Showing posts with label rba. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rba. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 07, 2024

If the RBA’s right, interest rates may not fall for another year. Here’s why – and what it means for next week’s budget

The Reserve Bank is now assuming Australians will see no interest rate cuts this year – and quite possibly none before the next federal election, due next May.

That’s a big change compared to just three months ago. Back in February, the Reserve Bank assumed three rate cuts before the middle of the next year.

Its newly-updated assumptions have interest rates remaining high for the rest of this year, then declining only slowly, with a cut by May 2025 about as unlikely as it is likely.



The assumptions are based on financial market pricing, which the bank says is “the best predictor of the future cash rate path”.

What changed the market pricing and the bank’s forecasts? Inflation.

That’s posing a big challenge for the Albanese government as it prepares for next week’s federal budget.

Rates on hold amid rising inflation

In its statement on Tuesday explaining why it was leaving its cash rate on hold at 4.35%, the Reserve Bank board sharpened its language about inflation.

It’s now forecasting an increase in inflation later this year and warning that getting it down is proving harder “than previously expected”.

The updated forecasts have the annual rate of inflation climbing from its present 3.6% to 3.8% in June and staying there for the rest of the year, before falling back in line with the bank’s previous forecast released in February.



Both forecasts have inflation remaining above the bank’s 2-3% target band until late 2025, and both have it not returning to the centre of the band until mid-2026.

US rate cuts are also on hold

It’s a similar story in the United States, with the expected date of rate cuts blowing out there as well.

There, as here, the monthly measure of annual inflation rate remains stuck at 3.5%. In both countries, it’s no lower than it was late last year.

The chair of the US Federal Reserve Jerome Powell now says he won’t cut rates until he is more confident inflation is heading back down towards his target, adding it is likely to take longer than expected to get that confidence.

The budget will focus on more than inflation

So what’s Treasurer Jim Chalmers planning to do on budget night next week to give the Reserve Bank more confidence inflation is clearly heading down?

Not that much – and certainly not nearly as much as in previous budgets.

Chalmers’ opposite number, Coalition Treasury spokesman Angus Taylor, says the treasurer should “stop the spend-a-thon”, by which he means containing growth in government spending to take pressure off inflation.

It’s advice Chalmers and Finance Minister Katy Gallagher won’t be following this time. And not because they don’t understand the thinking behind it.

Restraining spending (and pushing up tax) would indeed take pressure off prices. Chalmers and Gallagher could say they’ve cut $50 billion off spending over the past two years. But a further big cut might push the economy into free fall.

We’re buying and dining out less

The Australian economy is alarmingly weak. As the Reserve Bank board met on Tuesday, the Bureau of Statistics released its latest estimates of the volumes of goods and services bought from online and physical stores.

The estimates are price-adjusted, which in this case means that while what we spent climbed (a tiny) 0.8% over the year to March, what we bought fell 1.3%.

The amount of food we bought fell 1.5%. The amount of household goods we bought fell 1.8%. And the amount we bought from cafes and restaurants fell 2.5%.

The only category in which buying has climbed over the past year was clothing and footwear, and only by 0.3%.

All this has happened in a year in which the Australian population grew by more than 2% – which means the reduced amount of things we have bought has had to feed, clothe and service about an extra 600,000 of us.

Chalmers knows this. It’s consistent with the national accounts, which show the amount we’ve spent and earned per person has shrunk over the past year, in a so-called per capita recession.

The Australian National University’s latest ANUPoll finds us more financially stressed than during the depths of the COVID lockdowns.

Twenty per cent of us say we have borrowed money from friends or relatives over the past year, up from 16% during the lockdowns. Meanwhile, 21% have fallen behind on our bills, up from 17%; and 62% of us have cut our spending on groceries and essential items, up from 43%.

A ‘scorched earth’ budget risks recession

It means that a further big cut in government spending – right now – could push us from a per capita recession into an actual recession.

It’s why Chalmers said on Monday now was “not the time for scorched earth austerity”. He won’t slash and burn while the economy is weak.

After three budget updates in which he has spent less than previously forecast, in next Tuesday’s budget he will spend more – at least for some of the years for which he will produce projections.

Gallagher added this week she’s been as good as forced to spend more in some areas. Several programs introduced, but not properly funded, by the previous government are set to end abruptly. One is the leaving violence payment, which began as a trial.

Don’t expect rates to change soon

In fairness to the Reserve Bank, it too knows the economy is weak. Its updated forecasts released on Tuesday have downgraded expected economic growth to just 1.2% for the year to June and 1.6% for the year to December.

And it knows its 13 interest rate rises to date are yet to have their full effect.

Speaking at a press conference after the board’s decision to keep rates on hold, Governor Michele Bullock gave the impression that lifting rates further was still one of the furthest things from her mind.The Conversation

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

Read more >>

Tuesday, December 05, 2023

Will the RBA raise rates again? Unless prices surge over summer, it’s looking less likely

If you’re looking for clues about whether the Reserve Bank has any interest rate rises left, Governor Michele Bullock offered several in her statement after Tuesday’s board meeting, saying:

  • the latest monthly figures showed inflation “continuing to moderate”

  • inflation expectations remained “consistent with the inflation target”

  • wages growth was “not expected to increase much further”.

The statement reads not only as an account of why the board kept rates on hold this month – as expected, after increasing them in November – but also an account of why it might not need to lift rates again.

Much will depend on “data and the evolving assessment of risks”. The board will make that assessment at its first meeting for the year in February.

Here’s why that next meeting matters so much.

Inflation’s headed in the right direction

The monthly measure of annual inflation has been falling since it peaked in December. Last week we learned that in October it fell from 5.6% to 4.9%, meaning it’s now closer to the Reserve Bank’s target of 2-3% than to the December peak of 8.4%.



A few special government measures helped push it down.

An increase in Commonwealth rent assistance decreased recorded rents; energy bill rebates decreased recorded electricity prices; and changes to the childcare subsidy decreased recorded childcare prices.

Those government measures won’t depress future inflation readings, suggesting that from here on inflation might bounce back.

But on the other hand, from here on the very large inflation outcomes recorded at the end of last year will drop out of the 12-monthly figures.

The mathematics of falling inflation

Simple maths suggests that if this year’s November and December readings are like the average of the other readings this year, annual inflation will fall to 3.1%.

The November figure will be released on January 10 and the December figure on January 31. Both will be available to the Reserve Bank board when it meets on February 5 and 6, along with the latest quarterly measure of inflation.

If that quarterly measure is the same as the average of the past two quarters, it will show annual inflation of 4%.

Such outcomes – which are likely if inflation continues along its present trajectory – would see inflation closing in on the Reserve Bank’s target band and relieve it of any need to further lift rates.

Of course, it mightn’t happen. But there’s a lot driving down inflation.

Prices we don’t much notice are falling

The prices we pay attention to are those we see in the supermarket, what we fork out on mortgage payments and household bills, and what we pay at the petrol pump. (Petrol prices have been falling for weeks now.)

Prices we notice less are far less troubling than they were.

During 2022, the price of household appliances climbed 8.2%. So far this year it has fallen 2%.

The price of furnishings climbed 5.3% during 2022. So far this year it has fallen 1.6%. The price of clothing climbed 5.4%. So far this year it has fallen 2.6%.



All sorts of prices are coming down, partly because the supply bottlenecks driving them up last year are being reversed and partly because – thanks to 13 near consecutive interest rate rises – we are not buying at anything like the rate we used to.

Retail spending grew by just 1.2% over the year to October – the least since the COVID lockdowns.

Likely population growth of 2.4% and what Westpac believes to be retail price growth of 3.6% means the amount bought per person actually fell 4.5%.

Even this year’s more hyped Black Friday spending was up only 0.6% to 1% compared to Black Friday in November last year. Given our population growth was higher than that, it suggests we spent less on those sales per person this year.

Dentistry and haircuts are more expensive

What about the prices that are climbing strongly?

With the exception of rents – up 7.6% over the year – it’s hard to find many.

In a speech after the last Reserve Bank board meeting, Governor Bullock said inflation was increasingly being driven by the price of services, which stands to reason given inflation in the price of goods has been ebbing away.

She nominated increases in the prices charged by hairdressers and dentists, as well as restaurants. And there’s definitely something to see there, for dentists.

During 2022, the statistician’s measure of the price of dentistry climbed 3.9%.

In the first three quarters of this year, it climbed by that much again, meaning the pace picked up. But the increase is not that much more than the overall increase in wages, suggesting dentistry is not being priced much further out of reach.

Haircuts climbed in price a hefty 6% during 2022 and continued to climb at that pace during the first three quarters of 2023, which is uncomfortable, but at least not accelerating.

The price of restaurant meals climbed 6.7% during 2022 but only 3.8% in the first three quarters of 2023, meaning the pace is easing.

Wage growth a risk, but not yet a worry

The governor is concerned high wage growth will become embedded in the price of services. But at 3.9%, wage growth isn’t particularly high.

About a third of workers are covered by enterprise agreements. Jeff Borland of the University of Melbourne points out the increases in most of the newly-lodged enterprise agreements are flat or trending down. Many of us got a top-up at the start of our three-year agreements, which won’t be continued.

Borland’s statistical analysis suggests individual agreements aren’t pushing up wage growth either, but increases granted by the Fair Work Commission to the 20% of workers on awards are. Yet, by design, these increases reflect, rather than drive, inflation.

If inflation does accelerate over the holiday season, the Reserve Bank probably will push up rates further. But as the governor seemed to acknowledge on Tuesday, it’s not looking likely.The Conversation

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

Read more >>

Tuesday, November 28, 2023

Governments have been able to overrule the Reserve Bank for 80 years. Why stop now?

Pay close enough attention to parliament these next few days, and you’re likely to witness something truly remarkable: politicians from both sides of politics uniting to remove the power of politicians to overrule the Reserve Bank.

As an instance of self-loathing, it’s hard to top.

Sure, a good many of us don’t trust politicians. But surely politicians ought to trust politicians. Surely politicians ought to realise that we put them there to make decisions – not usually the day-to-day decisions, but the ultimate big decisions. They are meant to be where the buck stops.

That Treasurer Jim Chalmers could be even thinking about axing his ultimate power to veto decisions of the Reserve Bank board shows just how far the myth of an “independent Reserve Bank” has spread.

Scroll through the treasurer’s website, and you’ll find 195 documents referring to the “independent Reserve Bank”, many multiple times.

‘Independent’, but not according to the law

Saying the Reserve Bank is independent suits the treasurer and it suits the prime minister, just as it has suited many of their predecessors. As soon as the bank does something that’s necessary but unpopular (such as pushing up interest rates) they are able to say – wrongly – there’s nothing they can do.

The government’s Reserve Bank is dependent on the government in myriad ways.

The government set up the Reserve Bank. The government appoints every member of its board. The government directly appoints its chief and deputy chief. And from time to time the government gives it running instructions.

But – most importantly – the government can overrule it.

The mechanism is built into the Reserve Bank Act.

In the event of a disagreement, the treasurer can

submit a recommendation to the governor-general, and the governor-general, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, may, by order, determine the policy to be adopted by the bank.

The government is to accept responsibility for the decision taken, and the Reserve Bank board must

thereupon ensure that effect is given to the policy determined by the order and shall, if the order so requires, continue to ensure that effect is given to that policy while the order remains in operation.

After so directing the bank, the treasurer is to table in parliament a copy of the direction, along with a statement explaining the reasons, and a statement from the Reserve Bank board putting the case that failed to convince the treasurer.

These are the clauses – until now unused – that in April the outside review of the Reserve Bank asked the government to do away with.

Its thinking was that the government can’t be trusted.

As the review put it,

if an elected government controls monetary policy there are risks that it may try to push the economy to run above its capacity, resulting in higher inflation but with no lasting impact on employment.

On releasing the review’s recommendations, Treasurer Jim Chalmers said straight away that he agreed in principle with all of them.

Shadow Treasury Angus Taylor said much the same thing, although he now says the Coalition will wait until sees the legislation Chalmers is about to introduce before deciding its position on it.

The veto power is there for a reason

On the face of it, a reasonable position would be that the government’s ability to overrule the bank in extreme circumstances has caused no problem so far.

The review counters this by warning of “the possibility that established conventions cease to be observed”.

But, if that did happen, it would be because there was a serious (and ultimately public) rift between the elected government and an unelected board.

With the exception of judges in Australia’s courts, unelected officials can’t normally overrule elected governments. It’s how our system is designed.

The Reserve Bank tried to overrule the government once, and succeeded, which is why the provision we have was written into the law.

Back in 1930, in the early years of the Great Depression, the Reserve Bank was part of the Commonwealth-owned Commonwealth Bank, run by a board appointed by the government which reported to the government.

In The Conversation earlier this year, Alex Millmow outlined what happened.

Desperate to support the economy, the government begged the government-owned bank to help it finance public works.

The bank refused. Its government-appointed chairman, Sir Robert Gibson, wrote to Treasurer Ted Theodore warning a point was being reached

beyond which it would be impossible for the Commonwealth Bank to provide further financial assistance for the governments in the future

Theodore replied complaining the bank was trying to

arrogate to itself a supremacy over the government in the determination of the financial policy of the Commonwealth, a supremacy which, I am sure, was never contemplated by the framers of the Australian Constitution

While the government did not question the right of the bank’s board to offer such comment or criticism as the board thought proper, the control of the public purse had “heretofore always been regarded as an essential prerogative of the people”.

In the end, it was the government that backed down. But to ensure it could never be overruled again, Labor wrote the veto power into the Commonwealth Bank Act of 1945 and the Coalition wrote it into the Reserve Bank Act of 1959.

That’s the veto power today’s Labor Party, quite possibly with the support of the Coalition, is about to try to remove.

I understand why the Reserve Bank review made the recommendation it did: it wants monetary policy to work well. But I don’t think that’s enough of a reason for the government to attempt to abrogate its responsibility.

And ultimately, it can’t. The Australian public is going to hold the government responsible for the state of the economy even if it succeeds in tying one hand behind its back. But I don’t think it’s wise. One day it might need it.The Conversation

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

Read more >>

Tuesday, November 21, 2023

Why further RBA rate hikes are less likely now than even 1 week ago

Since Australia’s Reserve Bank hiked interest rates two weeks ago, there have been two important developments – one in the United States and the other in the United Kingdom.

If it’s not clear to you why events overseas influence Australia’s interest rates, which are meant to be set to control Australian inflation, read on.

US and UK inflation close to zero

We haven’t been complete masters of our own destiny since the Australian dollar was floated 40 years ago next month.

What happened in the US last Tuesday was news of dramatically lower US inflation. When increases and decreases in prices were taken together, overall US prices moved not at all in the month of October. That’s right, inflation was zero.

While zero movement in one month doesn’t mean zero over the entire year, it helps bring down the rate over the entire year. US inflation fell from 3.7% in the year to September to 3.2% in the month to October.

Then the next day we got similar news from the UK.

Taken together, prices in the United Kingdom scarcely grew at all in October, climbing just 0.1%. The screeching halt to UK monthly inflation took the annual rate down from 6.7% for the year to September to 4.6% for the year to October.



In both the US and the UK, there’s talk there will be no need for further interest rate hikes, and very probably a case for interest rate cuts as soon as next year.

We don’t yet know what happened to Australia’s inflation rate in October – the Bureau of Statistics will tell us next week.

But we have an early indication.

The Melbourne Institute inflation gauge, which roughly tracks the bureau’s measure, fell 0.1% in October. If that is what the bureau finds – that overall prices barely moved (or fell) in October – Australia’s annual inflation rate should fall from 5.6% for the year to September to around 5.2% for the year to October.

Inflation down all over

All over the world, inflation is falling for much the same set of reasons: the price of oil is heading back down after Saudi Arabia and Russia tried to restrict supply in the middle of the year, and the price pressures caused by shortages are easing.

As Australia’s Reserve Bank conceded in the minutes of the November board meeting, in which it pushed up rates, there has been “an easing in supply chain pressures and raw materials prices”.

Not that this means the bank is relaxed about what’s happening to inflation; far from it.

In the minutes released on Tuesday and in remarks delivered at a conference ahead of their release, Governor Michele Bullock said what concerned her was stronger-than-expected demand pressures. Australians remained keen to spend.

And she drew attention to disturbing

growing signs of a mindset among businesses that any cost increases could be passed onto consumers

But what has just happened overseas will help, big time. Here’s why.

Australians’ buying power just jumped

As soon as the news of low US inflation came out last Tuesday, the US dollar slid.

Investors became less keen to hold US dollars when it became less likely that US interest rates would rise further, and a good deal more likely they would fall.

Against the Australian dollar, the US dollar fell 2%. From an Australian’s point of view, the buying power of an Australian dollar jumped from 63.7 to 64.9 US cents and has since jumped to 65.8 US cents.


A sudden jump in the value of the Australian dollar

Value of Australian dollar in US cents. Yahoo Finance

This means that, for as long as it lasts, Australian dollars will buy more than they did.

Australians will pay less in Australian dollars for the goods and services ultimately paid for with US dollars. The changed interest rate outlook in the US will act to keep Australian prices low.

In this way, decisions made in the US not to increase interest rates or even to cut them make it easier for Australia’s Reserve Bank not to increase rates – or even to cut them.

A higher dollar means lower inflation

The effect isn’t big. The RBA believes it takes a 10% change in the value of the Australian dollar to move the Australian inflation rate 0.4 percentage points.

But it is better than things moving in the other direction, which is what has been happening until now.

For more than a year now, whenever interest rates have climbed in the US, Australia’s Reserve Bank has been under pressure to push up its rates to stop the Australian dollar falling and prices climbing.

No longer. After last week’s news from the US and the UK, Australian financial markets began pricing in a close to zero chance of further interest rate rises – with a fair chance of a rate cut next year.

It’s always impossible to tell for sure what the Reserve Bank will do to rates. A lot will depend on what actually happens to inflation.

But for the first time in a long time, the Reserve Bank has tail winds from overseas, rather than headwinds.

For the first time in a long time, the bank won’t feel pressured to push up rates just because rates have been pushed up overseas.The Conversation

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

Read more >>

Tuesday, November 07, 2023

Why it’s a good bet the Melbourne Cup Day rate hike will be the last

Australia just became the odd one out.

At its meeting last week, the US Federal Reserve kept its official interest rate on hold. A week earlier, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Canada kept their rates on hold, and, at their meetings before that, the Bank of England and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand did the same thing.

Throughout the Western world – with perhaps Australia as the only exception – financial markets have been assuming central banks were done with increasing rates and would soon start pushing them down.

Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock’s statement accompanying Tuesday’s hike in Australia’s cash rate makes it look as if we’re about to join that club. It makes it look as if this hike from 4.1% to 4.35% – a 12-year high – will be the last.

And with good reason. Inflation has been falling almost everywhere, and – notwithstanding the recent uptick associated with higher oil prices – is forecast by the International Monetary Fund to keep falling.



The RBA has taken out insurance

So why did Australia’s Reserve Bank push up rates at all, at a time when none of its global peers were?

The statement makes it look as if it wanted to take out insurance.

While the bank still expects inflation to continue to fall, it says progress now looks “slower than earlier expected”.

Its revised set of forecasts, to be released on Friday, still have inflation falling, but to around 3.5% by the end of next year, instead of 3.3%, then to around 3% by the end of 2025 instead of 2.8%.

The bank is particularly worried that the prices of services – things such as service in a cafe, done by hard-to-find workers – are “continuing to rise briskly”.

And it mentions “uncertainties” four times in eight paragraphs. It isn’t that it thinks inflation won’t keep coming down; it’s that it wants to be sure it is.

Australian hikes hit harder than in the US

One argument the bank hasn’t used – and nor should it – is catch-up. The US, the UK, the EU, Canada and New Zealand all have higher official rates than Australia.

But they are all are different to Australia, in an important way.

When the US Federal Reserve pushes up its Federal Funds Rate, nothing much happens to US home borrowers. Here’s why: almost all US home borrowers are on fixed rates, meaning their required mortgage payments don’t increase.

In Australia, only about one-third of home loans are fixed.

And US fixed rates are nothing like Australian fixed rates. The typical term in the US is 30 years, rather than the two to three years common in Australia.

This means that, as long as borrowers in the US don’t refinance or move homes, their payments are fixed for the entire term of their loans. Americans never have to pay more just because the Fed jacks up rates.

At least when it comes to homebuyers, the US Fed has to do a good deal more than Australia’s Reserve Bank to have the same effect.

It means the US official rate of 5.25% has less immediate effect on ordinary Americans than Australia’s new rate of 4.35% will have on us.

That’s what the consumer spending figures show.

After a year of high US rates, American consumers are buying 2.9% more goods and services than they were a year ago.

After a year of less-high Australian rates, Australian consumers are buying 1.7% less.

This means that, as relatively lightweight as our previous 4.1% cash rate had seemed, it might have been packing more punch than the higher 5.25% rate in the US; and also the higher rates in the UK, Canada and New Zealand, where most of the mortgages are also fixed.

‘Painful squeeze’

In her statement, Governor Bullock acknowledged many households were experiencing “a painful squeeze on their finances”. She also noted others were benefiting from rising housing prices, substantial savings buffers and higher interest income.

Bank calculations suggest one in 20 variable-rate borrowers are now going backwards – paying more for essential expenses and housing than they earn.

Among borrowers with big loans relative to their incomes, it’s one in four.

There’s nothing in the governor’s statement to suggest she is thinking of pushing up rates again. After today’s hike, the futures market assigned only a 30% probability to another hike.

The best guess of people who bet on this for a living is that Australia is about to join the rest of the world and leave rates where they are for quite some time.

A frugal Christmas, before possible rate drops in 2024

Alternatively, rates could even begin coming down within 12 months.

The detail of the inflation figures shows monthly inflation surged to 0.8% for one month only, in August, when petrol and diesel prices jumped 9.1%, then fell back to 0.3% in September, which is where it was before petrol prices jumped.

It is also looking like prices scarcely increased at all last month.

The Melbourne Institute inflation gauge, which comes out ahead of the Bureau of Statistics gauge and broadly tracks it, fell 0.1% in October. This suggests that, when taken together, price falls (slightly more than) outweighed price increases.

It’s what you would expect if we were tightening our belts, as we are.

At Big W discount department stories across Australia, sales are down 5.5% on where they were a year ago.

Big W says shoppers have moved away from buying big-ticket items and are instead buying a remarkable number of small gifts, such as Hot Wheels toy cars.

They sell for $2 each, or five for $9.

It’s pointing to a frugal Christmas in which retailers are going to have to discount if they want to move goods, taking further pressure off inflation.

Should that happen, rates could turn down even sooner than financial market traders expect, perhaps by the middle of next year.The Conversation

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

Read more >>

Tuesday, October 03, 2023

No hike yet, but what happens on Melbourne Cup Day depends on petrol

If the Reserve Bank does push up interest rates again, the most likely next date is its next board meeting, on Melbourne Cup Tuesday.

The November 7 meeting is especially important because it is one of four each year in which the board has the full set of quarterly staff forecasts before it, as well as the latest detailed quarterly breakdown of inflation.

For the moment, in its first meeting with the new governor Michele Bullock in the chair, the board decided on Tuesday to keep rates on hold, pointing to “uncertainty surrounding the economic outlook”.

It’s uncertain about what’s happening to China’s economy; it’s uncertain about the lagged effect of the 12 increases to date; and it’s suddenly less certain about inflation.

When the board last met, the official figures showed inflation falling. Not now. And not only in Australia.

Inflation has kicked back up

After sliding throughout the Western world, inflation edged up in the US and Canada in July and August, and in Australia in August.

In the US, annual inflation plummeted from a peak of 9.1% to 3% before edging back up to 3.7%.

In Australia, the monthly measure of annual inflation dived from 8.4% to 4.9% before edging up to 5.2%.

This means inflation is moving further away from, rather than closer to, the Reserve Bank’s 2-3% target band.

The bank had been expecting it to keep falling to 4.1% by the end of this year, then to fall further to 3.3% – within spitting distance of its target – by the end of next year.



So what will Michele Bullock and her board do next time?

The first thing to consider (and they considered it in the first meeting under Michele Bullock on Tuesday) is what’s caused the uptick in inflation.

Petrol is fuelling inflation

Statistically, all of the uptick in inflation (yes, all of the uptick) was caused by an increase in one price – what the Bureau of Statistics calls automotive fuel, and what the rest of us call petrol and diesel.

Had that price not soared an astounding 9.1% in one single month, August, the inflation rate for August would have remained steady at 4.9%.

Absent automotive fuel, in recent months annual increases in the prices of food, clothes and electricity (yes, electricity) have fallen. In the last two months, the monthly increase in rents has inched down, suggesting that, as painful as high rent increases have been, they’ll eventually subside.

The second thing to consider is whether an uptick in inflation, resulting from an increase in the price of one commodity, is reason enough to return to pushing up interest rates.

Suddenly, petrol’s $2.20 per litre or more

Oil prices have shot up because in July one of the biggest producers, Saudi Arabia, began cutting production in what its energy minister said was “a bid to stabilise” the market.

Russia has joined in. The result – bolstered by a much lower Australian dollar – has been soaring prices. We’ve even seen new records set in some places, including Brisbane’s record unleaded price of $2.38.

Melbourne’s average price exceeded $2.20 a few weeks back and is still above $2.10.

Last year, when rocketing petrol and diesel prices were part of a widespread surge in inflation after Russia invaded Ukraine (and Australia temporally cut fuel excise to wind them back), what the Reserve Bank should do was clear: push up interest rates to take the heat out of consumer spending.

But it’s different now. Rising inflation isn’t widespread, and spending per consumer is collapsing.

In August, retail spending grew just 0.2%, at a time of rapid population growth and still rapid price growth. Over the year to August, total retail spending climbed just 1.5% at a time when the population grew 2.2% and prices climbed more than 5%.

It means we are winding back spending, big time. And here’s the thing about the latest increase in petrol prices: it will wind back spending on things other than petrol even further.

Petrol could be fuelling ‘disinflation’

AMP chief economist Shane Oliver thinks the latest petrol price rises could be disinflationary. That’s right, “disinflationary”.

Just as a tax increase reduces the free money households have to spend and makes it harder for them to push up prices, an increase in the price of a purchase that’s near compulsory cuts the amount we have to spend on other things.

Offsetting this is the reality that petrol and diesel prices have risen. In time, those higher prices will feed through into higher prices for just about everything that is moved by trucks.

But the two – higher input prices and less price pressure from consumers – should to some extent offset each other, which is a reason for the Reserve Bank board to at least consider taking the latest uptick in inflation in its stride.

The announcement after Tuesday’s meeting postponed this consideration. By deciding to hold rates steady, the board said it could take “further time to assess the impact of the increase in interest rates to date and the economic outlook”.

The Reserve Bank board’s view about whether to treat what’s happening to petrol as inflationary or disinflationary (or neutral) will play an outsized role in the decision it makes about interest rates on November 7.The Conversation

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

Read more >>

Tuesday, September 05, 2023

What’s to stop Philip Lowe moving to a private bank after he leaves the RBA? It’s what his predecessors did

Surely Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe won’t move to a private bank after his term as governor ends next week.

After having chaired his last board meeting on Tuesday, there’s nothing to stop him, and – as shabby as it seems – he wouldn’t be the first.

There are three reasons why he shouldn’t join the board of or become chair of a private bank, all alluded to in the public service code of conduct.

One is concern that the former employee would reveal confidential Commonwealth information (which would be unlikely for someone as cluey as Lowe) or “provide other information that would give the new employer an advantage in its business dealings”, which would be more likely, even if unintentional.

Banks don’t seek out former Reserve Bank chiefs unless they think there’s something in it for them.

Another concern set out in the code of conduct is that the former employee would exploit their knowledge of the Commonwealth to lobby, or otherwise seek advantage for their new employer in dealing with the Commonwealth.

Banks such as Westpac, NAB, the ANZ and Macquarie Bank deal with the Reserve Bank all the time. It runs the payments system, it is responsible for the financial system, and it sets interest rates.

Every one of the four banks I just mentioned has employed either a former Reserve Bank Governor or Treasury Secretary.

Perceptions matter when a Governor moves on

Even where these high-profile hires don’t help the banks in their relations with the regulator, the public service code of conduct points to the “perception” that they will have a greater ability to influence regulators than other hires.

The third concern identified in the code of conduct – in my view the most important – has been labelled “ingratiation” by a public service specialist at the Australian National University, Richard Mulligan.

It’s the possibility that while still in the public service, the employee will use their position to go soft on an organisation (or type of organisation) they see as a potential future employer.

The Reserve Bank’s own code of conduct is silent on the question of taking up employment with the banks it regulates, although it does say that where there is a perception of conflict of interest, the employee has to discuss it with the relevant department head or governor.

The government’s lobbying code of conduct in place since 2008 purports to ban heads of department from engaging in lobbying activities relating to any matter with which they have had official dealings for 12 months after they have left office.

But former governors needn’t lobby, and 12 months isn’t long to wait.

Philip Lowe’s predecessor, the man to whom he was deputy, Glenn Stevens, finished up as Reserve Bank Governor in September 2016 and joined the board of the Macquarie Bank and Macquarie Group in December 2017. He has been chair of Macquarie Bank and Macquarie Group since 2022.

Stevens’ predecessor as governor, Ian Macfarlane, finished as head of the Reserve Bank in September 2006 and joined the board of the ANZ bank in February 2007.

The governor he replaced, Bernie Fraser, finished at the Reserve Bank in September 1996 and joined the board of the industry funds that became Australian Super in the same year, becoming chair of the super-fund-owned ME Bank in 2000.

Macquarie, Westpac, NAB. Governors get looked after

Ken Henry stepped down as head of the Australian Treasury (and a member of the Reserve Bank board) in April 2011 and in November that year joined the board of the National Australia Bank. In 2015 he was made its chair.

The man Henry replaced at the Treasury, Ted Evans, stepped down in April 2001 and joined the board of Westpac that year, becoming its chair in 2007.

I’ve dealt with each of these people while they were governors or treasury secretaries and I’ve never seen anything that made me doubt their integrity.

And yet in my view, none of them should have gone on to work for the type of organisations they used to regulate.

All of them were paid extraordinarily well. In 2021–22 Philip Lowe was on a package of $1.037 million including superannuation and a salary of $890,252.

None needed another high-paying job straight away, and (because of public service super) all had a generous income to look forward to in retirement.

I understand their need to continue to do interesting things, but I don’t think it’s too big a sacrifice to ask former regulators to do those things away from the types of organisations they had the privilege of regulating.

On retiring from the Reserve Bank in 1968, its first governor HC Coombs, chaired the Council for the Arts and the Council for Aboriginal Affairs. He made an ever-greater contribution to Australia without doing what the Japanese call amakudari, or “descending from heaven” to work for the organisations he once regulated.

A profile of the practice includes the admonition “don’t snicker”.

When Lowe took the governor’s job in 2016 I wrote a profile of him for The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald, speaking to former teachers and colleagues off the record. Repeatedly, unprompted, they mentioned his moral compass.

Lowe is about to turn 62. He has years of useful work ahead of him. I don’t expect him to descend from heaven to do it.The Conversation

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

Read more >>

Tuesday, August 01, 2023

Australia is about to set its first full employment target – and it will define people’s lives for decades

Stand by for one of the most important decisions Treasurer Jim Chalmers and the Albanese government will make.

That decision is to commit future governments and the Reserve Bank to full employment, and, more importantly, spell out what that means.

The Australian government hasn’t wholeheartedly and publicly committed itself to full employment since the 1945 Full Employment White Paper, released as the second world war was drawing to a close and Australia was gearing up for peace.

The definition Chalmers chooses – whether it specifies an unemployment rate of 3.5%, 4.5%, or the more ambitious target of 3% I would most like – could reverberate for as many decades as the white paper did in 1945.

Tuesday’s Reserve Bank decision not to increase interest rates further makes it more likely we could end up with a more ambitious target.

Australia’s daunting post-war challenge

The 1945 white paper was prepared for Prime Minister John Curtin by a committee led by the head of post-war reconstruction HC “Nugget” Coombs.

In the 20 years leading up to the war, more than 10% of workforce had been out of work, climbing to 25% during the depression. The committee wanted the all-out mobilisation necessitated by war to be continued into the peace.

Their challenge was to find jobs for the 1 million defence staff who would be returning to civilian life.

Achieving that would require governments to actively stimulate private spending, through their own spending and through monetary and other policies “to the extent necessary to avoid unemployment and the consequent waste of resources”.

That was an idea accepted by both Labor and Coalition governments right through to the 1970s, where unemployment remained as low as 2%. It was also one Coombs himself adopted as the first head of the Reserve Bank of Australia from 1960.

But the employment target Coombs helped write in to the Reserve Bank Act was fuzzy: it simply committed the bank to “the maintenance of full employment in Australia”.

Finally setting a jobs target

Fast forward to March 2023, when the treasurer was handed the review of the Reserve Bank, An RBA fit for the future.

That final report pointed out the bank’s target for inflation is specific – defined in a written agreement with the treasurer as “2-3% on average, over time”.

In contrast, the bank’s target for employment has no numbers attached – resulting in inflation getting prioritised.

While it is true that putting a number on a target doesn’t guarantee an outcome, the number put on the inflation target does seem to have helped bring it down.

The RBA review recommended the treasurer’s agreement with the bank be updated, requiring it to adopt an explicit target for “full employment”. That would most likely be expressed via a range of indicators, including the unemployment rate, the underemployment rate, and the tenure of employment.

Chalmers says he will update the agreement and issue the direction by the end of the year. Before then, next month he will make public his own target for full employment via his employment white paper, now being prepared by the treasury.

Moving unofficial targets of the past

The numbers that the treasurer and the Reserve Bank adopt will matter enormously. And it’s worth clarifying that the target can’t be an unemployment rate of zero.

There will always be some temporary unemployment as people move between jobs. That’s also the case when people leave industries that are no longer needed – such as thermal coal mining in the years ahead, as our energy mix changes – and go on to retrain for jobs in emerging industries.

For a while in the 1990s, the Reserve Bank acted as if full employment meant an unemployment rate of 7%. That was its estimate of the “non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment” (also known as NAIRU), the rate needed to stop shortages of useful workers pushing up inflation.

In 2017, the bank cut that estimate to 5% and then 4.5% in 2019. Then, about a year after COVID hit, it appeared to cut it further when Governor Philip Lowe said in 2021 there was a chance Australia could achieve and sustain an unemployment rate in the “low fours”, although only time would tell.



The lower our target, the more secure we will be

The unemployment rate is now 3.5% – a near five-decade low.

If the government and the bank choose to adopt 3.5% as a target, it would put 150,000 more Australians into work than would a higher unambitious target of 4.5% – in perpetuity.

A lower target of 3% (not too far above the 2% Australia achieved from 1940 to 1974) would do much more than put people into jobs and better use our resources.

It would also help us adapt to change in the way we are going to need to.

Creating confidence to face change

The 1945 white paper was on to this, at another time of massive transition when the wartime industries were dying and the peacetime industries emerging.

It said an assurance of full employment would

assure workers that the community has need of their services somewhere, and will restore the basic sense of security without which new risks will not readily be undertaken.

It’s a point echoed by Prime Minister Bob Hawke’s former economic advisor, Ross Garnaut, in an address to the Australian Conference of Economists last month.

He said unless there was confidence in high employment, every time an industry or employer was threatened with closure, there would be a cry of “jobs, jobs, jobs” as workers fought to protect what they had.

Garnaut told me it was a lesson he learned from Hawke when he signed on with the prime minister in 1983. Hawke agreed with him that the economy would have to change and some industries would have to die. But Hawke told him he wasn’t going to bring on those changes until unemployment was clearly coming down.

When people knew they could get another job, they would accept change.

Now, as in the 1940s and 1980s, we need that confidence. If Chalmers and the Reserve Bank adopt an ambitious target, they’ll create it and set us up for the challenges ahead.The Conversation

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

Read more >>

Tuesday, July 18, 2023

Australia is on the brink of ending interest rate hikes and an economic first – beating inflation without a recession

What if Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe and his successor Michele Bullock were able to achieve something truly remarkable – a steady decline in inflation without further interest rate increases, and without bringing on a recession.

It’s suddenly looking possible. Inflation is now coming down so quickly worldwide there’s probably no need to push it down further.

We couldn’t have said that a week ago. Then, the US inflation rate was 4%, well down on the peak of 9.1% a year earlier, but high enough for eminent economists such as former US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers to say the US would need a mountain of unemployment to bring it down further.

Specifically, Summers said that to control inflation the US would need

five years of unemployment above 5% to contain inflation – in other words, we need two years of 7.5% unemployment, or five years of 6% unemployment, or one year of 10% unemployment

That was in late June, when US inflation had slipped from 5% to 4.9% to 4% over three months. Then, it was at least arguable that it wouldn’t fall much further without another push.

No longer. Last week, we learned that US inflation plunged yet again to 3% in June. Although our result for June isn’t out yet (it’s next week) it is now no longer easy to argue that progress isn’t real and continuing.

This graph of the latest monthly readings of annual inflation rates shows inflation peaked in the US, the UK, Canada and Australia late last year, and has been coming down fairly steadily since.



Summers and others in the US used to deride those who said ultra-high inflation would go away as “team transitory”. But it is now looking as if that high inflation was indeed transitory, even if the transition took longer than expected.

Driving down inflation has been one of the key forces that drove it up: energy and transport prices, which surged in the wake of Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

US energy prices have fallen 16.7% over the past year, led down by a 26.5% slide in the price of what Australians call petrol. That’s a saving that will push down Australia’s inflation rate and inflation rates worldwide.

Non-energy and non-food inflation fell as well, suggesting that there isn’t (yet) a psychology of expectations holding US inflation up.

Falling inflation expectations

Here, Australians expect falling inflation, if their answers to the Melbourne Insitute’s monthly expectations survey are to be believed. In June, those surveyed expected inflation of 5.2% in the year ahead, down from 6.3% a year earlier.

This makes Australians less likely than they were to bake high inflation into wage negotiations and other decisions, making it less likely inflation will remain high.

And it ought to be noted that the inflation Australians say they expect has traditionally been much more than what’s been delivered. That’s presumably because most of us notice the prices that are going up more than those that aren’t.

A soft landing, without a recession

The much quicker than expected collapse in US inflation has dramatically raised the likelihood of what’s called a “soft landing” in the US. Here in Australia, it’s what our current Reserve Bank Governor has called staying on the “narrow path” of returning inflation to target in a reasonable timeframe, without a recession.

If that happens, finance journalist Alan Kohler says Lowe and his successor Michele Bullock (who takes over in September) will be the first team at the top of the bank to get inflation down from above 7% without delivering a recession.

There was a recession when the bank tried to get inflation down below 7% in the mid-1970s, in the early 1980s, and in the early 1990s.



That we might be able to pull off yet another first ought no longer to surprise us, after all of the firsts during COVID. Enduring Australia’s (brief) 2020 recession without unemployment climbing above 7% was also a first.

The minutes of the Reserve Bank’s June board meeting released on Tuesday show it is prepared to countenance such a first.

The bank’s board members acknowledged that inflation was “now declining, albeit from a high level”, while falling commodity and shipping prices were cutting cost pressures. All this before the full effect of the bank’s 12 rate rises to date has been felt.

Remember, these are minutes of a meeting that took place before last week’s extraordinarily good news from the US. Those board members’ comments hold open the possibility of Australia keeping the bulk of its gains in employment, while getting inflation back down to controllable levels.

The fact that it has never happened before hasn’t stopped the economics team at the ANZ Bank from predicting it – no further rate rises from here on, a continuing slide in inflation, and only a modest uptrend in unemployment.

A ‘Goldilocks’ economy is in sight

The “Goldilocks” outcome – not too hot or too cold, but just right – would be keeping in work most of the Australians who got into work when unemployment fell and getting on top of inflation. If we can manage that, we will have done future Australians an enormous service.

Things get easier when unemployment is low. We get more likely to become more productive, because we’re less resistant to change when unemployment is less of a threat. We get in a better position to help the budget, by taking less in benefits and paying more in tax. And we become more like each other – lessening inequality.

It is looking as if the Reserve Bank has the opportunity to cement low unemployment while controlling inflation. Holding off (and perhaps abandoning) future rate raises will keep it in reach.

Our next official inflation update, due out next Wednesday, will matter a lot.The Conversation

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

Read more >>

Tuesday, July 04, 2023

The RBA has kept interest rates on hold. It’ll be cautious from here on

The Reserve Bank decided to keep interest rates on hold at 4.1% because it thinks there’s a chance – just a chance – it has lifted them all it needs to.

In his statement released after Tuesday’s board meeting, Governor Philip Lowe said while inflation was still too high and set to remain so for some time yet, it had “passed its peak”.

Growth in the Australian economy had slowed and labour market conditions had eased, although they remained tight.

After 12 near-consecutive rate hikes, and in light of the “uncertainty surrounding the economic outlook”, it had decided to wait at least a month before hiking again until it knew more about the impact of what it has done on inflation and the health of the economy.

And when you compare Australians’ experience of rising rates with other countries, the Reserve Bank has already done more than many people realise.

Rising rates have hit Australian borrowers harder

Criticism of Australia’s Reserve Bank for not pushing up its cash rate as far as other countries overlooks an important difference between Australian borrowers and borrowers in those countries.

Canada has lifted its central bank rate from close to zero to 4.75%, Britain to 5%, the US to just above 5% and New Zealand to 5.5%.

Yet Australia’s increase – from close to zero to 4.1% – has caused Australian borrowers much, much more pain than borrowers in those other countries.

That’s because an exceptionally large proportion of Australian mortgage holders are on variable rates: roughly 70%. That’s compared to 35% in Canada, 15% in the UK, 12% in New Zealand and less than 5% in the United States.

In the words of Australia’s Reserve Bank: “interest rates on loans with very long fixed-rate terms tend to be less sensitive to changes in the short-term rates”.

Back in February, the Reserve Bank’s estimate was that the interest rates actually paid on Australian mortgages had climbed two percentage points since it began pushing up rates.

In contrast – as this Reserve Bank chart shows – the rates actually paid in New Zealand had climbed by one and half percentage points, the rates in the UK by just half a percentage point, and the rates in the United States by very little at all.


Increases in mortgage rates actually paid

Months since the official rate began climbing. 100 = one percentage point

RBA, APRA

And because mortgages themselves are so much bigger than they used to be, the dramatic increase in rates actually paid costs a lot more than it would have.

Modelling by Ben Phillips at the ANU’s Centre for Social Research and Methods suggests that in the past two years, the average share of mortgaged households’ post-tax income devoted to payments has jumped from 17% to 25% – the biggest share in an awfully long time.

And it’s set to get worse, whatever the bank does to its cash rate.

The looming mortgage cliff

Usually, Australians take out very few fixed-rate mortgages. But in 2020 and 2021, we took out lots with fixed two- and three-year rates, when fixed rates were low.

As many as 880,000 of those fixed-rate terms are about to expire, pushing those borrowers from rates of around 2% (which might cost $2,100 per month to service) to rates nearer 5.5% (which might cost $3,000 to service).

The Reserve Bank itself expects 15% of borrowers to find themselves with negative cash flows in the coming months – meaning their incomings won’t match their outgoings and they’ll have to run down savings, work more hours, or tighten belts.

We’re already winding back spending. Although total retail spending has climbed 4.2% over the past year, prices have probably climbed 7% while the population has climbed 2%. This means the amount bought per person has shrunk sharply.

Recession is increasingly likely

Anything that makes us cut back even more runs the risk of bringing on a recession, something that’s already happened in New Zealand and may be about to happen in the United Kingdom.

At the start of this week, The Conversation’s expert forecasting panel assigned a 38% probability to a recession in Australia, much more than at the start of the year, but still less than 50% – meaning we might escape it.

The panel’s central forecast is for two more rate hikes this year, which it expects to be quickly unwound. If that happens, and if we escape a recession, the panel expects unemployment to climb only modestly over the year ahead while inflation glides down to 3.9% – within spitting distance of the Reserve Bank’s 2-3% target.

Lowe says getting things right means staying on a narrow path.

The case for living with higher inflation

That path might mean accepting a slower glide down in inflation than some would like, or even a higher end point – something closer to 3% than 2-3%.

Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman this week suggested quietly abandoning the US inflation target (of 2%) once inflation dropped to a point where people no longer noticed it all the time, which he thought would be about 3-4%.

There would be a case for doing that here, so long as inflation was stable, predictable and no longer causing alarm. It’d help keep unemployment low.

In any event, we’re nowhere near there yet. The March quarter inflation figure (the most recent quarterly figure) put the annual rate at 7%. The update due in three weeks will show how quickly we are moving toward 4%.

When we get there, Lowe or his successor (Lowe’s term expires in September) will have time to think about how important ultra-low inflation of 2-3% really is, and whether it is worth the cost to Australians of getting there.The Conversation

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

Read more >>

Tuesday, June 13, 2023

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 >>