ACTU Economic Bulletin - October 2013
-
Upload
australian-unions -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
4
description
Transcript of ACTU Economic Bulletin - October 2013
ACTU Economic Bulletin - October 2013 – Page 1
Key points
Labour productivity growth in 2012-13 was the
strongest in a decade.
Australian workers generate an average of $US53
per hour they work, much higher than the OECD
average of $US46 per hour.
In 2012 and over the past five years, Australian
labour productivity has grown faster than
productivity in any G7 country, including the
United States. Australia’s growth has been more
than twice the OECD average.
Multifactor productivity has been stagnant,
though this has been the case for around a
decade.
Other commodity-exporting OECD countries have
also experienced falls in multifactor productivity,
suggesting that the increase in the capital stock
driven by the resources boom is the culprit.
After a few years of hysterical headlines, productivity
seems to have fallen off the front pages. That may be
because Australia’s productivity performance of late
has been quite strong. This edition of the ACTU
Economic Bulletin takes a look at Australia’s
productivity growth in recent years, including a
comparison of Australia with other advanced
economies. Most of the Bulletin focuses on labour
productivity, which is GDP per hour worked, but
some consideration is also given to other measures.
Before taking a look at the data, it’s worth recapping
the ACTU’s position regarding productivity growth.
We agree that true productivity growth is in the
interests of workers, as it provides the basis for
sustainable increases in average material living
standards. By ‘true’ productivity growth, we mean
growth that comes about through technical
innovation and an improved and expanded capital
stock, not through an increase in working hours
(measured or unmeasured), which is not productivity
growth at all. We have also consistently argued that
industrial relations legislation is not a primary driver
of productivity – instead, investment in skills and
infrastructure, as well as management quality and
innovation, are the key factors.
Productivity growth reached a low point during Work
Choices and has recovered since. We don’t claim that
the poor productivity performance of the mid-2000s
was caused by IR changes, nor that the subsequent
improvement is due to the repeal of Work Choices.
Rather, we say there are far bigger economic forces
at work affecting the rate of productivity growth, like
the mining boom, the investment in electricity
generation capacity, and droughts. On this point, our
view is shared by many economists.
Those business groups and media outlets making the
case that changes in IR laws explain changes in
productivity growth have never accounted for the
fact that the timing is all wrong. The rate of growth in
both labour and multi-factor productivity slowed
around the turn of the century. Work Choices didn’t
ACTU Economic Bulletin - October 2013 – Page 2
appear to help – the worst MFP growth was in 2008-
09, when those laws were in place, and that period
also saw the lowest two-year labour productivity
growth in a decade. Fair Work hasn’t hurt, with all
measures of productivity growth improving in recent
years. Of course, it’s theoretically possible that
growth would have been even weaker in the absence
of Work Choices, and would have been even stronger
without Fair Work. But that case has not been made.
Instead, weak productivity results have been
advanced as prima facie evidence that legislative
change is required. We’ve consistently argued that
the ‘productivity debate’ has been a shallow
sideshow, a (temporarily) convenient rationale for
the campaign against the Fair Work laws. This has
served as an unfortunate distraction from the real
productivity agenda, relating particularly to skills and
infrastructure.
We’ve also argued that although productivity growth
is a necessary part of any agenda to improve the
living standards of low- and middle-income workers,
it is not sufficient. Distribution, both between labour
and capital as well as between workers and
households, makes a difference and should not be
ignored.
Labour productivity growth in 2012-13
In 2012-13, labour productivity rose by 2.2%. This
was the fastest growth since 2001-02, and compares
to average annual growth over the decade to 2011-
12 of 1% per annum.
Figure 1, and some other charts in this Bulletin, label
the periods in which the Work Choices and Fair Work
legislation were in operation. Again, this doesn’t
amount to a claim that these pieces of legislation
caused the changes in the rate of productivity
growth. Instead, these labels are included to refute
the proposition, less often put in recent months, that
productivity has grown especially slowly during the
Fair Work Act’s operation. 2010-11 saw a fall in
labour productivity, largely due to the natural
disasters in Australia and our trading partners (Japan
and New Zealand) in early 2011 that temporarily
reduced economic output. Other than that, growth
has been strong for the past few years.
Figure 1: Labour productivity growth
Source: ABS 5204
Much the same story is apparent in the ‘market
sector’. This measure excludes industries with heavy
public sector involvement, where productivity is
more difficult to measure. Labour productivity in the
market sector rose by 2% in 2012-13, up from an
average over the previous decade of 1.5% per year.
The figures can be a little volatile, as is apparent in
Figure 1. Figure 2 looks at the market sector growth
rate over two-year periods, which smooths out this
volatility. Labour productivity in the market sector
rose by 5.5% in the past two financial years, the
fastest in a decade. While labour productivity growth
hasn’t reached the highs of the mid-to-late 1990s, it
has clearly picked up from the lows of the mid-2000s.
Work Choices
Fair Work
Act
-1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
1993 1998 2003 2008 2013
Per cent
ACTU Economic Bulletin - October 2013 – Page 3
Figure 2: Labour productivity growth in the market sector in rolling 2-year periods
Source: Calculations based on ABS 5204.
One of the reasons for the pick-up in growth appears
to be improved labour productivity in the mining and
utilities industries.
Figure 3: Labour productivity growth in selected industries
Source: ABS 5204. ‘All industries’ refers to gross value added in all industries. ‘Past 10 years’ is the compound annual growth rate between 2002-03 and 2012-13.
Over the past 10 years, productivity in mining has
fallen substantially, with output per hour worked in
mining barely half of what it was in 2003. Part of this
is due to a temporary effect of the boom – higher
commodity prices leads to the construction of new
resource projects. These projects use a lot of labour
while they’re under construction, but take a few
years before they start generating output. With
projects coming on-stream, this effect may be
starting to reverse. In the utilities industry,
investment in power generation capacity and
projects such as desalination plants uses up economic
inputs without generating a commensurate rise in
output, at least for a little while. Both industries
experienced strong productivity growth in 2012-13.
Note that part of the fall in productivity in mining is a
temporary effect, as discussed. But part of it is longer
lasting. While commodity prices are high, firms have
an incentive to mine deeper, lower quality, and/or
harder to extract resources, which require a greater
amount of labour and capital per unit extracted. This
tends to lower productivity in the industry relative to
its level in periods with lower commodity prices. This
effect, combined with the temporary fall while
projects are being constructed, accounts for a large
portion of the decline in productivity growth in the
2000s.1
The fastest productivity growth in the year was in the
financial and insurance services industry, followed by
administrative and support services. Productivity
grew in 11 industries, shrank in 8, and was
unchanged in arts and recreation services.
1 Views differ about the extent of the contribution of these
factors to the 2000s slowdown, but there appears to be agreement that they are important. See, for example, ACTU 2011; Eslake 2011; Dolman 2009; PC 2010; D’Arcy and Gustafsson 2012; Richardson and Denniss 2011.
Work Choices
Fair Work Act
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Per cent
-3.7%
6.5%
-6.2%
3.2%
1.2% 2.1%
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
Past 10 years Past year
CAGR
Electricity, gas, water and wasteservices
Mining
All industries
ACTU Economic Bulletin - October 2013 – Page 4
Figure 4: Labour productivity growth in 2012-13 by industry
Source: ABS 5204.
International comparisons
As a smaller economy, much of Australia’s
productivity growth depends on the application of
imported ideas and technology, like personal
computers. Viewing our growth rate in isolation can
therefore be somewhat deceptive – if productivity
growth slows down across the developed world, it
may also slow here for reasons unrelated to the
domestic economy.
In 2012, Australian workers produced goods and
services worth $US53 per hour they worked, on
average.2 Australia’s level of labour productivity
exceeds the OECD average of $US45.80 worth of
output per hour worked. Our labour productivity is
also higher than that of Canada, the UK, New
Zealand, Japan, and the Euro area.
2 These OECD figures convert national GDP to US dollars
using a 2012 Purchasing Power Parity ratio.
Figure 5: Labour productivity levels in 2012 in OECD countries
Source: OECD Stat. Expressed in US dollars converted at 2012 PPP ratios.
Figure 6: Australian labour productivity relative to other advanced economies
Source: Calculations based on OECD Stat. Productivity levels are expressed in US dollars converted at constant 2005 PPP levels.
Our productivity level in 2012 was the thirteenth
highest in the OECD. In the past couple of years, our
labour productivity has also grown faster than that of
many comparable nations. Figure 6 shows Australia’s
level of labour productivity as a proportion of the
level in the UK, US, New Zealand, and the G7
countries. Since 2010, Australia’s labour productivity
7.6%
7.0%
6.5%
5.7%
5.2%
4.2%
3.2%
2.2%
2.1%
1.2%
0.8%
0.0%
-0.1%
-0.1%
-0.5%
-0.9%
-1.3%
-2.2%
-3.5%
-4.4%
-5% 0% 5% 10%
Financial and insurance…
Administrative and support…
Electricity, gas, water and…
Rental, hiring and real…
Health care and social…
Public administration and…
Mining
Retail trade
All industries
Transport, postal and…
Construction
Arts and recreation services
Manufacturing
Professional, scientific and…
Wholesale trade
Education and training
Agriculture, forestry and…
Accommodation and food…
Other services
Information media and…
Per cent
$46
$53
$0 $20 $40 $60 $80
MexicoRussian Federation
ChileEstoniaPoland
HungaryKorea
TurkeyCzech Republic
IsraelPortugal
GreeceSlovak Republic
New ZealandSlovenia
JapanIceland
OECD TotalItaly
United KingdomFinland
SpainCanada
Euro areaAustralia
AustriaG7 countries
SwedenSwitzerland
GermanyFrance
DenmarkNetherlands
United StatesBelgiumIreland
LuxembourgNorway
GDP per hour worked in USD at PPP
Australia/ USA
Australia/G7
Australia/UK
Australia/NZ
80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
150%
160%
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
ACTU Economic Bulletin - October 2013 – Page 5
has risen relative to the level in each of those
comparators.
In 2012, the OECD’s statistics show that Australia
recorded 2.4% labour productivity growth, the equal
eighth highest in the OECD. This is higher than the
growth rate recorded in any G7 country, including the
United States, which grew by 0.5%. The OECD
average in 2012 was 0.4% growth.
Australia’s strong labour productivity growth in 2012
was not an aberration. Between 2007, the last pre-
crisis year, and 2012, Australia’s labour productivity
grew by a total of 6.8%, again higher than the growth
in any G7 country (including the US) and more than
double the OECD average of 3.2%.
Figure 7: Total labour productivity growth: 2007 to 2012
Source: Calculations based on OECD Stat.
It is somewhat uncommon for Australia’s labour
productivity growth to outpace that of the G7
industrialised countries, as shown in Figure 6. There
have been only three periods since 1970 in which
Australia’s average annual productivity growth rate
has outpaced the G7: 1995 to 2000, and the period
since 2007, as shown in Figure 8.
A few things stand out in Figure 8 in addition to
Australia’s relatively strong performance over the
past five years. First, the increase in labour
productivity growth seen in the mid-to-late 1990s
was also experienced in the US and other G7
countries. Second, a slowdown from that peak in the
early-to-mid 2000s was also experienced elsewhere.
Third, the slowdown in 2001-07 was larger in
Australia than in the G7 countries or the US (in large
part because of the mining related factors discussed
earlier).
Figure 8: Average annual labour productivity growth in Australia, the G7, & the US
Source: OECD Stat.
It should be clear from the evidence above that
Australia has not experienced a crisis of labour
productivity in recent years. Growth has picked up
from the lows of the mid-2000s, with growth in 2012-
13 the fastest in a decade. Over the past five years
our labour productivity growth has outpaced the G7
countries individually and collectively, and has grown
at more than double the OECD average.
3.2%
6.8%
-20% -10% 0% 10% 20%
LuxembourgGreeceFinland
IsraelBelgiumNorway
United KingdomItaly
NetherlandsSwitzerland
SloveniaMexicoTurkey
DenmarkFrance
GermanyCanadaSweden
Czech RepublicEuro area
New ZealandHungary
OECD-TotalAustriaIceland
G7Japan
United StatesAustralia
EstoniaPortugal
Slovak RepublicRussian Federation
SpainChile
PolandKorea
Ireland
Labour productivity growth 2007-2012
0 1 2 3
1970-1980
1980-1985
1985-1990
1990-1995
1995-2000
2001-2007
2007-2009
2009-2012
Compound annual growth rate (per cent)
Australia
G7
United States
ACTU Economic Bulletin - October 2013 – Page 6
Multifactor productivity
Labour productivity is measured as the quantity of
output per hour worked. This can rise either because
workers have more capital equipment to use in
production, or because firms and workers become
more efficient in the use of labour and capital
together. The first effect – the increase in capital per
worker - is called ‘capital deepening’ and the second
is ‘multifactor productivity’ (MFP).3
Australia’s labour productivity growth over the past
decade has come about due to capital deepening.
MFP has fallen a little. You can see in Figure 9 how
rapidly Australia’s capital stock has grown during the
mining boom period relative to GDP.
Figure 9: Capital ratios (Index: 1979-80=100)
Source: Calculations based on ABS 5204. Capital stock excludes livestock and orchards, dwellings, and ownership transfer costs.
This rise in the capital/output ratio means that capital
productivity has fallen sharply – it’s now around
three-quarters of its level in the mid-1990s, while
labour productivity is nearly 50% higher than it was in
1995. Multifactor productivity growth started falling
in the early 2000s, turned negative in 2004-05, and
has remained sluggish. It shrank by 0.5% in 2012-13,
3 We do not engage here, with the academic debates
concerning the theory of capital and their implications for productivity measurement.
after a rise of 0.8% the previous year. During the
period in which the Fair Work Act has been in
operation, MFP has shrunk by an average of 0.1% per
year. During the Work Choices period, it fell by an
average of 0.8% per year.
Figure 10: Three measures of productivity in the market sector (Index: 1995=100)
Source: Calculations based on ABS 5204.
Figure 11: Market sector MFP growth
Source: Calculations based on ABS 5204.
Again, this is not evidence that the Work Choices
legislation was responsible for poor productivity
performance – it merely demonstrates that the poor
MFP performance started long before the Fair Work
Act’s creation and reached a nadir under Work
Choices. Anyone recommending a return to Work
Choices-style industrial regulation as a solution for
Capital/ output ratio
Capital/ labour ratio
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013
Index 60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
Index
Multifactor productivity
Capital productivity
Labour productivity
Work Choices
Fair Work Act
-2%
-1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Per cent
ACTU Economic Bulletin - October 2013 – Page 7
sluggish MFP must account for the fact that growth
was worse in the mid-2000s than in recent years.
Australia’s MFP has fallen because we’ve seen a large
rise in our capital stock that hasn’t generated a
commensurate increase in output. This is, we
suggest, largely a consequence of the resources
boom. In fact, the fall in Australia’s MFP since 2000 is
of almost exactly the same magnitude as the fall in
Canada, New Zealand, and Chile – three other OECD
commodity exporters. Another major OECD
commodity exporter, Norway, has seen its MFP
decline by around twice as much. Figure 12 shows
the change in MFP in these countries, as well as the
United States, since 2000. The timing and magnitude
of the MFP decline is reasonably common across the
commodity exporting countries.
Figure 12: MFP in OECD commodity exporters & the US (Index: 2000=100)
Source: The Conference Board, Total Economy Database.
In fact, over the period 2000 to 2012, no OECD
country saw a rise in its terms of trade of 15% or
more and also experienced MFP growth. The rise in
the terms of trade serves as a rough proxy for the
extent of the commodity price shock experienced by
each country. Figure 13 plots this relationship.
Figure 13: Rise in terms of trade and MFP: 2000 to 2012
Source: Calculations based on The Conference Board, Total Economy Database and OECD National Accounts.
The fact that a decline in MFP was common to other
commodity-exporting advanced economies lends
weight to our suggestion that capital accumulation
driven by the mining boom, not industrial relations
change, has caused the stagnation in MFP over the
past decade.
The ABS hasn’t yet released its estimates of MFP
growth by industry for 2012-13. Its latest figures
show that 10 of the 16 market sector industries
experienced faster MFP growth during the
(incomplete) productivity growth cycle from 2007-08
to 2011-12 than they did in the mid-2000s. The
largest MFP fall was experienced in mining, followed
by utilities, for reasons outlined earlier.
The data don’t support claims that Australia’s labour
productivity growth has been poor in recent years, or
that MFP growth has been worse under the Fair Work
Act than under Work Choices.
Please send any comments, corrections, criticisms or
compliments to Matt Cowgill at
Australia
New Zealand
Canada
United States
Norway
Chile
85
90
95
100
105
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Index
Australia Canada Chile NZ
Norway
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
-30% -10% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90%
Change in terms of trade: 2000 to 2012
MFP growth 2000 to 2012
ACTU Economic Bulletin - October 2013 – Page 8
Employment and unemployment
The tables and charts below summarise the latest
available data about the Australian labour market.
Table 1: Summary of labour force figures
Level Monthly change
Year-ended change
Employed persons 11639200 1100 89200
- Full time employment 8094700 -27900 -59500
- Part time employment 3544500 28900 148700
Working age population 19059000 29500 338100
Employment-to-population ratio
61.1% -0.1 -0.6
Unemployment rate 5.7% 0 0.3
Unemployed persons 709300 9100 53500
Underemployment rate (quarterly)
7.80 0.4 0.7
Participation rate 64.8% 0 -0.4
Source: ABS 6202, seasonally adjusted.
Figure 14: Change in employment between Sept and Oct 2013
Source: ACTU calculations based on ABS 6202, seasonally adjusted.
Figure 15: Change in employment in the year to October
Source: ACTU calculations based on ABS 6202, seasonally adjusted.
Figure 16: Unemployment rate
Source: ABS 6202.
Figure 17: Unemployment rates by State/Territory
Source: ABS 6202, trend.
-26.6
27.5
0.8
-1.2
1.5 0.2
-27.9
28.9
1.1
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
Full time Part time Total
Thousands
Males Females Persons
-62.7
86.7
24.1
3.2
61.9 65.1
-59.5
148.7
89.2
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
Full time Part time Total
Thousands
Males Females Persons
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
Oct 03 Oct 05 Oct 07 Oct 09 Oct 11 Oct 13
Per cent
Seasonally adjusted Trend
4.4
4.5
5.3
5.8
5.8
5.9
6.6
8.2
4.1
4.2
4.0
5.1
5.5
6.1
5.6
7.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
ACT
WA
NT
NSW
Vic
Qld
SA
Tas
Per cent Oct 2012 Oct 2013
ACTU Economic Bulletin - October 2013 – Page 9
Figure 18: Employment to population ratio
Source: ABS 6202.
Figure 19: Participation rate
Source: ABS 6202.
Figure 20: Underemployment and unemployment rates
Source: ABS 6202, trend.
Figure 21: Employment growth in the year to August 2013
Source: ACTU calculations based on ABS 6202, trend.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
Oct 03 Oct 05 Oct 07 Oct 09 Oct 11 Oct 13
Per cent
Seasonally adjusted Trend
63.0
63.5
64.0
64.5
65.0
65.5
66.0
74.0
74.5
75.0
75.5
76.0
76.5
77.0
Oct 03 Oct 05 Oct 07 Oct 09 Oct 11 Oct 13
15+ (%) 15-64 (%)
15-64 (LHS) 15+ (RHS)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Aug 08 Aug 09 Aug 10 Aug 11 Aug 12 Aug 13
Per cent
Unemployment
Underemployment
-12.2%
-7.6%
-5.3%
-4.4%
-2.0%
-1.8%
-0.4%
-0.4%
0.1%
0.4%
0.6%
1.7%
1.7%
2.0%
2.4%
3.9%
4.3%
5.0%
10.6%
-18% -13% -8% -3% 2% 7% 12%
Information Media and…
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing
Rental, Hiring and Real Estate…
Manufacturing
Mining
Administrative and Support Services
Education and Training
Arts and Recreation Services
Professional, Scientific and…
Financial and Insurance Services
Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste…
Retail Trade
Wholesale Trade
Health Care and Social Assistance
Accommodation and Food Services
Transport, Postal and Warehousing
Other Services
Construction
Public Administration and Safety
Yearly change in employment (%)
ACTU Economic Bulletin - October 2013 – Page 10
Output and productivity growth
Table 2: Summary of June quarter National Accounts
Level Quarterly
change
Year-ended change
Real gross domestic product (GDP)
376799 0.6% 2.6%
Real GDP per capita 16118 0.1% 0.9%
Labour productivity (total economy)
- 0.3% 1.8%
Labour productivity in the market sector
- 0.3% 2.2%
Terms of trade - 0.2% -4.8%
Wages share of income
53.9% 0.1 -0.1
Profits share of income
27.0% -0.1 -0.2
Source: ABS 5206.
Figure 22: Growth in real GDP per year
Source: ABS 5206 and ACTU calculations.
Figure 23: Annual growth in nominal unit labour costs
Source: ABS 5206 and ACTU calculations. Non-farm.
Figure 24: Annual growth in labour productivity (GDP per hour)
Source: ABS 5206.
Figure 25: Growth in output (gross value added) – year to June 2013
Source: ABS 5206.
20-year average,
3.4%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
Jun 03 Jun 05 Jun 07 Jun 09 Jun 11 Jun 13
Seasonally adjusted Trend
20-year average,
2.5%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
Jun 93 Jun 97 Jun 01 Jun 05 Jun 09 Jun 13
Seasonally adjusted Trend
-2%
-1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
Jun 03 Jun 05 Jun 07 Jun 09 Jun 11 Jun 13
Seasonally adjusted Trend
Work Choices
Fair Work Act
Year-ended growth
-4.9%
-3.2%
-0.7%
-0.5%
0.1%
0.3%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
1.4%
2.3%
2.3%
2.4%
3.1%
4.5%
5.0%
5.5%
7.7%
8.1%
-15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10%
Other services
Electricity, gas, water and…
Transport, postal and…
Agriculture, forestry and fishing
Professional, scientific and…
Accommodation and food…
Information media and…
Manufacturing
Construction
Wholesale trade
Rental, hiring and real estate…
Retail trade
Education and training
Arts and recreation services
Administrative and support…
Public administration and…
Health care and social…
Financial and insurance…
Mining
Annual GVA growth
ACTU Economic Bulletin - October 2013 – Page 11
Prices and wages
Table 3: Summary of prices and wages data
Latest
quarter Level
Year-ended change
Wage Price Index (WPI) June - 2.9%
Full-time average weekly ordinary time earnings (AWOTE)
May $1,421 5.3%
Real full-time AWOTE May $1,421 2.9%
Total average weekly earnings (AWE)
May $1,105 4.9%
National Minimum Wage per 38 hour week
From 1 July
$622.20 2.6%
Average wage increase in collective agreements
March - 4.5%
Headline CPI September - 2.2%
Trimmed mean (underlying CPI)
September - 2.3%
Employees’ cost of living (LCI)
September - 0.9%
Gender pay gap May 17.5% -0.1%
Source: ABS 6345, ABS 6302, FWC, DEEWR Trends in Federal Enterprise Bargaining, ABS 6401, ABS 6467, ACTU calculations.
Figure 26: Annual growth in the CPI and workers’ cost of living (Employee LCI)
Source: ABS 6467, ABS 6401.
Figure 27: Headline and underlying CPI inflation
Source: ABS 6401.
Figure 28: Wage Price Index growth
Source: ABS 6345.
Figure 29: WPI growth in the public and private sectors
Source: ABS 6345.
-1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
Sep 03 Sep 05 Sep 07 Sep 09 Sep 11 Sep 13
Underlying CPI
Employee LCI
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
Sep 03 Sep 05 Sep 07 Sep 09 Sep 11 Sep 13
Per cent
RBA's target band
Headline CPI
Underlying CPI
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
4.5%
Jun 98 Jun 03 Jun 08 Jun 13
Trend Seasonally adjusted
Long-run average
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
4.5%
5.0%
Jun 03 Jun 05 Jun 07 Jun 09 Jun 11 Jun 13
Private
Public
ACTU Economic Bulletin - October 2013 – Page 12
Figure 30: WPI growth in the year to June by industry
Source: ABS 6345.
Figure 31: Range of WPI growth rates across industries
Source: ABS 6345 and ACTU calculations. Based on a 5-quarter centred moving average.
Figure 32: WPI growth in the year to June by State
Source: ABS 6345.
Figure 33: Average weekly ordinary time earnings for full-time adults
Source: ABS 6302.
3.9%
3.5%
3.4%
3.3%
3.1%
3.1%
3.0%
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
2.8%
2.8%
2.7%
2.7%
2.6%
2.5%
0% 1% 2% 3% 4%
Electricity, gas, water and…
Mining
Health care and social…
Wholesale trade
Construction
Rental, hiring and real…
Other services
Australia
Public administration and…
Financial and insurance…
Information media and…
Arts and recreation services
Manufacturing
Transport, postal and…
Professional, scientific and…
Retail trade
Administrative and…
Accommodation and food…
Education and training
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
Jun 03 Jun 05 Jun 07 Jun 09 Jun 11 Jun 13
Range of growth rates in all industries
Australia
3.4%
3.3%
3.2%
3.0%
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
2.8%
2.8%
0% 1% 2% 3% 4%
WA
SA
NT
Victoria
Tas
ACT
ACT
NSW
Qld
$2,423.50
$1,706.60
$1,671.10
$1,645.30
$1,622.90
$1,499.00
$1,485.20
$1,436.00
$1,425.10
$1,420.90
$1,417.30
$1,354.10
$1,315.50
$1,303.80
$1,276.50
$1,251.40
$1,104.70
$1,049.80
$1,022.00
$0 $1,000 $2,000
Mining
Professional, Scientific…
Information Media and…
Financial and Insurance…
Electricity, Gas, Water…
Education and Training
Public Administration…
Construction
Transport, Postal and…
All Industries
Wholesale Trade
Health Care and Social…
Arts and Recreation…
Rental, Hiring and Real…
Administrative and…
Manufacturing
Other Services
Accommodation and…
Retail Trade