. Fine. If you look at the full time job numbers, it is clear from the data that since taking office, Kevin Rudd has yet to create a single full time job.
Noodle
4 Feb 10 at 11:15 pm
Why is the numbers being within the context of the stimulus package a problem? Wasn’t that the point of the stimulus package? GFC = jobs lost. Stimulus = jobs gained.
Dingbat
5 Feb 10 at 12:48 am
relying on Sinkers being correct on the amount in the stimulus packages requires more faith than is possible.
I see Sinkers is still perplexed that different reactions occurred. This was explained in the third year course at Macquarie.
Perhaps sinkers was asleep at the time it happened in SA
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
5 Feb 10 at 8:59 am
Butters,
Be quiet, sit down and educate yourself with reality:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/db6b7758-118d-11df-9195-00144feab49a.html
“Initial jobless claims climbed by 8,000 to 480,000, labour department figures showed.”
Stimulus packages are magic pudding economics.
Semi Regular Libertarian
5 Feb 10 at 12:18 pm
Mark, I was catching up with some mates and they reminded me of one of possibly your great clangers.
Vodaphone being a competitor for Brtish Telecom when it was privatised.
I must admit I had completely forgot your wonderful academic understanding of how the privatization was a failure.
typically you didn’t even know of any literate on the topic.
Statman would have avoided the accounting journals showing little change pre and post privatization of BT.
you simply avoided them all.
It was an enjoyable dinner at that.
they are only magic puddings to people who don’t understand economics.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
5 Feb 10 at 12:36 pm
must be a busy schedule Homer, reading all those management journals, accounting journals and archives of the Zimbabwe Central Bank. No wonder you don’t have time to educate yourself on basic economics.
jtfsoon
5 Feb 10 at 12:40 pm
Mark, I was catching up with some mates….
Do they snigger a lot?
JC
5 Feb 10 at 12:40 pm
“Vodaphone being a competitor for Brtish Telecom when it was privatised. I must admit I had completely forgot your wonderful academic understanding of how the privatization was a failure”
Please do go on Homer. Tell us how the British public were worse off.
“typically you didn’t even know of any literate on the topic.”
You didn’t even understand how a petrol station operates.
“they are only magic puddings to people who don’t understand economics.”
Why do you defer to management and accounting journals for cutting edge economic research?
Semi Regular Libertarian
5 Feb 10 at 12:41 pm
Interesting how a Homer dinner party turns into a discussion of the accounting intricacies of Vodafone.
Party on dude!
jtfsoon
5 Feb 10 at 12:43 pm
It was an enjoyable dinner at that.
Surprisingly did they all have to rush off before desert, coffee and the main course?
JC
5 Feb 10 at 12:46 pm
Why do you defer to management and accounting journals for cutting edge economic research?
Well, at least Homer isn’t referencing mountaineering magazines, SRL.
dover_beach
5 Feb 10 at 12:48 pm
“Interesting how a Homer dinner party turns into a discussion of the accounting intricacies of Vodafone.
Party on dude!”
It’s amazing the shit you will talk after Paris offers you a line of blow in the Establishment’s unisex toilets.
Semi Regular Libertarian
5 Feb 10 at 12:49 pm
really Statman you do not even know of the debate about Productivity in the US. Didn’t come up in Wikipedia?
I had forgot this episode with Master Researcher Mark who argued that the privatization was a complete success without once reading any academic literature on the topic.
His Vodaphone line was a classic though.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
5 Feb 10 at 12:50 pm
It was an enjoyable dinner at that.
It’s not often that all the guests are praying for botulism, so that they may excuse themselves.
Infidel Tiger
5 Feb 10 at 12:59 pm
“Master Researcher”
When was the last time you were published?
“who argued that the privatization was a complete success”
I don’t believe I was ever that egregious.
“without once reading any academic literature on the topic”
So you judge the success of economic policy on what you read in management and accounting journals?
Now in 2010, have the firms spun off or were already in existed flourished or not?
Dolt.
Semi Regular Libertarian
5 Feb 10 at 1:04 pm
Marky you were arguing that privatisation was a great success. nonsense such as a private company making better use of the resources than public companies.
I pointed out it was usually competition in the sector that was more relevant.
If my memory serves me correctly Kay and some others found your belief to be wanting in this episode.
At least I look up to find out whether a company was a competitor or not!
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
5 Feb 10 at 1:11 pm
Perhaps someone can compile a list of all the books, articles and papers that Homer has recommended we read. Then we can evaluate the merits of his ‘educational’ strategy
jtfsoon
5 Feb 10 at 1:12 pm
Homer you cite Kay I cite the Journal of Economic Literature which has reviewed the research far more comprehensively
jtfsoon
5 Feb 10 at 1:13 pm
Yes for the most ignorant untalented person here (in every respect) he does suggest he’s well read.
A well read Homer…. LOL.
He’s read the 1919 budget papers 7 times.
JC
5 Feb 10 at 1:14 pm
“nonsense such as a private company making better use of the resources than public companies”
No, that’s not nonsense, look at private sector and public sector efficiency.
“I pointed out it was usually competition in the sector that was more relevant.”
Okay genius, how do you get competition?
“If my memory serves me correctly Kay and some others found your belief to be wanting in this episode.”
So what you’re saying is that BT should be renationalised and Vodafone should be nationalised?
Semi Regular Libertarian
5 Feb 10 at 1:15 pm
Holy cow it is Ground hog day again.
Mark if you had read ANY papers on the privatisation you would have found out this did not happen at all.
you do not get competition by privatizing a monopoly !
No I would have had more competition before privatising. Thatcher was more concerned with revenue gained than with competition in the sector but then you would know this if you have ever read anything on the subject.
statman have you found out yet why Gordon disagreed with Solow yet?
no didn’t think so.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
5 Feb 10 at 1:20 pm
“Mark if you had read ANY papers on the privatisation you would have found out this did not happen at all”
Yes I have but the statistic is from public sector economics research.
“you do not get competition by privatizing a monopoly !”
But you said that BT already had competitors. What is the problem? Nonetheless, do you believe the “shield of the State” doesn’t impose anti-competitive behaviour, implicitly or explicitly? There are benefits above mere competition anyway. It’s well known that the difficulties in regulating a “natural monopoly” (a stupid concept since you constantly say there was competition) outweigh the problems of natural monopoly.
“Thatcher was more concerned with revenue gained than with competition in the sector but then you would know this if you have ever read anything on the subject”
Who here has said that Governments act as angels with regard to privatisation – several have suggested that corporatisation and gifting shares may be a better, more honest way of privatising.
Semi Regular Libertarian
5 Feb 10 at 1:25 pm
no it isn’t.
No I didn’t say BT had competitors you did except yours wasn’t.
I wouldn’t privatise anything until you can get decent competition in the sector.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
5 Feb 10 at 1:30 pm
“No I didn’t say BT had competitors you did except yours wasn’t”
Someone call a nurse. The pethidine isn’t working. Or working too well.
“Vodaphone being a competitor for Brtish Telecom when it was privatised.”
Yes Homer that’s true. It’s even on wikipedia these days!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vodafone#Vodafone_Group
“Vodafone Group
In 1982 Racal Electronics plc’s subsidiary Racal Strategic Radio Ltd. won one of two UK cellular telephone network licences; the other going to British Telecom[10][11] The network, known as Racal Vodafone was 80% owned by Racal, with Millicom and the Hambros Technology Trust owning 15% and 5% respectively. Vodafone was launched on 1 January 1985.[12] Racal Strategic Radio was renamed Racal Telecommunications Group Limited in 1985.[11] On 29 December 1986, Racal Electronics bought out the minority shareholders of Vodafone for GB£110 million.[13]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_Group#Privatisation
“The privatisation took place in 1984, with the sale of 50.2% of the shares in the company (incorporated in 1984 as British Telecommunications plc) to the public in November.”
Feel free to disagree Homer as you are wheeled off in stocks to the loonie bin.
Semi Regular Libertarian
5 Feb 10 at 1:36 pm