in the dixon book it states that increasing school retention rate is contributing to recent trends of increasing youth unemployment. This doesn't seem to make sense to me bacause aren't full time students excluded from the calculation of the labour force size? Therefore wouldn't this make increasing school retention irrelevant to increasing youth unemployment?
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
unemployment (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter chunder
- Start date
-=«MÄLÅÇhïtÊ»=-
Gender: MALE!!!
I think you're going into too much debt.
If you think of this mathematically
As you said, youth unemployment excludes ppl who are studying. So if retention increases, the youth labour force decreases. Number of people looking for work remain the same.
If u decrease the denominator and keep the numerator the same, then you're increasing the fraction.
so youth unemployment increases.
same effect for total unemployment, but to a much lesser extent
If you think of this mathematically
As you said, youth unemployment excludes ppl who are studying. So if retention increases, the youth labour force decreases. Number of people looking for work remain the same.
If u decrease the denominator and keep the numerator the same, then you're increasing the fraction.
so youth unemployment increases.
same effect for total unemployment, but to a much lesser extent
B
Bambul
Guest
If students staying on until year 12 would normally be unemployed, then the youth unemployment rate would decrese (because unemployed youths are leaving the workforce). If however students staying on until year 12 would otherwise have had jobs, then the youth unemployment rate would increase (because you are taking employed youths out of the workforce).
As an educated guess, I would say that the latter sounds more correct, but I could be wrong.
As an educated guess, I would say that the latter sounds more correct, but I could be wrong.
Supaneo
Member
My assessment task has just arrived...
"Unemployment - is a 5% unemployment rate realistic for Australia"
Can anyone suggest any ideas or wish to send me any of their essays or reports on mainly 'unemployment'..
Minai?
Tahnks
"Unemployment - is a 5% unemployment rate realistic for Australia"
Can anyone suggest any ideas or wish to send me any of their essays or reports on mainly 'unemployment'..
Minai?
Tahnks
Mmmm, I think my textbook says ~6% is the natural rate. Anything below the natural rate either won't last, or it will contribute to inflation. So my guess would be, no, not realistic ?
Include graphs, they're cool and space-taking. There is a graph to determine the natural rate of unemployment, and also the phillips curve which shows that decreases in emplyment = increases in inflation and vice versa (theoretically anyway, not always right)
Include graphs, they're cool and space-taking. There is a graph to determine the natural rate of unemployment, and also the phillips curve which shows that decreases in emplyment = increases in inflation and vice versa (theoretically anyway, not always right)
Yeah as ellipsis said, there are trade offs by either focusing on low unemployment or low inflation (phillips curve). So it all depends whether the government can afford to be able to reduce unemployment to the 5% levels while their monetary policy restricts inflationary pressures (and the gov't has been pretty successful in achieving this of late, since its around the 6% level)
B
Bambul
Guest
The natural rate is equal to the structural rate plus the frictional rate. Neither of these two will be reduced in the long run by increasing aggregate demand, or so goes the theory anyway (and despite my opposition to it, it is quite accurate).
So in order to reduce the natural rate you can reduce:
1. Frictional unemployment - reduce the amount of time workers spend looking for a new job. The government did some reforms in the mid to late 90's to do this (replacing CES with Centrelink and a "privatised" job network) though I'm not sure on its effects. Internet job ads have helped to reduce it.
2. Structural unemployment - reduce the number of people who are not qualified for the jobs wanted by employers (so that if you increase AD there will not be any qualified job seekers to work in the job vacancies created). This is done through retraining schemes, higher funding for higer education, encouraging teenagers to stay on till the end of year 12 (plus go on to TAFE/uni/learn a trade if possible) and assisting wokers in gaining additional skills throughout their working life.
So in theory it is possible to have a natural rate that is very low as in the 50's and 60's when Australia had an unemployment rate of about 2%. Some think that the baby boomers reaching working age following this time was the reason for Australia having an unemployment rate of 5-10% over the 70's, 80's and 90's and that once they start exiting the workforce Australia will return to low unemployment rates. Which means that the biggest labour problem in the near future will be a shortages of labour, not a surplus labour.
For many of you, it means easy jobs!
For others, it means that your business will have trouble attracting and keeping good workers.
So in order to reduce the natural rate you can reduce:
1. Frictional unemployment - reduce the amount of time workers spend looking for a new job. The government did some reforms in the mid to late 90's to do this (replacing CES with Centrelink and a "privatised" job network) though I'm not sure on its effects. Internet job ads have helped to reduce it.
2. Structural unemployment - reduce the number of people who are not qualified for the jobs wanted by employers (so that if you increase AD there will not be any qualified job seekers to work in the job vacancies created). This is done through retraining schemes, higher funding for higer education, encouraging teenagers to stay on till the end of year 12 (plus go on to TAFE/uni/learn a trade if possible) and assisting wokers in gaining additional skills throughout their working life.
So in theory it is possible to have a natural rate that is very low as in the 50's and 60's when Australia had an unemployment rate of about 2%. Some think that the baby boomers reaching working age following this time was the reason for Australia having an unemployment rate of 5-10% over the 70's, 80's and 90's and that once they start exiting the workforce Australia will return to low unemployment rates. Which means that the biggest labour problem in the near future will be a shortages of labour, not a surplus labour.
For many of you, it means easy jobs!
For others, it means that your business will have trouble attracting and keeping good workers.