JobSeeker and the $50 ‘bonus’

jobseeker-unemployment
Contrary to popular opinion, almost half the people in this study relied on NewStart (now JobSeeker) for less than a year. Graphic courtesy of Wes Mountain and The Conversation.

You know how it goes. You’ve finished ferrying 16 items down the checkout conveyor and the assistant says: $142.99 – cash or card?

“How do the poor people get by?” I ask of no-one in particular.

Later, I went to the butcher ($47) and the organic fruit and vegetable shop ($56), all up $245.

She Who Pays the Bills said: “But we only needed a few things”.

Now if we were on unemployment benefit, such profligacy would leave us with just $375 to cover the next 13 days (rent, bills, fuel and more groceries).

It is timely to write about the cost of living, and how the reality appears quite different to the official inflation rate (1.2% in December). The Federal Government’s superficially successful $100 billion wage subsidy programme (JobKeeper), ends on Monday. Businesses that claimed JobKeeper passed on the subsidy to people they employed, regardless of how turnover and profit was tracking through the year that the programme was in place.

The last day of March also signals an end to the scaled-down Covid-19 supplement paid through JobSeeker. In the first few months of its origins, JobSeeker initially doubled the benefits paid to unemployed people.

JobSeeker, which replaced NewStart and associated benefits from March 21, 2020, introduced three levels of supplements paid through the first year of the Corona virus. From April 27 2020 to September 25, recipients were paid $550 extra a fortnight. This was then reduced to $250 extra per fortnight until December 31, 2020. The final supplement of $150 a fortnight was paid from January 1 until it ends next week.

Welfare groups had long lobbied the government to raise the unemployment payment beyond the poverty level.

The government made much of its decision to raise the rate paid to those on JobSeeker by $50 a fortnight ($3.57 per day).

As of next week, welfare recipients will have to learn to live without the additional $150 a fortnight – reverting to $620 a fortnight, excluding other payments like rental assistance*.

Economist Ross Garnaut’s latest book proposes that successive Federal governments, in cahoots with the Reserve Bank, have deliberately kept unemployment high since the mid-1980s. He writes that governments  have ‘allowed’’ hundreds of thousands to languish in unemployment as a means of pursuing a policy to suppress wage growth and inflation.

Garnaut says this deliberate policy has ‘immiserated’ people.

He told ABC business reporter Gareth Hutchens that Australia should use its many resources to push the unemployment rate down to 3.5% by 2025. You may not remember, but unemployment was at this level or lower for decades between 1950 and 1975. This was an era when many Australians had permanent jobs in factories that made things.

Garnaut says the government and Reserve Bank have to stop guessing the level of ‘full employment’ (at which point the RBA starts lifting interest rates, as a means of combating inflation).

He says the budget deficits needed to sustain full employment should be funded directly or indirectly by the Reserve Bank. It is complex, but if you are interested, read more here.

The Conversation’s in-depth study of unemployment benefits busts a few myths. Research by a team drawn from the Brotherhood of St Lawrence, RMIT and ANU studied benefit payments between 2001 and 2016.

The premise of the report is that Australians receiving unemployment payments are often portrayed as “a relatively small group of people with personal or behavioural problems that stop them from getting a job.”

The research was conducted to challenge long-held perceptions of ‘us and them’.

One of the most startling conclusions clarifies myths about the long-term unemployed. The research found that nearly half of the Newstart population of 4.4 million (47%) received the payment for less than a year. Over two-thirds (68%), received it for less than two years. The study uncovered a concerning trend in the number of welfare payments suspended for not reporting income correctly or not meeting job-seeking targets.

Our study found rates of suspension increased dramatically over the study period, from 2% in 2001 to 11% to 2016.

Successive governments have increasingly sought to enforce this, leading to more uncertainty around the payment.

So, while the unemployed go forward living on a minimum $44 a day, how will things go with the end of JobKeeper, the flawed business subsidy scheme which kept 3.5 million people off the dole queue?

As business editor Ian Verrender noted in an analysis for the ABC, JobKeeper turned into a profit mill for businesses that boomed during the lockdown. Billions of taxpayers’ dollars were paid to wealthy businesses, without the mutual obligations associated with welfare. The only reason we know about this at all is the corporate regulator’s belated decision to force listed companies to disclose their taxpayer handouts in the December half corporate results.

Verrender, an investigative scribe, laments the lack of a public register of JobKeeper recipients – “despite the scheme being among the most ambitious (of its kind) in the world”.

But it is not just the blue chip public companies that scored a windfall; tens of thousands of private partnerships, sole traders, charities and small to medium-sized businesses also prospered.

Many of the heads of Australia’s biggest businesses feature in the timely release of the Top 250 Rich List by the Weekend Australian. I say timely because it suits my purposes to mock the rich. What else can you do when the 250 individuals named in this list are collectively worth  (in monetary terms- Ed.) $470 billion. As former journalist union chief Christopher Warren wrote in Crikey – that is equivalent to 25% of Australia’s GDP. Even the lower echelons on this list have a net worth of $450 million or more – $449 million more than the collective net worth of your average self-funded retiree couple..

Wish, the glossy magazine lift-out supported by full-page ads by Mercedes Benz, Cartier, Giorgio Armani and the like, is a supreme example of what The Australian calls ‘aspirational’ journalism.

For those on JobSeeker who aspire to getting best value from that extra $50 per fortnight, here’s a slow cooker recipe for lamb forequarters (large chops that are too tough for the barbeque). You can probably score a kilo for $15 or so. Buy 1.5 kilos each of onion, carrots, potatoes and the cheapest green vegetable (about $10 all up). Add a can of red kidney beans ($1.67) to flesh it out and cook the lot in a slow cooker while you are out applying for one of the 15 jobs a month needed to justify your welfare payment.

If you chucked in the right combo of herbs and garlic and made a gravy worthy of ‘Sir’ Paul (Kelly), the lamb will just fall off the bone and you’ll be eating this for days.

Buy an $8 bottle of red while you still can (he said, one eye on the coming of the cashless welfare card). Invite someone over (‘a loaf of bread would be great, thanks’).

Enjoy every casserole.

More reading

*Welfare payments quoted here are for single people, no dependants. Families obviously receive more.

Older Australians an economic burden

economic-time-bomb
Older Australians an economic time bomb

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s much-reported speech, where he referred to my cohort (the over-65s) as ‘an economic time bomb’, should not be seen as random.

The speech to the conservative think tank, the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia (CEDA), was deeply calculated. Frydenberg’s thesis is that older Australians should work longer and take up re-training to help facilitate a return to the work force, thus easing the country’s social security burden.

Frydenberg was immediately attacked by Seniors’ advocates who pointed out (for starters) that 25% of people on the government’s inadequate unemployment payment (NewStart) are aged 55 and over.

It came in a week when the ABC television debuted its much-hyped show, Australia Talks. The latter is based on a huge survey of 54,000 people, who were asked to prioritise their chief concerns.

The list of worries was headed by household debt, the cost of living and drug and alcohol abuse. Ninety percent of respondents answered they were ‘somewhat’ or very much’ concerned about the top three issues, with water (89%) and ageing population (87%) not far behind.

 

The Treasurer was interviewed the following day by 2GB radio shock jock Steve Price, who didn’t let him off too lightly:

Price: What do you say to our listeners – people like truckies, labourers and builders, all tradies, saying ‘look, we just can’t work past retirement age because physically our bodies are worn out’?

Frydenberg: Well, that is totally understandable and nobody is asking them to do that. What I am saying

Price: Well, we are pushing up the age of the pension.

Frydenberg: But what I am saying is that when it comes to that age that you referred to (67), that was legislated by the Labor Party back in 2009 and we haven’t said that we would change the retirement age, so we’ve been very clear about that.

Price: But it goes up to 67, right?

Frydenberg: It does. And again, the Labor Party legislated that in 2009.

Price: But you’re going to leave that there?

The Labor Government did introduce measures in 2009 to increase the pension age to 67 through gradual increases during the period July 2017 to July 2023. But the Abbott government’s 2014–15 Budget proposed to increase the pension age by six months every two years from 1 July 2025 until it reached 70.

Despite Prime Minister Scott Morrison shutting down speculation last year that the government was considering lifting the retirement age to 70, it was a Coalition policy and could resurface at any time.

Ian Henschke from National Seniors Australia said it was unfair to stigmatise older Australians.

“We should blame previous treasurers from 1980 who have stood by and watched this happen.

“Let’s deal with the facts, for example, that older Australians want to work more and longer but they are not getting the work they need.”

“When they do retrain, we know they are experiencing discrimination.”

 

Statistics support the government’s rhetoric that older people are indeed either staying in the workforce longer or making a comeback. The workforce participation for over-65s stands at 14.6%, up from 6% 20 years ago. It’s not hard to find the reason for that: a basket of goods from the supermarket costing $200 in 1999 will set you back $331 today.

There is lots of sage advice around for people nearing retirement age about how much money they will need to fund a comfortable retirement. There is less information around for those in advanced stages of not working anymore and trying to make their money last.

Moreover, factors well out of everyone’s control continue to move the goalposts, forcing retirees to come up with new and inventive game plans. Specifically I’m talking about the unsustainable investment returns available to retirees, who typically are advised to invest in no-risk strategies.

The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) advises that the ideal superannuation target for a single person on retirement is $545,000 (implying that a couple needs $1.09 million).

So how are we all doing then?

While half-watching the cheerfully superficial Australia Talks, I heard a butcher’s assistant confide that she had $45,000 in her super fund. She didn’t look old enough for this to be a worry yet, but let’s face it; you’d have to sell a shitload of sausages to reach that mythical half a million dollars.

Superannuation was supposed to be the panacea for older Australians not wanting to be a burden on the national pension scheme. But ASFA statistics tell a sobering story. While there are 16.1 million Australians with at least one superannuation account, one in three women and one in four men, across all ages, have no superannuation. So 25% of women and 13% of men are retiring with no superannuation, relying partially or substantially on the Age Pension for their retirement income.

Fair enough, the Age Pension is supposed to be a safety net for Australians who find themselves at 65+ and broke. But why doesn’t Josh Frydenberg shut down the loophole that allows a couple to earn about $75,000 per annum and/or have assets well over $2 million, and still be eligible for some benefits.

In case you had wondered, Australia is a long way down the list of countries which pays its retired citizens something close to a living wage. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), analysed data from 35 member countries and a number of other nations. Pensioners in the Netherlands, Turkey and Croatia receive more than 100% of a working wage when they retire (the right-hand end of the graph).

At the other end of the scale, pensioners in the United Kingdom receive just 29% of a working wage (compared with the OECD average of 63%

 

Pensions paid as a percentage of a working wage

economic-time-bomb
Age pensions a global economic time bomb

Image: OECD countries ranked by pensions as a percentage of a working wage. Australia is 12th from the left, paying 43%. Source OECD.

The OECD’s 2017 report Pensions in Australia noted that public spending on pensions is low and will remain low (currently 4% of GDP and projected to be 4% in 2050) as opposed to 9% and 10% for the OECD.  From this we can deduce the government’s future reliance on superannuation, including the government’s compulsory scheme and privately-funded superannuation accounts.

The old age income poverty rate in Australia is high, at 26%, compared to 13% across the OECD. This is partly related to the high prevalence of people taking superannuation funds as lump sums rather than annuities at retirement. These people, as any current affairs programme worth its spots will tell you, squander their money on travel, then risk falling into poverty if they outlive their assets. No doubt they will then sign on for our Age Pension (which costs the county $50 billion a year).

What, may I ask, is wrong with someone who has paid taxes for 45 years retiring on a combination of savings (super) and a part-pension from the government? Frankly, I’d have thought that paying $1 million+ in income tax through my working life would have been enough.

Nobody considered me a burden then, did they?

Further reading: https://bobwords.com.au/taking-an-interest-in-recessionary-economics/

.

 

Newstart or job-share?

dad-needs-job
https://flic.kr/p/5YepYQ Image by Dane Nielsen

There are times when I’m grateful my conventional working life is behind me and I can wait (patiently) for the next humble pension payment. My needs are small – I can sit on the front veranda with a cup of coffee made on our machine for about 15 cents, enjoy my banana toasty, share the crumbs with the birds and do the crossword. Some may call me a leaner, but I’ve done my share of lifting, mate.

Meanwhile, out there in the thrust and parry world of staying in work, where HR is a growth industry, workers are lobbying for their next short-term contract, working out how long their redundancy payment will last or (forgive me for thinking this), shafting a colleague so they can get a better-paid job. Some, who make life plans based on aforementioned contracts, find said agreements withdrawn without notice for budgetary reasons. Yep, the veranda is better.

For one thing, the pension is linked to wage increases, which is more than you can say for Newstart (Australia’s unemployment benefit), which is indexed to the CPI. The September indexation will be calculated at 0.18%, which, on the single/childless fortnightly rate, is less than $1.

Surveys have repeatedly told the government of the day that half the 700,000 Australians who rely on Newstart are living below the poverty line. A 2015 study found that on any given day there were fewer than 10 rental properties in Australia that were affordable for people on the allowance.

Australian Council of Social Services chief executive office Cassandra Goldie told New Matilda the Newstart payment ($527.60 per fortnight for singles without children), had not seen a real increase since the Keating years (1991-1996). The major parties seem disinclined to increase the allowance, even when prompted by the Business Council of Australia. In 2013 the Greens lobbied for a $50 per week increase but failed to find sufficient parliamentary support.

This is a shameful state of affairs, the iniquities of which were plainly stated by Asylum Seeker Resource Centre founder Kon Karapanagiotidis. He tweeted on a Q&A TV debate about welfare that what a politician could claim for one night for staying in Canberra for work was equivalent to an entire week on Newstart. The Conversation fact-checked this statement and found it to be fundamentally true.

It might not seem like much, but after September 20 (next Tuesday), Newstart recipients will lose the twice-yearly $105.80 “income support bonus” added by Labor as part of its “Spreading the Benefits of Boom” package. In 2013, the Coalition announced the bonus would be scrapped from a range of benefits as Labor had funded it through the minerals resource rent tax (which the Coalition has since abolished). The Palmer United Party agreed to the bonus being scrapped on the condition it stayed until after the (July 2016) election. So rather than increasing this egregiously low payment, the Coalition is (let’s use a Tele headline word here), slashing it an amount which for a single person on Newstart provided a choice between a bacon and egg burger, a subsidised prescription, a pot of beer or an escapist video to watch after the Saturday ritual of circling jobs in the newspaper that by Monday will have already gone.

The ABC reported yesterday that Australia’s unemployment rate had dropped from 5.7% to 5.6%, but the rate of part-time work remains at an all-time high.

Since December 2015 there are now 105,300 more persons working part-time, compared with a 21,500 decrease in those working full-time.

In this country, part-time employment is defined as people in employment who usually work less than 30 hours.

The Australian (owned by an expatriate billionaire well-known for expecting senior employees to work long hours for a fixed salary), wrote that part-time work was ‘good for the over-40s’.

Economist Jim Stanford of the Australian Institute’s Centre for Future Work told the ABC in July the proportion of Australians working part-time has now reached a record 31.9%.

“Australia’s part-time employment rate has surged 4 percentage points since the GFC (2007) and is now the third highest in the OECD,” he said.

There are a few questions we should be asking about part-time work, chiefly: can you live on part-time income? If you are working part-time, is it by choice, or is that all you could find? Inter alia, did you know if you are on Newstart, and have found a part-time job as dish pig at a local café, you can earn up to $104 per fortnight before the allowance is affected? Break out the wine cask.

Let’s just imagine life on Newstart (equivalent to a night’s claimable accommodation for a working politician, remember?)

You are a 40-something male that has been “let go” – the latest in a succession of jobs that did not work out. You’ve spent your payout and your second wife has booted you out. You spend all day in the public library job-hunting, playing Solitaire and scribbling calculations on how you can live on $263.80 a week. A mate has rented you his caravan down the end of the paddock for $140 a week. Bargain. That leaves $123.80 for food and petrol (did I mention the caravan is 16 kms from town?)

Meanwhile, the rego is due, there was a letter in the mail with a photograph of you doing 122 kms in a 110 kms zone and then there is the dentist, who reckons you need two crowns and two root canal treatments.

You buy a packet of Panadol max and wash a couple down with the last lukewarm stubbie in the 20-year-old caravan fridge. Life’s great, isn’t it?

Australian society seems sharply divided between those who’d feel sorry for this fictional fellow’s plight and donate money to Lifeline and the hard-liners who’d say he’s a leaner who brought it all on himself (and how come he can afford beer?)

We need, if I may use a corporate weasel-word, a new paradigm. A UK think tank, the New Economics Foundation, proposed a utopian scenario for Europe that envisaged a society where those who can work are engaged for 20 hours a week. Anna Coote of NEF said there would be more jobs to go around, energy-hungry consumption would be curbed and workers could spend more time with their families. The model already exists in Germany and the Netherlands, the latter topping the OECD chart for part-time work. Coote mused about the rationale around jobs and growth and whether aiming to boost (insert country of choice) GDP growth rate should be a government’s first priority.

“There’s a great disequilibrium between people who have got too much paid work and those who have got too little or none.”

The Guardian’s Heather Stewart cited Keynesian economist Robert Skidelsky, who co-wrote a book with his son Edward: “How Much Is Enough?’ Skidelsky said the ‘civilised’ solution to technological change and fewer jobs is work-sharing and a legislated maximum working week.

There’s much need for a quantum shift/new paradigm, with youth unemployment at 13.2% in the UK and between 25% and 50% in seven Eurozone.countries.

It would not take much imagination to export these Eurozone ideas to Oceania (where youth unemployment is running at 13.5%).

Unhappily, Canberra’s politicians seem entirely lacking in imagination and worse, bereft of social conscience.

All 225 Federal politicians and Senators should think about this social issue on September 20, particularly if they are claiming overnight accommodation. Do claimable expenses run to the mini bar?