Unemployment And The Labour Force

Index

Unemployment for the Over 55's - 36

At the same time, the level of unemployment of people aged over 55 years also increased. In 1970, only 1% of the labour force over 55 years was unemployed. This rose to 6% in 1998. As industry transforms itself, and the use of computerised methods of production are adopted (another ''structural'' change) many employers believe older employees will not be able to cope with retraining. (Or they may argue along these lines … "Retraining is expensive, and Joe is 57 years old. He'll be retiring in a few years. It would be better to pay for Jill's retraining; she's only 35 years old, and will probably stay with the firm for the next twenty five years. The firm will get better value for its money from retraining Jill than Joe.") People in this group may be the first to be ''laid off'', unfairly.

Unemployment is becoming more difficult to improve for another reason. To be classified as a member of the ''long term'' unemployed, you must have been out of work for over 52 weeks. In 1970, only 6.5% of the total unemployed were classified as ''long term unemployed''. In fact, the average period of unemployment was only 7.3 weeks. In 1998, the average duration of unemployment was 55 weeks and 35% of the unemployed were classified as ''long term unemployed''.

At the same time, the number of hours worked per week by the employed has grown longer. Average hours worked have increased by 6% since 1989/90; and many people surveyed report that they are not being paid for these extra hours. Many of the employed feel they must work longer hours just to remain employed.

Many people are ''structurally unemployed''. For some of these people, there may be a job in another location they could adequately fill. The Australian workforce is not as ''mobile'' as the workforce in the United States. Should the government stop paying unemployment benefits to people who refuse to move? Should the government pay for the relocation costs of the long term unemployed?

Some people are structurally unemployed because of changes in the nature of production in the industries they are employed in. Some industries (like the textiles, clothing and footwear industries) are in long term decline as imports become a greater part of domestic consumption. We import many simply transformed manufactures from low wage cost nations in our region. We could say ''Let's put high tariffs (taxes) on these imports, so we can protect Australian jobs.'' But this really means that the rest of us will have to pay higher prices for many goods we consume. Why should the majority of Australians have to subsidise the lifestyle of a minority of people in semi-skilled employment?

Some commentators believe that retraining programs for the unemployed are the answer. It is also argued that the educational system should also provide young people with the skills that employers want. In Australia, Vocational Educational and Training schemes at senior secondary level are major initiatives of the government.