Do Labor even want office right now? Things are going from bad to worse with the economy:

- Massive falls in the east coast residential property market despite record low interest rates;
- Credit growth (the engine of the economy) tanking;
- Near zero real wages growth for almost the last seven years; therefore no bracket creep so the tax take also stalls;
- Household debt approaching 200% - so Australians spend twice as much as they earn. Clearly unsustainable in every sense of the word.

Whatever is ahead the economic indicators are really bad; no matter who is in office by the end of the year they're facing some really intense problems with building & construction, something that employs well over 10% of the nation. Bringing more migrants into a stalling economy will not fix it - but they'll probably do that anyway.

They want it more now than in 2013, why?
- The deficit has been resolved by others, again!
- Cost of living has been improved by others, again!
- Wages growth has been predicted to rise in 2019 and with the levels of employment improving to near pre-GFC levels its more likely than ever

200% household debt is NOT spend twice the amount they earn, its twice their asset vale. Two very different things.

- Aggressive migration was the tool used to avoid a post mining boom recession, successfully!

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

On your 2nd point, you want to start an ongoing debate on Govt using the democratic process taking policy to the people, twice on the same subject and doing what they said they would do in that electrol term, twice and in the end implement a tax system that standardised what was a BS tax system and rubber stamped by the ALP.

It isn’t a debate about the pros and cons of the GST; merely an illustration of how ‘flexible’ politicians can be and view things differently at various points in time.

Core and non-core promises.

- Wages growth has been predicted to rise in 2019 and with the levels of employment improving to near pre-GFC levels its more likely than ever

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Every year since 2013 the RBA has been predicting a "wages break-out" and every single year they're been proven wrong:



Next year will not be any different; wages will fail to keep pace with inflation making it the eighth year in a row of a wages recession for ordinary Aussies.

- Cost of living has been improved by others, again!

Also wrong. Do you ever do even the most basic Google search before you write these things? From The Guardian a few months ago:

The latest cost of living figures, released yesterday by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, reveal that while inflation might be just at the bottom of the Reserve Bank’s target range, the cost of living for most families is rising faster than are wages. With interest rates no longer falling and the cost of petrol rising sharply, in the past 12 months the average working household has seen its standard of living fall.

- Cost of living has been improved by others, again!

Also wrong. Do you ever do even the most basic Google search before you write these things? From The Guardian a few months ago:

The latest cost of living figures, released yesterday by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, reveal that while inflation might be just at the bottom of the Reserve Bank’s target range, the cost of living for most families is rising faster than are wages. With interest rates no longer falling and the cost of petrol rising sharply, in the past 12 months the average working household has seen its standard of living fall.

My bad!

For the record, my reference point was from the day of election going forward which is also around the time the govt will declare a balanced budget. Dropping power and rental costs with potential wage rises in 2019 should see the trend reversed.

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

On your 2nd point, you want to start an ongoing debate on Govt using the democratic process taking policy to the people, twice on the same subject and doing what they said they would do in that electrol term, twice and in the end implement a tax system that standardised what was a BS tax system and rubber stamped by the ALP.

It isn’t a debate about the pros and cons of the GST; merely an illustration of how ‘flexible’ politicians can be and view things differently at various points in time.

Core and non-core promises.

LNP stole the GST idea off Keating, it was always ALP's policy, they just didn't get around to implementing before being dumped as Keating had yet to sell it to the Unions. Howard solved the problem by placing control within the hands of the states, thus making it more difficult to raise which was the main opposition when first proposed.

I work on the basis that if one side implements a change and the other barely even touches it when given the chance despite being anti during the election, then its bi-partisan policy and therefore likely the right thing to do, which it was and is and Australia wasn't the first nor the last, the GCC states being the latest to implement a VAT/GST.

- Wages growth has been predicted to rise in 2019 and with the levels of employment improving to near pre-GFC levels its more likely than ever

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Every year since 2013 the RBA has been predicting a "wages break-out" and every single year they're been proven wrong:

Next year will not be any different; wages will fail to keep pace with inflation making it the eighth year in a row of a wages recession for ordinary Auss

ies.

Ahh Don, the master of single point trends. Your own data shows unsustainable 4% wages growth YoY.

Do this calculation for me, go back to 2003, then compare wages growth against inflation!


2019 was predicted in 2017 as the year there is more likely to be wages growth as the economy still had slack to absorb and allow sufficient time for the companies to devalue the excessive wages growth and other impacts such as rising dollar of the boom period.  A recession would have allowed this to occur very quickly, but without a recession and mass job losses, it took a number of years.

Canada had the recession to enable a rapid wages reduction post boom, http://behindthenumbers.ca/2017/05/26/slow-wage-growth-why-canada-needs-a-pay-raise/

This graph compared Canada with Australia Wages growth (I'm not sure if both Australia and Canada will be in the link, but you can do for yourself easy enough) You can see that Australia is now starting to rise having bottomed out in 2016 and 2017 with three rises since, time will tell if its sustained.

So no, NOT WRONG!

My bad!

For the record, my reference point was from the day of election going forward which is also around the time the govt will declare a balanced budget. Dropping power and rental costs with potential wage rises in 2019 should see the trend reversed.

Josh Frydenburg's balanced budget is entirely predicated on wages 'normalising'... which won't happen as per the graph I posted earlier up the page.

The LNP have no intention of turning around the debt or indeed doing anything at all - they're too busy trying to prevent their own implosion to bother with running the country.

...

This graph compared Canada with Australia Wages growth (I'm not sure if both Australia and Canada will be in the link, but you can do for yourself easy enough) You can see that Australia is now starting to rise having bottomed out in 2016 and 2017 with three rises since, time will tell if its sustained.

So no, NOT WRONG!

I'm not interested in any relevant comparisons to Canada, I'm not sure why you even dragged them into it - it's a similar sized economy but there's just no comparison in my opinion.

Where does the graph show 4% annual growth? The ABS places our official wages growth for 2018 at 2.3% but if you remove the public sector it falls well below 2% (around 1.8%), well below the current official rate of inflation. What are the drivers that will suddenly make wages break-out to more than 4%+? Unions are pretty much non-existent so there's nothing going to happen on the industrial front, we're importing 300,000 new Australians every year and have something 1.5 million 'guest' workers here so there's very little actual shortage of workers despite the official unemployment rate hovering around 5%.

Ever since Hawke we've been purposely engineering a system that crimped union power and made strike action pretty much illegal anyway - now they're desperately trying to find a way to increase them and can't.

So we go back to 2003 to make the stats look better, yeah sure,  what was was that thing about lies and statistics?

And  as what Don said, whats Canada got to do with it?

Ahh Don, the master of single point trends. Your own data shows unsustainable 4% wages growth YoY.

Do this calculation for me, go back to 2003, then compare wages growth against inflation!

It was measuring around 4% between 2005-2010 according to the chart I posted, so it was pretty stable for five years before starting to plunge. As Wobert says, why do you want me to go back to 2003, is that because it's the single-point trend you want me to look at? Sorry but it won't change the fact that the last seven years have been truly dreadful if you are an average Aussie worker - terrible - there's no question about it. There's no way that wages are going to break out any time soon - it's just not going to happen going into a recession.

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/commissioner-hayne-turns-treasurer-s-moment-in-the-spotlight-ice-cold-20190201-p50v75.html

My bad!

For the record, my reference point was from the day of election going forward which is also around the time the govt will declare a balanced budget. Dropping power and rental costs with potential wage rises in 2019 should see the trend reversed.

Josh Frydenburg's balanced budget is entirely predicated on wages 'normalising'... which won't happen as per the graph I posted earlier up the page.

The LNP have no intention of turning around the debt or indeed doing anything at all - they're too busy trying to prevent their own implosion to bother with running the country.

Entirely, no its not and the budget is improving ahead of time for more reasons that wages, which the data I showed you from trading economics had improved since late 2017.

Last May-Sept the budget went into a operating surplus, capital expenditure still being funded externally, more jobs, more royalities, small wage increases, more income tax and less welfare above the previous estimate were the drivers.

The LNP will go to the election with ONE thing up their sleeve that ALP cannot argue, they are the only Fed Party to produce a balanced budget since the late 80's.

Wrong, Shane. Josh Frydenburg's imaginary ten billion dollar surplus is all an illusion that will never be realised, as discussed further here.

Frydenburg is forecasting wages to break-out to almost four percent. How will that happen? Where are the drivers of the wages break-out that we are about to experience? Every single year since 2012 they've made the same prediction of a wages break-out and every single year since 2012 they've been wrong. What makes you think this is the year that they'll finally be right?

And this one line dismisses the theory that the Coalition are better economic managers than Labor - they aren't:

But it's worth noting that the Abbott government inherited a $159 billion debt from its predecessors. That's more than doubled during the Coalition's six years in power, now sitting at $352 billion.

Everything that you think about the LNP being competent, frugal economic managers is wrong; in many ways they're worse spendthrifts than the Labor Party.

I'm not interested in any relevant comparisons to Canada, I'm not sure why you even dragged them into it - it's a similar sized economy but there's just no comparison in my opinion.

Where does the graph show 4% annual growth? The ABS places our official wages growth for 2018 at 2.3% but if you remove the public sector it falls well below 2% (around 1.8%), well below the current official rate of inflation. What are the drivers that will suddenly make wages break-out to more than 4%+? Unions are pretty much non-existent so there's nothing going to happen on the industrial front, we're importing 300,000 new Australians every year and have something 1.5 million 'guest' workers here so there's very little actual shortage of workers despite the official unemployment rate hovering around 5%.

Ever since Hawke we've been purposely engineering a system that crimped union power and made strike action pretty much illegal anyway - now they're desperately trying to find a way to increase them and can't.

Not interested in to quote you "relevant Comparisons", seriously? You don't want to see comparisons with Australia from economies that are very similar to the Australia economy? Surely that's very narrow minded if doesn't suit your narrative?

YOUR graph showed the 4% YOY increases!

Removing the public sector during the period of 4% YOU increasing will show a much higher number.

Who said we will see 4% YOY increases again soon? I didn't.

Don, the purpose of my previous post was to demonstrate that 2003 (the year prior to the mining boom), wages in the private sector were in unsustainable growth rates to 2008 and again post GFC through to 2013 and by unsustainable I'm meaning above CPI. Commonsense dictates that if you keep paying more than CPI you are driving up the cost of doing business and you need an offset in reduced workers, increased productivity or brand loyalty or combination of all 3. What the Germans have achieved in enabling them to still make cars competitively in Germany.  

Without such an off-set, then sooner or later after a number of years of YOY wages growth above CPI to remain in business you MUST see wages deflation. Canada achieved this through use of a recession (why I posted that to quote you "relevant Comparsons" of Canada to Australia) and Australia is achieving by a prolonged period of wages stagnation.

Now if you can find another way of wages growth above inflation to be sustained and business to remain in business, then please share! Unfortunately Australia's worker productivity has not improved as you can see in the trend in trading economics, site. What I didn't mention above was lowering of $A would obviously be an external off-set as as basically you are paid in $US, the lower dollar has enabled some sectors to again start growing, ie mining or anything exporting.

I've said repeatedly over last few years, if your salary for doing the same job as you were doing in 2003 is above your 2003 income with CPI factored in, you should be worried about your job.

Now if you have any more "relevant Comparisons", please share.

Oh, why pick 2003, because 2003 was the end of a sustained "normal growth" period that went back nearly 10 years, ie wages rose mostly in proportion with CPI, there was no significant booms or busts.

Wrong, Shane. Josh Frydenburg's imaginary ten billion dollar surplus is all an illusion that will never be realised, as discussed further here.

Frydenburg is forecasting wages to break-out to almost four percent. How will that happen? Where are the drivers of the wages break-out that we are about to experience? Every single year since 2012 they've made the same prediction of a wages break-out and every single year since 2012 they've been wrong. What makes you think this is the year that they'll finally be right?

And this one line dismisses the theory that the Coalition are better economic managers than Labor - they aren't:

But it's worth noting that the Abbott government inherited a $159 billion debt from its predecessors. That's more than doubled during the Coalition's six years in power, now sitting at $352 billion.

Everything that you think about the LNP being competent, frugal economic managers is wrong; in many ways they're worse spendthrifts than the Labor Party.

That article is referring to longer term, I'm not, I'm talking about the NEXT election.

That article also argues how much the surplus will be, I'm simply stating it will be a surplus, not how much.


My point was and correctly quoted in your article,

"Mr Frydenberg has found himself in the fortunate position of being the first Treasurer in a decade to announce a surplus."

So despite saying I'm wrong at the start, which is obviously incorrect assumption on your part, you then go on to provide a direct quote from your source of what my point was actually about. So thanks for the confusing confirmation

EDIT: You FYI Don you pressed the wrong button on my post, you clicked "Disagree", when you actually provided evidence that you "Agree" with me.

My point was and correctly quoted in your article,

"Mr Frydenberg has found himself in the fortunate position of being the first Treasurer in a decade to announce a surplus."

Read it again, it's a forecast surplus.

I can do exactly the same thing with my personal household finances. I'm going to forecast that I win lotto tonight and therefore I can spend as much as I like. Jewelry, sports car... because I forecast that I'd win lotto. Despite the fact that I haven't won it before, ever.

Oops, didn't win lotto...

This is exactly the trick that Josh Frydenburg is playing on the Aussie public. He's relying on wildly optimistic forecasts that are not supported by historical fact. The RBA has been wrong 7 out of 7 times on wages forecasts since 2012 - why do they think suddenly they'll be right this time? And then he's declaring a surplus on the basis of that forecast - the same forecast that's been wrong every year since 2012.

It's irresponsible and just plain wrong, they know that their forecast surplus will never emerge. It's just to make barrackers like you think that they're doing a good job - which they're not.

You don't want to see comparisons with Australia from economies that are very similar to the Australia economy? Surely that's very narrow minded if doesn't suit your narrative?

Canada's economy and Australia's economy are not similar, not at all. I don't have time at the moment to unpack this but you need to stop comparing us to them, they are not a simile for our own situation.

My point was and correctly quoted in your article,

"Mr Frydenberg has found himself in the fortunate position of being the first Treasurer in a decade to announce a surplus."

Read it again, it's a forecast surplus.

I can do exactly the same thing with my personal household finances. I'm going to forecast that I win lotto tonight and therefore I can spend as much as I like. Jewelry, sports car... because I forecast that I'd win lotto. Despite the fact that I haven't won it before, ever.

Oops, didn't win lotto...

This is exactly the trick that Josh Frydenburg is playing on the Aussie public. He's relying on wildly optimistic forecasts that are not supported by historical fact. The RBA has been wrong 7 out of 7 times on wages forecasts since 2012 - why do they think suddenly they'll be right this time? And then he's declaring a surplus on the basis of that forecast - the same forecast that's been wrong every year since 2012.

It's irresponsible and just plain wrong, they know that their forecast surplus will never emerge. It's just to make barrackers like you think that they're doing a good job - which they're not.

Yep, I read it again, twice, with the context I stated previously which is ironically also the title of this thread, 2019 Federal Election. Not talking 2020, 2021 or whatever, we are talking 2019 Federal Election which most expect to be held around May 2019. Are we clear on that part?

So when I read that article for anything related to 2019 I see "Mr Frydenberg has found himself in the fortunate position of being the first Treasurer in a decade to announce a surplus". Now this is your article and that statement is no ifs or buts or maybe's/

Predictions into the 2020's I agree are all based on assumptions and usually optimistic assumptions at that if you read my comment in a thread about Vic borrowing in the NEWS section. But again I'm talking 2019 and in response to your earlier comment, they, the Fed LNP's will go to the election doing again what Labour has failed to do since the late 1980's, run a balanced budget. What happens beyond this, don't care, you were talking about the 2019 election and so was I. Are we clear on that part?

On the RBA bit, well unlike last few years, the trend is already there and wages have already started to rising increasing 2.3% annualized in last Qtr. Now before you pick on this, you yourself stated that its ok to take a one Qtr change and annualise it to be fact. However I used more than single point trends and there has been three improved quarters since late 2017.

You don't want to see comparisons with Australia from economies that are very similar to the Australia economy? Surely that's very narrow minded if doesn't suit your narrative?

Canada's economy and Australia's economy are not similar, not at all. I don't have time at the moment to unpack this but you need to stop comparing us to them, they are not a simile for our own situation.

Looking at any data in isolation is always a fools eran.

Canada is reknown for having the most aligned economy with Australia due to size of the country, % of different sectors of the economy, population, population growth etc etc. However we have very little trade between the two economies so that the performance of one doesn't directly impact on the other, unlike NZ which is basically a branch of the Australian economy and when Australia coughs, they sneeze.

You yourself said Canada is a "relevant comparison".

If you look at how the two economies performed from 2003 through the mining boom, GFC and the rebound mining boom, they were very similar, Australia surged ahead of Canada due to its larger mining boom influence. However both countries saw similar booms in wages however Canada faulted post 2nd mining boom and went into a short sharp recession and provided their correction, we didn't, partly due to higher immigration and the influence of the Sydney construction boom over the economy. In Canada this also happened but i think proportionally on a smaller scale % wise of the economy between Toronto and Vancouver.

So when I read that article for anything related to 2019 I see "Mr Frydenberg has found himself in the fortunate position of being the first Treasurer in a decade to announce a surplus". Now this is your article and that statement is no ifs or buts or maybe's/

He announces something that is yet to happen and you believe him? Moreover Treasurer Frydenburg announces a projected surplus on the basis of RBA predictions that have been wrong every year since 2012 and you still continue to believe him?

Wake up and smell the coffee, not even Josh Frydenburg believes his own press release; it's based on a forecast that has proven to be wrong for seven out of the last seven years.

On the RBA bit, well unlike last few years, the trend is already there and wages have already started to rising increasing 2.3% annualized in last Qtr. Now before you pick on this, you yourself stated that its ok to take a one Qtr change and annualise it to be fact.

I didn't say that at all, you're mis-quoting me. I said quarterly figures can show you where the annual figure is heading, not that you can annualise it into a fact.

And the fact remains that 2.3% is NOT 4%, which is what Josh Frydenburg has been using as their forecast for 2020.

You yourself said Canada is a "relevant comparison".

IN terms of population, yes. But in terms of the composition our economies - no. We don't have the same major trading partners, we don't have the same exports/imports. Pretty much nothing about our economies is the same.

So when I read that article for anything related to 2019 I see "Mr Frydenberg has found himself in the fortunate position of being the first Treasurer in a decade to announce a surplus". Now this is your article and that statement is no ifs or buts or maybe's/

He announces something that is yet to happen and you believe him? Moreover Treasurer Frydenburg announces a projected surplus on the basis of RBA predictions that have been wrong every year since 2012 and you still continue to believe him?

Wake up and smell the coffee, not even Josh Frydenburg believes his own press release; it's based on a forecast that has proven to be wrong for seven out of the last seven years.

On the RBA bit, well unlike last few years, the trend is already there and wages have already started to rising increasing 2.3% annualized in last Qtr. Now before you pick on this, you yourself stated that its ok to take a one Qtr change and annualise it to be fact.

I didn't say that at all, you're mis-quoting me. I said quarterly figures can show you where the annual figure is heading, not that you can annualise it into a fact.

And the fact remains that 2.3% is NOT 4%, which is what Josh Frydenburg has been using as their forecast for 2020.

You yourself said Canada is a "relevant comparison".

IN terms of population, yes. But in terms of the composition our economies - no. We don't have the same major trading partners, we don't have the same exports/imports. Pretty much nothing about our economies is the same.

No I don't believe him, I look at the data and the data is showing that by the time of election the LNP should be able to announce the budget is officially in the black.

You are annualising housing data into fact even when I said your "annualised data projection" will exceed the entire drop in prices in Perth for last 3 years in 2019. So its ok for this but not something else?

No, I don't believe wages growth will sustain 4% if it gets there at all. I expect it will increase to CPI having now dropped back to long-term CPI growth rates and with a low dollar to support ongoing export growth. However, the focus on this whole thing is the mid 2019 Fed Election, not forecasts which you are trying to drag this debate into to support your twist on events.

As I stated before, you supported and I state again one more time for you. The "relevant comparison" between Aust and Can economies is that they are relatively similar, ie agricultural, mining, tourism etc but ARE disconnected enough as we don't trade with each other and hence the economies are disconnected but still influenced by the same industries. ie a mining boom in Oz will also see a mining boom in Can, same with grain etc. So as you stated before, Canada is a "Relevant Comparison" to see how it could have been. I don't know why we need keep harping on about this when you stated yourself its Relevant.

Enough of this crap,
Back to your original post before all this distraction.
- Yes the ALP will want to take over the economy because alot of the hard work has been done for them, again! Even if the optimistic growth isn't there in coming years, the budget is pretty well at break even so the level of repair work required is limited.

It isn’t a debate about the pros and cons of the GST; merely an illustration of how ‘flexible’ politicians can be and view things differently at various points in time.

Core and non-core promises.

LNP stole the GST idea off Keating, it was always ALP's policy, they just didn't get around to implementing before being dumped as Keating had yet to sell it to the Unions. Howard solved the problem by placing control within the hands of the states, thus making it more difficult to raise which was the main opposition when first proposed.

I work on the basis that if one side implements a change and the other barely even touches it when given the chance despite being anti during the election, then its bi-partisan policy and therefore likely the right thing to do, which it was and is and Australia wasn't the first nor the last, the GCC states being the latest to implement a VAT/GST.

All this is irrelevant.  It doesn’t explain how John Howard went from ‘never ever!’ to implementing the GST.

The two-election possible scenario is an argument that can’t be lost. It isn’t unconstitutional and is an option available to the Government, much the same as going to an early election is (was). The LNP didn’t go to an early election because it knew it would lose but can now claim the moral high-ground by saying it wanted to go the full term.  If the LNP is still facing suicide by calling an election in May, it is an option that will be very much on the table. One reason it may not be taken up is, given the LNP’s minority status, it could trigger a successful no-confidence motion against the Government, but, once again, what will it have to lose. If it chooses not use the option, the LNP can deny it ever considered it, much the same as with the early election scenario.

Anyway for most of us it will happen if and when it happens. However for those on the periphery of politics it needs to be kept in mind. For example, if you’re a political journalist planning holidays, you wouldn’t consider November until after the election is called.

If the LNP is still facing suicide by calling an election in May, it is an option that will be very much on the table.

I honestly can't understand why a no-confidence motion hasn't already got up given how much of a minority the government really is, maybe it's an indication that the problems of our times have got them all stumped.