John Howard is aiming for 2pc unemployment, why isn't he aiming for 0pc. Any unemployment is unacceptable.

Question

Working for a very large mining Co, I know that all mining Co's just want to rip everything out of the ground and not value add in any way in Australia. Everyone knows we can't compete on finished product but if all bauxite, iron ore, nickle ore etc was just value added to steel, aluminium etc, Our problem wouldn't be unemployment but employment and that's the sign of a booming economy. BHP is trying to find a way out of value adding at the Olympic Dam project and we only hear of the SA Gov't opposing them. Where's JH? China's long term plans are finished product, so we should be taking advantage of that and working with Chinese companies to establish steel mills, aluminium smelters etc. We have proven that we can be more than competitive in this area, so why hasnt either party done something about it. We would also be ensuring that these processes are done with much less impact on the environment.

Answer 1

actually i would like to see the "unemployables" put to work, frankly the 2% is not a real figure with more "unemployable" people shuffled onto the pension to make the figures look good.

my view is if people with serious mental handicaps can hold down a 5 day a week job anyone can it is a question of commitment and the will to better yourself.

agreed regards above but I think the real figure is closer to 8 or 9 percent if you take into consideration the unemployables.

the mining boom is great and driving the economy if howard was smart he would step in a open the path for more vaule addind/ job creation in all related areas agreed.

Answer 2

Because 0% unemployment (apart from being impossible) would be an economic disaster.

0% unemployment means that *no-one* is looking for a job. So where does that leave your boss if business is good and he needs more staff?

A country has to have a pool of available labor. In a good market, that pool is small, and made up of people who spend very little time in it. You get fed up with your boss, quit, and within a few days start your new job. You were unemployed for just a few days - but you were still part of the "unemployed".

In a bad labor market, the pool is large, and more importantly, people spend longer in it. You're thus scared to quit when you get fed up, because you don't know when you'll get a new job.

Most economists feel that 3 - 4 % is an ideal size for this pool. Anything below 3 starts causing serious labor shortages, especially in labor intensive industries, and anything above 4 starts causing problems with people spending too long between jobs and having money troubles.

Howards saying 2% as a target because a) it sounds good to the workers and Unions, and b) he knows he'll never get there anyway so it doesn't matter.

Remember, at least 1% or so of the "unemployment" statistic aren't actively seeking work anyway - people who've quit or been fired and decided to take a break, people who're working under the table and claiming anyway, students who while they "say" they're looking for work have schedules that make work impractical.

Richard

Answer 3

Sorry but I can't believe that people still believe this unemployment figure. I know, for a fact, that people are not considered 'unemployed' if they work more than 1 hour per week. Try working 2 or 6 hours per week and being told that you don't count when it comes to Welfare or the Unemployment figure. Try feeding and keeping a roof over the heads of your loved ones when you scrape around for a bit of work here and there but still have to be available for interviews and scrutinising by Centrelink at their whim and will.

Answer 4

0% unemployment is not accomplishable, and would be bad for the economy. A rate of less than 3% is healthy, because it means there is adequtae fluidity and turnover in the labor market.

Answer 5

It's impossible to achieve 0% unemployment under democratic capitalism.

Answer 6

I do believe you have made some valid points