# Australian Employment Stats



## pixel (14 April 2016)

Every month, the ABS publishes Employment data with various trend, change, and other related information. I could not find an ASF topic dedicated to discuss those figures in a broader economic context. 
If anyone is interested, please join in.

Today's data for the month of March can be found at -
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6202.0

What I find interesting:







> Employment increased 7,700 to 11,910,000.
> Unemployment decreased 2,800 to 729,600.
> Unemployment rate remained steady at 5.8%.
> Participation rate remained steady at 65.0%.
> Monthly hours worked in all jobs decreased 1.8 million hours to 1,643.7 million hours.



Specifically: Number of jobs went up a little, but hours worked declined. That means the quality of work and employees' take-home pay must have deteriorated. Good for business in the short-term, but what does it do for the average family's ability to pay bills and keep up spending?


----------



## ukulele (14 April 2016)

Hi Pixel thanks for starting up this thread.  

I traded the news in this instance; expecting a bullish response for the AUDUSD. Initially it was a bullish response but quickly traded to where it was before the announcement. I broke even in this case, a 0.39 profit lol. Your explanation tells me why: on the top level it seems like a good result but once you get into the nitty gritty it's just ok. I do however think that no interest rate cuts are on the table within the foreseeable future. 

I am starting to see a trend here and around the world that jobs are becoming less and less full time with more and more jobs becoming part time and contract based. As evidenced by the reduction in monthly hours worked. 

Can someone confirm the current statistic on being "employed"? If you work XX hours within the month you are considered "employed" in regards to the top level statistic; but the reality is quite different. I think they changed this definition within the last 6 months.


----------



## qldfrog (14 April 2016)

from memory you are employed if you worked one hour or more a week...if someone can confirm; these results are not great at all....


----------



## sydboy007 (20 April 2016)

pixel said:


> What I find interesting:
> Specifically: Number of jobs went up a little, but hours worked declined. That means the quality of work and employees' take-home pay must have deteriorated. Good for business in the short-term, but what does it do for the average family's ability to pay bills and keep up spending?




Compared to to 12 months ago the hours worked was down 2.5 hours per worker.  Think nearly 12 million workers by $45 and the loss of income really starts to add up.

Considering we're now in our 6th year of real national disposable income falling, the ability of households to continue to support some of the highest property prices in the world is getting rather stressful.


----------



## pixel (20 April 2016)

qldfrog said:


> from memory you are employed if you worked one hour or more a week...if someone can confirm; these results are not great at all....



I think it was an Monday's Q&A that a member of the panel quoted *one hour a month* means you're no longer unemployed. 
That may be okay if you're a Company Director and rake in ten Grand an hour. But that's not the norm.


----------



## cynic (20 April 2016)

pixel said:


> I think it was an Monday's Q&A that a member of the panel quoted *one hour a month* means you're no longer unemployed.
> That may be okay if you're a Company Director and rake in ten Grand an hour. But that's not the norm.




It may also be worth noting that unpaid work (i.e. voluntary) is also counted as employment.


----------



## luutzu (20 April 2016)

cynic said:


> It may also be worth noting that unpaid work (i.e. voluntary) is also counted as employment.




Not sure about how we define it here, but the US define those who give up on finding work as not unemployed. They're not employed, lost hope of finding work... but they are not unemployed?

I guess that's part of the reason the GFC is call the Great Recession instead of the Great Depression (Part 2). When so many are depressed and gave up, well they aren't part of the stats anymore.


----------



## sptrawler (20 April 2016)

sydboy007 said:


> Compared to to 12 months ago the hours worked was down 2.5 hours per worker.  Think nearly 12 million workers by $45 and the loss of income really starts to add up.
> 
> Considering we're now in our 6th year of real national disposable income falling, the ability of households to continue to support some of the highest property prices in the world is getting rather stressful.




Great to see you back syd, the property price bubble in Perth is well and truly burst, it is going down like a bag of strong smelling stuff.
The guy next door is in a flat spin, he has sub divided and is building on the back, now he is $hitting himself he is going to lose money. 
He is trying to cut costs, but the subbies are doing crap jobs, it is going to end up in tears, sad really. 
Everyone gets caught up in the euphoria of a never ending bubble.


----------



## luutzu (21 April 2016)

sptrawler said:


> Great to see you back syd, the property price bubble in Perth is well and truly burst, it is going down like a bag of strong smelling stuff.
> The guy next door is in a flat spin, he has sub divided and is building on the back, now he is $hitting himself he is going to lose money.
> He is trying to cut costs, but the subbies are doing crap jobs, it is going to end up in tears, sad really.
> Everyone gets caught up in the euphoria of a never ending bubble.




Buying opportunity for you soon, maybe? If you can't lend a helping hand to neighbour in need, what good are we right?


----------



## Joules MM1 (19 May 2016)

Peter Power ︎⚑ EIU ‏@PeterXPower 

#Aus labour force #TREND #ABS #ausbiz #auspol




Callam Pickering ‏@CallamPickering

The trend unemployment rate dips to 5.8 per cent on lower participation #ausbiz #auspol


----------



## sptrawler (19 May 2016)

Joules MM1 said:


> View attachment 66736
> 
> Peter Power ︎⚑ EIU ‏@PeterXPower
> 
> ...




Here come the baby boomers.


----------



## mullokintyre (15 July 2021)

from  Todays OZ


> Australia’s labour force data have smashed market estimates again.
> 
> The unemployment rate dived to 4.9% in June from 5.1% in May.
> 
> ...



The really good part about the above is that part time jobs fell and full time jobs leapt.
So, how long will it be before the RBA have to walk back their  no interrest rate rises till  late 2023?
The inflation expectations are being built in, and the banks will start pricing rates  as they see fit and basically take it out of the RBA hands.
Mick


----------



## mullokintyre (11 November 2021)

From ABC News

Todays announcement of a rise in the October unemployment rate to 5.2%  came as somewhat of a surprise after the September figures came in at 4.6%.

It was no surprise that economists got it wrong in that they expected at least 50,000 new Jobs rather than the 46,000 jobs  loss that was recorded by the ABS.
The surprise fort me is that the mainstream media take any notice whatsoever of the ABS figures.
The statisticians will tell you that their phone sampling methodology is correct, and it should give an accurate reflection of what is really happening.
We hear of businesses that cannot get workers - hospitality industry, the transport industry, construction to name a few.
And yet the figures say we lost 50,000 jobs in the month, despite so many businesses reopening.
What I suspect is happening, is that now that employees have gone off the various support structures provided to employees, some are just not going back to work at all. Some have quit their jobs in the expectation that they will be able to demand higher wages  in a labour market desperate for workers.
Time will tell.
Mick


----------



## rederob (11 November 2021)

mullokintyre said:


> What I suspect is happening, is that now that employees have gone off the various support structures provided to employees, some are just not going back to work at all. Some have quit their jobs in the expectation that they will be able to demand higher wages  in a labour market desperate for workers.



JobKeeper ended 6 months ago, so what other support structures held up employment levels afterwards?
Total hours worked was relatively unchanged, despite job losses, so either more overtime was worked or part time/casuals got more hours (or a combination).
Anecdotally, a relative went from full time work non-metro to casual with another employer in the city in October and her total hours worked remained the same.
Given the participation rate increased, more people are now looking for work, commensurate with online vacancy numbers being their highest since 2008:


October data could be an aberration, although with little change in total hours worked it certainly looks like something else is in play.


----------



## mullokintyre (11 November 2021)

rederob said:


> JobKeeper ended 6 months ago, so what other support structures held up employment levels afterwards?



My son who runs a pub had support for his staff during the latest lockdown in regional Vic.
It only ended when the lockdown ceased a few weeks ago.
Don't know if it was state or Federal.


rederob said:


> Total hours worked was relatively unchanged, despite job losses, so either more overtime was worked or part time/casuals got more hours (or a combination).
> Anecdotally, a relative went from full time work non-metro to casual with another employer in the city in October and her total hours worked remained the same.
> Given the participation rate increased, more people are now looking for work, commensurate with online vacancy numbers being their highest since 2008:



So more people are looking work, the online vacancy rate has gone up, one can only assume there is a significant lag between the ABS stats and reality. Or ic could also be that the methodology is flawed.


rederob said:


> View attachment 132723
> 
> October data could be an aberration, although with little change in total hours worked it certainly looks like something else is in play.


----------



## Belli (11 November 2021)

I assume you good people know the statistics measure was designed for the use of employers and not potential employees i.e. how many available bodies are there to fill positions.  Look at them from that perspective and it starts to make some sense.


----------



## rederob (11 November 2021)

mullokintyre said:


> My son who runs a pub had support for his staff during the latest lockdown in regional Vic.
> It only ended when the lockdown ceased a few weeks ago.



Victoria did account for the bulk of job losses and increases in unemployed.  On the other hand, Victoria also experienced a 15% increase in online vacancies.


mullokintyre said:


> So more people are looking work, the online vacancy rate has gone up, one can only assume there is a significant lag between the ABS stats and reality. Or ic could also be that the methodology is flawed.



The ABS data uses a snapshot from the week prior to contact while online vacancy figures are based on a total count for the same month, so there is usually a significant overlap.  However, in this case it is likely that the progressive easing of covid restrictions from the second week of October (compared to NSW 's earlier move) saw a good vacancy number for Victoria that the participation rate was unable to capture.


----------



## mullokintyre (17 March 2022)

From ABC News


> Australia's jobs market has continued to strengthen, with unemployment falling to an equal record low of 4 per cent.
> 
> Key points:​
> The unemployment rate is the equal lowest level it has been since the ABS monthly labour force survey started in 1978
> ...



So although we now have levels of unemployment so low it almost can be termed full employment, the hours worked per employee is still not back to pre covid levels.
Something is going to have to give here.
The pool of potential employees is getting smaller, the hours of work they are willing to engage is becoming less,  but the demand for employees is still there.
Wages are going to have to rise well above the levels of welfare for those at the bottom to  consider working more hours.
It may be that the levels of real inflation rather than the useless CPI figures may give them a push into the workforce.
these figures will also give the coalition something to crow about come election time.
Somehow I doubt it will be sufficient to save them
Mick


----------



## divs4ever (17 March 2022)

his best chance is that the ALP change leadership ( again ) in the election run up  , although i have no idea who the ALP would select if they replace Albo


----------



## mullokintyre (17 March 2022)

divs4ever said:


> his best chance is that the ALP change leadership ( again ) in the election run up  , although i have no idea who the ALP would select if they replace Albo



Why would they change leaders now?
He has a slightly higher approval rating than Scomo.
Thy have the same level of dissatisfaction.
Mick


----------



## mullokintyre (14 April 2022)

Ho hum the latest unemployment figures are out courtesy of the ABS. 


Net 18k new Jobs, unemployed people down by 12k, the - so where did these extra 6,000  employed people come from?
Underemployment went down by 0.2%. and yet the Unemployment rate stayed the same.
Must just mean more peole looking for work.
And yet there were 10 million less hours worked for the month
Were they migrants who stepped off the boat /plane and straight into a Job?
If you go back to the very first post  back in 2016 made by  Arty (RIP) in this thread, there are some interesting comparisons.



In six years since the above was posted, unemployment has gone down  from 5.8% to 4%, the participation rate has gone up by 1.5%, the number  of employed people has gone up by   1.5 million or around  12% , but the number of hours worked has only gone up  by about 10%.
So   the average worker is working 10% less hours than they did 6 years ago. Can we blame it all on COVID???
Mick


----------



## JohnDe (14 April 2022)

mullokintyre said:


> In six years since the above was posted, unemployment has gone down  from 5.8% to 4%, the participation rate has gone up by 1.5%, the number  of employed people has gone up by   1.5 million or around  12% , but the number of hours worked has only gone up  by about 10%.
> So   the average worker is working 10% less hours than they did 6 years ago. Can we blame it all on COVID???
> Mick




I wonder whether people are in a more relaxed frame of mind about work and income. Are some people working just enough hours to cover their expenses?

Starting to hear from local businesses about having difficulty getting staff, and having to operate with lower than normal hands on deck. Though I've had people looking for work approach me.

Yes, can we blame COVID?


----------

