Labour’s alternative budget

I suppose that this was Labour’s alternative budget.  They’ve taken the policy documents they’ve put together recently and stuck them together in a blog post.  Fair enough, it is a good idea to put together policy documents so why not – I really like the idea of detailed policy documents by the opposition as well, so good work on that!

As a result, I don’t have much to say about it (the monetary policy has been discussed here and here – I should look into the others at some point and do posts), I summed up my view on Twitter:

However, there is one bit that gets on my wick a bit, it did for the ACT release as well – this rubbish about targeting an “unemployment rate”.  The government doesn’t really “set” the unemployment rate.  People go into and leave work all the time, and sometimes there is a bit of a skill mismatch which implies people have to train and/or change the wage they are demanding – given this we will always see some ‘unemployment’ in a changing economy, but it isn’t bad.

What is bad is when people are excluding from the labour market for prolonged periods of time (either because of structural barriers, a prolonged cyclical slowdown, or rapid change).  Long-term unemployment is concerning, and is something we may want to include policy about.  And considering the integration of education, training, and the workplace is a useful thing.  But this sort of stuff:

Is empty platitudes.  Note, if the government does try to “lift demand” to get people working – this will just force the RBNZ to lift interest rates.  So either Labour is saying they will “magically” make matching in the labour market work more efficiently, or they are just saying words for the sake of saying words.

Given there is nothing in their write up that suggests how they will achieve lower unemployment than National, and given that estimates suggest the clearing UR is just under 5%, having unemployment at 3.5% actually suggests there is something wrong in the economy, and that the situation is a mixture of unsustainable and inefficient (in terms of workers and employers having trouble “matching”).  Economists believe that some unemployment is good, not because we are trying to suppress the masses by keeping a pool of surplus labour, but because these rates represent a labour market when people are actively trying to, and interested in, changing jobs.

Now this actually can be a pretty complicated thing to work through (eg this rate may actually be different from the 5% I’ve discussed above, or the matching failures might be something we can inherently deal with), and ‘unemployment’ is a justifiably loaded term – which is why my preference is NOT targeting the unemployment rate, but in targeting long-term unemployment and poverty … the areas where we actually can articulate clear perceived failures and injustice.

And here is what surprises me.  Our main left part has nothing to say about social policy and poverty, but plenty to say about subsidising exporters and other industrial subsides … very interesting.

6 replies
  1. Sam Murray
    Sam Murray says:

    That will be the influence of the ubiquitous communication professional. Just like in the Act Budget. I imagine the conversation would have gone like this:

    Comms 1: We need a tagline for our budget.
    Policy: Well we have a real focus on industrial policy that should help our exporters and strengthen the economy in the long term.
    Comms 2: Yea that is real boring.
    Comms 1: Not catchy at all.
    Comms 2: Wait, industry employs workers so therefore unemployment will be lower under Labour, boom!
    Policy: Well hopefully, but of course that would be an indirect effect so we can’t…
    Comms 1: I like it lower unemployment. What is unemployment projected to be under National?
    Policy: 5 percent, but we really can’t…
    Comms 1: Perfect so we go with 4 percent.
    Policy: You can’t quantify indirect effects like, it is a meaningless….
    Comms 2: Sounds like we have consensus.
    Comms 1: 4 percent unemployment under Labour, I like it.

    • Matt Nolan
      Matt Nolan says:

      Haha, that is exactly it – then the comms people likely wonder why they get policy people in in the first place 😉

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] the Labour and Greens alternative budgets were focused on industrial subsides (the “Green energy […]

  2. […] post.)Matt has covered off alternative-budget, election-manifesto announcements from ACT, Labour, and the Greens. It would say that ACT fails on Point 3, and Labour on Point 2. I fully expect […]

  3. […] the Labour and Greens alternative budgets were focused on industrial subsides (the “Green energy […]

  4. […] Matt Nolan I suppose that this was Labour’s alternative budget. They’ve taken the policy documents […]

Comments are closed.