In February 2009 Wayne Swan promised that 90,000 jobs would be created by the stimulus package over two years. We all remember how that worked out.
Now Wayne Swan is saying that 500,000 jobs is being forecast in the forthcoming budget – I have no doubt that the budget is forecasting 500,000 jobs, but why not a million jobs, two million? Talk is cheap – Swan’s talk is very cheap.
Of course Swan’s talk is cheap – the man has no money.
Louis Hissink
1 May 11 at 10:16 am
As Louis says of course Swan’s talk is cheap – it’s another example of Labor’s ‘look over there so you don’t look here’ side step
Might stop us looking at the size of the deficit
val majkus
1 May 11 at 10:50 am
What of all those green jobs that are / going to be created?
john malpas
1 May 11 at 11:02 am
I see those predictions are produced by Treasury modelling; maybe Treasury has got hold of those global warming computers which make everything go up at an alarming rate
val majkus
1 May 11 at 11:38 am
Does Swan nominate where these jobs might come from ?
Thought not.
And a $50 billion deficit ? I expected better from these profligates. They simply must try harder.
I wonder what the estimated impact on the bottom line would be to get 500000 off welfare and paying taxes ?
Sounds like a huge fudge.
No Worries
1 May 11 at 12:39 pm
Of course, all this talk from Swan reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the labour market. He is confusing the net change in the aggregate stock of employed persons with gross flows into and out of employment. Many more jobs are both created and destroyed in any one year than are reflected in the change in the stock. Already media outlets are starting to ask what government policies will be introduced to create all of these jobs, implying that welfare reform will do that, which is exactly what he wants. The private sector creates productive jobs NOT government. Beyond creating a stable policy environment, encouraging entrepreneurship and sound investment though ensuring relative prices are not too distorted and removing barriers to participation (which are mainly government created) there is little that a government can realistically do. Governments can do a lot to worsen the situation too.
Skuter
1 May 11 at 12:46 pm
Whoops, last sentence should read: Governments can do a lot to worsen the situation though…
Skuter
1 May 11 at 12:48 pm
Exactly Skuter.
It’s the flow of jobs which is important with due focus on the potential participation rate.
JC
1 May 11 at 12:58 pm
Actually, 500,000 over three years – I think that is what Swan said – is very modest indeed, representing just over 4 per cent increase on current employment. The predicted fall in unemployment will lower unemployment numbers by just 50,000 from the current 600,000 odd; and so the remaining 450,000 would be the result of the natural increase in the labour force arising from population growth and not necessarily an increased participation rate. It’s hard to see welfare to work really doing much heavy lifting in terms of numbers.
Judith Sloan
1 May 11 at 1:15 pm
Yes JC, flows are definitely what are important. Greater flows relative to shocks implies a more flexible labour market which allows society to cope better with structural change. Trouble is that nothing this mob of incompetents do seems to be targeting that. If anything, we are moving backwards at a rate of knots. Think unfair dismissals, appointments of economically illiterate lawyers/union hacks to Fair Work Australia, modern awards, raising EMTRs through introducing new means tests, etc. I haven’t crunched the numbers like Judith, but I thought the same thing – that 500,000 growth in the stock was fairly modest, particularly during a terms of trade boom…Judith is also correct that welfare to work will do little unless they are accompanied by measures to address labour demand and employer confidence…
Skuter
1 May 11 at 2:20 pm
Whoops again: …flows relative to stocks…
Skuter
1 May 11 at 2:23 pm
Skuter
the sad thing is that the Libs could skewer this revolting little humanoid (SwanDive) by explaining to people that what in fact he is saying is a downer for the economy that points to below average potential as it’s the flow of jobs and the participation (potential) we should be looking at.
They should be saying that SwanDive’s projections are absoltuely awful for an economy experiencing the best terms of trade is 150 years.
However I won’t hold my breath.
JC
1 May 11 at 2:42 pm
I’m laboring this to point just how dishonest leftwingers can be by further referencing Conrad’s link.
Even if we took Conrad’s dishonest estimate at face value and removed the interest expense that doesn’t apply on a proportional basis we would end up with the cost of the war being as follows.
we can estimate that total budget expenditure for 20 years are around 25% of GDP and therefore total (dollar) expenditure is $78 trillion for that period.
2.4 trllion/ 78 trillion = 3% of total government outgoings for 20 years.
The war effort should therefore only accumulate 3% of the total interest cost.
So working it all back and bulking up the cost of interest expense we end up with a fully costed (that includes proportional interest only) war effort for 20 years around $1.2 trillion. (Pved)
JC
1 May 11 at 2:57 pm
Indeed JC. The worst thing about Swan is not his incompetence but his outright dishonesty and either the inability or lack of will amongst the media to expose it.
Skuter
1 May 11 at 3:44 pm
There are honest leftwingers?????
Louis Hissink
1 May 11 at 5:16 pm
Whoops again: …flows relative to stocks…
The last NSW government was very good at job flows to relatives.
Rob
1 May 11 at 6:00 pm
That would be relational spending then
Louis Hissink
1 May 11 at 6:16 pm
Point taken Louis…
Skuter
1 May 11 at 9:46 pm