Seeing through the mirage of job creation

IN

the lead-up to the next federal election, both sides of the political fence are singing the same mantra — “We need to create jobs”.

Yet, is it possible that an assumption that both sides make is that the ordinary voter believes that jobs will fix everything, and so whichever party shouts the loudest on the issue will gain the vote?

In 2016, the Weekend Australian Magazine published an article “People don’t realise what is happening”. The reference was to a warning of the impact of artificial intelligence and robotics and the effect it will have on the labour market.

The idea that a businessman spends sleepless nights wondering how many new employees he can put on the books is one that only a person suffering from delusion might have.

Any business owner that is not thinking of ways to cut costs and increase profitability won’t be in business for too long.

Globalisation, whether you are for or against the phenomenon, has made it acceptable to downsize, retrench, relocate and at whatever cost, to maintain shareholder wealth.

That is essentially what capitalism is all about, and until we find a better system, all we can do is work to make it more supportive to those that do not have the resources to be independent of social welfare.

One way to work within the system is through structural change.

Unfortunately, structural change infers long-term strategy which is not conducive to the politically safer option of short-termism.

The structural change proposed is to replace the ever-growing industry of the unemployment market with one of an education allowance for all Australian citizens of working age.

This means a guaranteed allowance providing that the recipient who is not already in full-time or casual employment of their choosing, undertakes lifelong education through university or TAFE or other vocational training courses.

Employers will be faced with some new options — accelerate automation of their work processes, hire people out of the education sector (the graduates), or both, in order to undertake specific work tasks and let them be released back into the paid education sector when no longer needed.

The stressors will be considerable for both Labor and Liberal — Labor would have to deal with the union position and the Liberals would need to deal with the business owners.

And, yes, there will be some that abuse the allowance but is that not the case with any allowance?

However, the end game might produce some valuable outcomes: More resilient individuals able to deal with complexity, diversity and change; more resilient communities; more competitive and innovative industries.

There would be an almost 95 per cent reduction in unemployment benefits.

And there would be a significant reduction in social casualties (as in domestic violence, health costs, and correctional clients).

There will be stakeholders in the game who want to retain the Charles Dickens-era Industrial Revolution mindset, and it will take a statesmanlike politician to push the notion of an education-led recovery within their party.

However, the political leadership won’t occur before a lot more of the voting public realise that the notion of creating jobs is attractive, but a mirage. Tasmanian James Ayliffe is a risk consultant and former merchant banker.