No real surprise with the June jobs and unemployment data, with the seasonally adjusted data almost a mirror image of what happened in May.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that the unemployment rate edged up to 5.2%, as forecast by the market, while there was a 27,000 fall in employment as the number of full-time jobs fell 33,500 to 8.065 million, offset by a rise of 6600 in the number of part-time gigs (3.435 million).
Remember that in May employment rose 38,900, with 46,100 new full-time jobs reported and the loss of 7200 part-time jobs, so this fall only partially offset that rise.
The total number of people unemployed increased by 7200 people to 631,300 in June, the ABS reported, and the monthly aggregate hours worked showed a fall last month of 19.6 million hours to 1602.1 million hours. That was after a fall in May of 4.7 million hours to 1627 million hours.
The ABS said the participation rate dropped 0.2 percentage points to 65.2%, which continues the one blot on Labor’s jobs record — participation.
But the less volatile trend series showed employment increased to 11,517,600 — up 10,600 people — with the jobless rate steady at 5.1% and the participation rate also steady on 65.3%. Unemployment rose 1100 to 622,800. In trend terms, aggregate monthly hours worked fell 1.1 million hours to 1617.9 million hours.
Unusually, there was little deviation between the states — this was a very uniform month for the so-called patchwork economy. South Australia saw a jump in unemployment to 6.4%, a full 0.8 points, but that was on the back of a big lift in participation (in the face of the national trend). Queensland, conversely, saw a fall to 5.3%, but that was off a big fall in participation. WA similarly saw a drop to 3.5%, but that too was off a drop in participation.
The numbers might put some wind back in the sails of the “rate cut looms” crowd, but keep in mind the trend and how the rest of the year has played out so far.
Remember the days when the unemployment figures were determined by actually counting the unemployed, via the Commonwealth Employment Service.
For 30 or so years, ABS has used a vague guessing game to determine these figures.
For a time, the two systems ran in parallel, before the CES was directed to stop scaring the horses. Similarly, there are various ways that recently terminated/resigned employees can be treated, based on how accumulated leave is counted.
Where I am heading is that international comparisons and longer term trends have to be taken with a large dose of scepticism, because the methods of collecting the data varies so widely, as do the definitions of unemployment, participation rate, part time employment and so forth.
Just guessing, the margin of error (say, two standard deviations away from the mean) could result in figures such as the following:
This time (estimated average 5.2% unemployed and, say, SD of 0.3%):
National adult unemployment was estimated to lie within the range 4.9% to 5.5%.
CF Last month:
National adult unemployment was estimated to lie within the range 4.8% to 5.4%.
If my wild guess above is anywhere near the truth, then suggesting that today’s figure indicates a departure from last month’s in any meaningful way is a shakey statement at best.
JB makes a valid point but the fix that truly irks me is the criterion that working more than an hour a week means exclusion from the count.
The UK has the wrinkle of putting up to 50% of U/E on Disability (started by the old tories and expanded by the real Tory, Blaahh) and the US, as pointed out yesterday has, in its singular and individualistic way (as with electoral law being decided at the county level in Hogsfart, Iowa), a truly imaginative way with rubbery figures.
The comprehensive welfare states of the EU make any pretence at counting a fool’s errand and irrelevant, given that in the Hanseatic (oops) regions welfare wouldbe higher than wages and anyway, that’s the reason Gastarbeiter (are allowed to) exist.
John Bennetts wrote …… For 30 or so years, ABS has used a vague guessing game to determine these figures.
Wrong. They do a survey of a set number of people each quarter by ringing them up and asking questions. It is genuine and follows international best practice standards.
John also wrote Where I am heading is that international comparisons and longer term trends have to be taken with a large dose of scepticism, because the methods of collecting the data varies so widely
Wrong. International comparisons are valid because unemployment is calculated using the same principles across countries. That is where the “working more than an hour a week” problem comes from. It has to be like that because it is the same across different countries. As for the guff about welfare being higher in comment # 2 that is just silly. Unemployment info comes from a survey. You could crash Centrelink and stop paying the dole for a couple of months and it would not make a dot of difference to the unemployment figures.
Thanks, Phil Vee.
We all can be comfortable now, secure in the knowledge that unemployment figures are rock-solid, international standard approximations gathered by telephone calls to those who happen to have (landline?) phones, are at home to take the call and are happy to provide truthful answers to the nosy parker on the other end of the line.
Sure beats trending of counts of the real unemployed via the CES/Centrelink, whose statistics have been strangely shielded from view for three decades – or have I been looking under the wrong rock in search of them? Let’s not confuse the situation by using real data when there is International Standard Data to hand.
Yep, international standard, if ever I have seen it, spot on and without need for pesky statistical terms such as “Standard Deviation” or “Confidence Limits”.
5.2 percent.
That’s the number.
Bigger than 5.1 percent.
Or is it really? Isn’t that the real point of the article? Wouldn’t a statistician qualify his conclusion that unemployment has risen by use of a statement to the effect that there is a (say) 55 percent probability that unemployment has increased marginally during the period in question? Or are there no such things as sampling errors, false positives and false negatives in International Standards?
jb
Nothing you have said changes the fact they ring real people and ask them. They have sampling quotas for specific age groups and do it on a household basis calling back to speak to the age cohort they need.
I agree with you that the small change probably doesn’t represent any meaningful departure from previous numbers, but that is why they also publish a trend estimate and all the other qualifications that I don’t understand. I find your sort of denigration and abuse of a great Australian institution offensive. Your are simply wrong on the facts and whatever argument you have raised is based on sarcasm and a dismissal of any statistical data gathering as a waste of time; which kind of destroys your alternative suggestion.
The guy who runs the Poll Bludger blog here has written before about the insignificance of landline versus mobile phone usage in the collection of opinion poll surveys, and they use a smaller sample size than the Bureau of Stats.