Tuesday, June 20, 2023

Cash could be almost gone in Australia in a decade – but like cheques, who’ll miss it?

Late last year, the Reserve Bank gave 1,000 Australians diaries and asked them to record every payment they made over the course of a week. Of the 13,000 payments, only 17 were with cheques.

It’s been an astounding collapse. Back in 1980 at the start of the credit card era, 85% of non-cash payments were made with cheques. Today it’s less than 0.1%.

Earlier this month, the government announced it was following New Zealand, Denmark, the Netherlands and others, closing our cheque system down by 2030.

Meanwhile, New Zealand is already on to the next thing. Having phased out cheques, it’s now looking at winding down the use of cash.

So how close is Australia now to becoming a cash-free nation?

The hidden costs of cheques and cash

Cheques are horrendously expensive to process. The average cost of everything that had to happen to process a cheque exceeds $5 per payment, mostly borne by banks.

But cash is expensive in its own way. The average cost of creating, sorting and trucking all those sheets of plastic and coins exceeds 50 cents per payment, mostly passed on to banks and retailers, and it is soaring as the number of payments plummets.

As recently as 2007, the vast bulk of consumer payments – 69% – were in cash. By 2019 only 27% were in cash. By 2022, after two years of COVID, it was only 13%.

At this rate, it’s hard to be certain how long cash will last.

What made cheques so slow and costly

For those who’ve never had to write one, cheques are bank-issued pieces of paper on which the owner writes the name of the person they want the bank to pay and the amount. They they hand it to that person, who then hands it to their bank, which then tries to get the money from the payer’s bank.

Behind the scenes, until recently when the electronic transmission of digital images changed things, each bank would collect all the cheques that had been presented to its branches each day and sort them into bags, one for each originating bank.

Then, late at night, its “bag man” would travel to a nondescript city location with a bag for each bank, hand the correct one to each of the other bagmen, and be given bags in return, which the bagman would take back to the bank for signature checking.

When each bank worked out what it owed the other bank, they would usually discover the flows largely cancelled each other out, and then make net payments which would be reflected in the cheque-writer’s account, up to five business days later.

Always expensive, the cost per cheque grew and grew as the number of Australians paying with cheques dwindled to a fraction of what it had been.

How moving cash became a loss-making business

It’s the same sort of story with cash. Although we don’t often think about it, cash costs an awful lot to move, sort and restock.

Printing the notes still makes money – it costs about 32 cents to make each note, whether it’s worth $5 or $100, although making some coins now loses money.

The real expense is in moving notes and coins around, keeping them nearby and restocking banks and cash registers. Aside from payments the Reserve Bank makes to banks for returning damaged notes, the banks (and, through them, the retailers) are expected to pay for the lot.

Until recently that gave the two firms that dominate the business (Linfox Armaguard, and Prosegur, which owns Chubb Security) a pretty good deal.

Except that the volume of cash they’ve carried has dived 47% over the past ten years, 30% of it during COVID.

Both firms say their money-moving arms are incurring “heavy financial losses” and that if they increase their prices much more, retailers might move even further away from cash, pushing their costs even higher.

Last week, the Competition and Consumer Commission allowed them to merge on the condition that they limit their price increases to the consumer index plus 7.5% per year. That increase is so steep as to suggest a death spiral: the more they charge, the less retailers will use cash, the more they’ll have to charge.

The only way out, unless they can make really big efficiencies, or unless the decline in the use of cash stops, would be for the government to return to subsidising the use of cash. It’s hard to see how it could make the case to do that when there are cheaper emerging technologies.

Bank transfers cost a mere fraction of using cash, and pretty soon we’ll be able to use them for everything, via things such as QR codes.

So when will cash go the way of cheques?

A previous federal government has already tried to eliminate the use of cash for transactions worth more than $10,000, as part of its attack on the black economy.

Announced in 2016 by the Turnbull Coalition government, the ban was due to come into force in 2019. But, after delays, in 2020 the Morrison-led Coalition government backed down.

If Australia wants to ban cash (and ban it for small transactions too – cash is now used less than cards for transactions of all sizes) the easiest solution might be simply to wait.



Cards are now the dominant means of exchanging money, and electronic transfers are growing from a small base.

Pure extrapolation would suggest cash has less than a decade to go, but it will probably hang around for longer as an (expensive, little-used) backup that maintains privacy.

Like cheques, cash will probably die gradually, then suddenly. By the time it does, there will be few users left who care.The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read more >>

Tuesday, June 13, 2023

Don’t blame workers for falling productivity: we’re not the ones holding it back

Suddenly Australians are being told we need to produce more if we want our wages to merely keep up with inflation.

Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe has begun referring to “productivity” in each of the statements he makes after each Reserve Bank board meeting.

Whereas in the past he has only said we needed to boost productivity to lift real wages (to lift wages growth above price growth), he has begun saying we need to boost productivity to justify wage increases well below inflation.

The Governor is right to say that labour productivity (output per hour worked) is falling. He’s also right to say that’s unusual. But it would be wrong to conclude that the solution is for workers to simply work harder.

A tougher line for workers than for business

Lowe has been suggesting he will only tolerate the wages growth we’ve got “provided that trend productivity growth picks up”.

Inflation is officially 7%. The Reserve Bank’s best guess is that the update, due in six weeks, will show it has fallen to 6.3%.

Wages growth is only 3.7%, and the bank’s best guess is the update, due in nine weeks, will show it little changed at 3.8%.

This means wages growth is below inflation and set to stay that way. But Lowe is concerned enough about wage increases that aren’t backed by productivity growth that he is prepared to push up interest rates further to bring them down.

As it happens, this isn’t something he has said about businesses. Last month, Telstra said it would lift its mobile and data charges “in line with the consumer price index, rounded to the nearest dollar”.

That’s an increase of 7%, allowing Telstra to boost its charges in line with inflation in a way Lowe doesn’t want workers to. And Telstra won’t need to show it is more productive. It won’t need to offer anything extra.

Productivity is slipping

The official figures show labour productivity (output per hour worked) falling. Although it usually increases, and increased very fast in the 1990s, GDP per hour worked has been falling since March 2022. Since then, it’s down 4.6%.



But it’s the sort of thing that would be expected when there’s a surge in employment. All other things being equal, the more hours that are worked, the less GDP per hour worked should be.

In the past year, hours worked have surged an extraordinary 5% to an all-time high. When a cafe puts on an extra staff member it doesn’t immediately mean it’ll sell more food. When a childcare centre or a school puts on extra staff it mightn’t produce more at all.

Short-term, more jobs means lower productivity growth

In the short term, the quickest way to boost measured productivity is to bring on recession and throw people out of work.

In 2009, productivity jumped in the United States after what people there called “The Great Recession”. In Australia, we know that period better as “the global financial crisis” – because there was no local recession. Employment stayed strong, while productivity growth slumped.

As a rule, getting people into paid work is something to be welcomed, and as a rule there’s not much anyone can do to stop it. This means that a key driver of measured productivity is beyond anyone’s direct control.

And there’s another driver that’s hard to control.

When mining booms, non-mining productivity slumps

One of the biggest direct drivers of measured productivity is automation. The more that employers put in machines to increase output per worker, the greater the output per worker.

One of the reasons it’s hard to increase output per worker these days might be that the industries that are growing are those such as aged care that are hard to automate. The Productivity Commission says after growing 2.2% per year through the 1990s, labour productivity grew by just 1.1% per year in the decade to 2020.

And there’s something else. When the price of Australia’s mineral exports booms, which it does from time to time for reasons beyond Australia’s control, other non-mining businesses tend to spend less money installing machines. To use the approved terminology, there’s less “non-mining business investment”.

Former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry believes the two are connected. He says high prices for mineral exports push up the value of the Australian dollar, which makes Australian non-mining businesses less able to compete with imports and less able to see the sense in installing machines.

Henry says that’s what’s happening at the moment. Australians and foreigners are finding better opportunities overseas.

Australia has become a net exporter, rather than a net importer, of investment funds – a change Henry says isn’t only because superannuation has boosted household savings.

There are all sorts of things we can do to boost labour productivity. Earlier this year, the Productivity Commission published a nine-volume report outlining them.

But they won’t pay quick dividends, and it’ll be hard going while employment remains robust (which is something we want) and minerals prices remain high (which is something we probably want).

In what has to be his most re-quoted observation ever, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman famously said

productivity isn’t everything, but in the long run it is almost everything. A country’s ability to improve its standard of living over time depends almost entirely on its ability to raise its output per worker.

There are all sorts of things we can do to boost productivity. But to the extent that productivity is in anyone’s hands, it is in the hands of employers and broader forces beyond anyone’s ability to easily control.

Telling us to work harder is unlikely to make much difference.The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read more >>

Why RBA Governor Philip Lowe wants to damage the economy further

Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe and his board have pushed up interest rates yet again – for the twelfth time in 14 months – because they want to damage the economy further.

Home prices have been climbing for three straight months – in March, April and May – instead of continuing to fall as they had been since the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) began pushing up rates in May 2022, a point the bank notes in its latest statement.

Employment, which in November the RBA predicted would grow 1.4% this financial year, is instead growing at an annual pace of 2.9%. In April, Australians worked more hours than ever before.

These aren’t signs of a depressed economy, and the Bank wants to depress the economy further to ensure it gets inflation down to where it wants it to be.

The governor’s written agreement with the treasurer requires him to deliver an inflation rate of 2–3% on average, over time.

Some of us are doing well, most are not

Parts of the economy are slowing. The statement refers to a “substantial slowing in household spending” (and Wednesday’s national accounts are likely to be grim) but the RBA’s concern is that the slowdown is uneven.

It says while some households are “experiencing a painful squeeze”, others have “substantial savings buffers”.

Those experiencing the squeeze are the 35% of households that are mortgaged. The 31% who rent aren’t doing too well either. By contrast, many of the 31% that own outright are doing well indeed.

Since the RBA began pushing up rates in May 2022, the typical interest rate on a new mortgage has doubled – climbing from 2.7% to 5.4%, adding roughly $1,000 per month to the cost of servicing a $600,000 mortgage. The latest decision will add a further $90. And yet home prices are turning back up.

Lowe wants to be sure

The RBA has pushed rates to a new ten-year high – and hinted strongly it will push them up again, saying “further tightening” might be required – not because it doesn’t think the economy isn’t slowing overall, but because it wants to make sure it keeps slowing enough to keep inflation heading down.

Inflation was 7% in the year to March, and 6.8% in the year to April. The RBA wants to get it down to its forecast of 6.3% for the year to June and to its forecast of 3% two years after that, and while it looks as if things are on track, it isn’t yet sure.

If it has to, it is prepared to push Australia’s unemployment rate up from 3.7% to 4.5% by late next year, putting perhaps an extra 100,000 people out of work. That’s what its board minutes predict.

It’s a decision that Treasurer Jim Chalmers says many Australians will find “difficult to cop”. The RBA’s job, in Chalmers’ words, is to “squash inflation without crunching the economy”.

He could have added that Lowe is running out of time. Unless he gets an extension, his seven-year term as RBA governor ends in September.

That gives him just three more board meetings to make sure inflation is heading back towards the RBA’s target of 2-3% before he hands over to his successor.

Lowe will get the official reading on inflation for the year to June on July 27. If it hasn’t fallen to the 6.3% the RBA expects, he is likely to increase rates again in August.

Minimum wage untroubling

Something that doesn’t seem to be giving Lowe much grief is Friday’s Fair Work Commission national minimum wage decision, trumpeted by the trade union movement as an above-inflation increase of 8.6%.

What the union movement didn’t say, but Lowe knows well, is that it is an increase hardly anyone will get. The only people who get the misleadingly named national minimum wage are those not already covered by awards, enterprise agreements or individual agreements – at a guess only 0.7% of the workforce.

So hard are these people to find the Commission says it is “difficult to identify in practical terms any occupations or industries” in which they are engaged.

What their wage rise will contribute to inflation will be next to nothing. The first part (an increase of 2.7%) changes the award wage they are linked to from what the commission now regards as an inappropriate classification of “C14”, which was originally a metal industry training wage, to “C13”, which is a non-training wage.

5.75%, but only for some

The second part of the increase applies to everyone on awards, some 20.5% of the workforce, which probably extends to 25% if you take into account other workers whose pay is linked to awards. It’s an increase of 5.75%, much less than inflation, and on Commission’s calculations should add only 0.6 percentage points to it.

Given that a wage increase of zero wasn’t tenable (even the employers asked for 3.5%) it means the wage increase a (low-paid) portion of us get in July won’t much impede the Bank’s attempts to bring down inflation.

The Commission believes employers can afford it. It says profits have “generally been healthy” in the private sector industries whose workers most rely on awards, singling out the accommodation, food services and retail industries, which employ one-third of workers on awards and have enjoyed “substantial increases in profits”.

Expectations are what matters

The wages of the rest of us who don’t rely on awards are largely determined by bargaining power and what we expect, as are the prices businesses charge, and it is here that the Reserve Bank is worried.

It wants to dent bargaining power by making sure it dents spending and employment, and it wants to make sure above everything else that high inflation doesn’t become entrenched in “expectations”, a point Lowe mentions twice in his eight-paragraph statement.

He says if high inflation does become entrenched in expectations, it will become “very costly to reduce later” requiring even higher interest rates and even higher unemployment.The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read more >>