Christopher Buttersnip
Beware of the Drop Bears
- Oct 28, 2020
- 4,020
- 10,244
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Fraudenberg torn a newie by Joe Aston. What a disaster he has been.
Josh Frydenberg flubs JobKeeper defence
It is actually quite confronting to watch the Treasurer of Australia so out of his depth.
Joe AstonColumnist
Sep 12, 2021 – 6.12pm
Josh Frydenberg is engaging substantively with criticism of JobKeeper’s poor design and maladministration. On Friday, he put his name to a 1400-word opinion piece in The Australian.
Unhappily for Frydenberg, his powers of argument are extraordinarily underdone. He can memorise and recite debating points but their data collide with each other and the logic is circular. If he really understood his own evidence, there’s simply no way he’d be relying upon it. It is actually quite confronting to watch the Treasurer of Australia so out of his depth.
Josh Frydenberg is engaging substantively with criticism of JobKeeper’s poor design and maladministration. Alex Ellinghausen
“New Treasury analysis has found that in the June [2020] quarter … the actual median decline in turnover for JobKeeper recipients was 28 per cent,” he wrote.
Here, Frydenberg is pivoting from hiding behind a meaningless average to hiding behind a meaningless median. He quotes from new Treasury analysis but does not deign to release it.
For 98 per cent of JobKeeper recipients, the required turnover decline was 30 per cent. Therefore, with his 28 per cent median turnover decline, Frydenberg is bragging that roughly half of them shouldn’t have qualified!
Next came Frydenberg’s monster howler. “While it is true that a number of businesses did not experience a fall in turnover in the June quarter by the full anticipated amount … in these same businesses … more than 85,000 employees were stood down on zero hours. Without JobKeeper, these 85,000 jobs would have been lost.”
How on earth can he claim that without JobKeeper, every single one of those workers temporarily stood down would’ve permanently lost their jobs? It’s arrant nonsense. Not a scrap of evidence is provided to support the contention because none exists.
By the end of June, nearly all of them (outside Victoria) were back at work. And Frydenberg continued to pay their employers $750 per week, per employee, for July, August and September.
Say we accept that all 85,000 of those jobs would have been lost – which nobody seriously does – then we next should ask: at what cost did Frydenberg save them?
Thanks to Andrew Leigh’s canny employment of the Parliamentary Budget Office, we know businesses that “did not experience a fall in turnover in the June quarter by the full anticipated amount” received $12.5 billion in JobKeeper.
Over the first six months of JobKeeper, those businesses banked between $29 billion and $35 billion. Even based on the lower figure, 41 per cent of the $71 billion JobKeeper 1.0 was paid to recipients who did not experience their requisite turnover decline.
So saving 85,000 jobs cost $29 billion. That is $339,494 per job for six months, or $678,988 annualised. Were all of these jobs in investment banking?
Put another way, Frydenberg spent $362 per hour per worker, or $13,000 per week per worker. Of course, each of those workers was only given $750 per week, so the other $12,250 per week went straight into the skyrockets of employers. And this is Frydenberg’s explanation.
Incidentally, if Frydenberg spent 41 per cent of JobKeeper 1.0 saving 85,000 jobs, how does he say 100 per cent of the JobKeeper budget saved 700,000 jobs? We’ve all come to expect made-up numbers from an array of cringeworthy backbenchers, but it’s just not good enough from the Commonwealth Treasurer.