We have prepared six shareable infographics based on material in our research paper, "Jobs and Growth... and a Few Hard Numbers," which compared Australia's economic performance under the respective postwar Prime Ministers.

Voters typically rank economic issues among their top concerns.  And campaigning politicians regularly make bold (but vague) pronouncements regarding their competence and credibility as “economic managers.”  In popular discourse, economic “competence” is commonly equated with being “business-friendly.”

In this briefing paper Jim Stanford digs beneath vague claims about economic competence and friendliness to business, and considers more concrete indicators of economic progress. The paper asks: is there any correlation between the policy outlook of those respective governments, and in particular its “business credentials,” and Australia’s real economic progress?

A new report from the Australia Institute shows that on a range of measures, the performance under the current government has been worse than that under Gillard, write Greg Jericho.

You can read the full article at The Guardian here.

Jim Stanford talks to Fran Kelly about the Centre for Future Work's new report 'Manufacturing (still) matters' on Radio National Breakfast.

Why the decline of Australian manufacturing is NOT inevitable, and what Government can do about it. 

The insecure nature of work in Australia today can be illustrated through the following infographic (based on 2015 data published by the ABS). Australia has over 19 million residents of working age (which the ABS defines as anyone over 15). Of those, 12.5 million “participated” in the labour market (by working or actively seeking it). Participation has declined in recent years, in large part because of poor job prospects; that’s a turnaround from earlier decades when participation (especially by women) increased steadily.

By giving a small number of relatively well-off Australians a tax cut the Treasurer has undermined revenue and helped contribute to inequality, writes Jim Stanford.

By Jim Stanford, May 2 2016

In the lead-up to tomorrow’s pre-election Commonwealth budget, much has been written about the need to quickly eliminate the government’s deficit, and reduce its accumulated debt.  The standard shibboleths are being liberally invoked: government must face hard truths and learn to live within its means; government must balance its budget (just like households do); debt-raters will punish us for our profligacy; and more.  Pumping up fear of government debt is always an essential step in preparing the public to accept cutbacks in essential public services.   And with Australians heading to the polls, the tough-love imagery serves another function: instilling fear that a change in government, at such a fragile time, would threaten the “stability” of Australia’s economy.

by Jim Stanford, April 5 2016

The latest “big idea” on tax policy from the Coalition government is to grant independent income tax powers to the states.  This would be accompanied by a devolution of funding responsibility for big-ticket services like health care, hospitals, and schools.  Prime Minister Turnbull argues that forcing state governments to raise the money they spend will lead to more accountability and efficiency in public service delivery.  And it’s a politically convenient response to the demands from states for more revenues: “If you need it so much, go out and raise it yourself.”