Andy Roddick announces his Retirement

Yesterday in New York, former world number 1 Andy Roddick announced he would retire from the game following the end of the US Open.  Roddick, 30, announced his decision prior to playing his 2nd round match against 19 year old Australian Bernard Tomic.

And so how do we look back on Roddick’s career?

He is one of only 25 men to have held the Number 1 spot since the ATP ranking began in 1973. He only held it for 13 weeks, which sounds like very little, but when you consider Boris Becker held it only for 12 weeks, it doesn’t seem do bad. However Becker of course won 6 Grand Slam titles – 3 at Wimbledon, 2 Australian Opens and 1 US Open. Roddick has only one Grand Slam title to his name – the 2003 US Open.

When you look at Roddick you see a career that was destroyed by the Federer Express more than any other. His lone Grand Slam title came in between Federer winning the 2003 Wimbledon and the 2004 Australian Open. After winning that 2004 title, Federer took over the number one spot and held it for the next 237 weeks. In the mean time Roddick found himself hitting a wall every time he played Federer.

Just before the 2003 US Open Roddick beat Federer in the semi finals of the Cincinnati Masters (Roddick would win the title). Federer then beat Roddick the next 11 times they played each other. Six of those times were finals, 3 of which were Grand Slam finals, 2 of which were Wimbledon Finals. After finally beating Federer in Miami in 2008, Federer then beat him the next six times – one of which was the 2009 Wimbledon final.

But one thing you can say about Roddick is that he lasted for a long time.

When Roddick took over the Number 1 spot from Juan Carlos Ferrero on 3rd November 2003, here were the top 50 men:

Rank, Name & Nationality
Now
1 Roddick, Andy (USA) 22
2 Ferrero, Juan Carlos (ESP) 66
3 Federer, Roger (SUI) 1
4 Coria, Guillermo (ARG) Retired
5 Agassi, Andre (USA) Retired
6 Schuettler, Rainer (GER) Retired
7 Moya, Carlos (ESP) Retired
8 Nalbandian, David (ARG) 45
9 Philippoussis, Mark (AUS) Retired
10 Grosjean, Sebastien (FRA) Retired
11 Srichaphan, Paradorn (THA) Retired
12 Massu, Nicolas (CHI) 683
13 Novak, Jiri (CZE) Retired
14 El Aynaoui, Younes (MAR) Retired
15 Henman, Tim (GBR) Retired
16 Kuerten, Gustavo (BRA) Retired
17 Verkerk, Martin (NED) Retired
18 Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS) 125
19 Schalken, Sjeng (NED) Retired
20 Fish, Mardy (USA) 25
21 Robredo, Tommy (ESP) 178
22 Mantilla, Felix (ESP) Retired
23 Mirnyi, Max (BLR) (No Singles, #1 in Doubles)
24 Calleri, Agustin (ARG) Retired
25 Costa, Albert (ESP) Retired
26 Ferreira, Wayne (RSA) Retired
27 Zabaleta, Mariano (ARG) Retired
28 Lopez, Feliciano (ESP) 31
29 Spadea, Vincent (USA) Retired
30 Ginepri, Robby (USA) 234
31 Bjorkman, Jonas (SWE) Retired
32 Clement, Arnaud (FRA) 164
33 Dent, Taylor (USA) Retired
34 Gaudio, Gaston (ARG) Retired
35 Gonzalez, Fernando (CHI) 459
36 Nieminen, Jarkko (FIN) 42
37 Blake, James (USA) 114
38 Chela, Juan Ignacio (ARG) 117
39 Sargsian, Sargis (ARM) Retired
40 Kucera, Karol (SVK) Retired
41 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny (RUS) Retired
42 Ljubicic, Ivan (CRO) Retired
43 Youzhny, Mikhail (RUS) 29
44 Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS) 47
45 Saretta, Flavio (BRA) Retired
46 Stepanek, Radek (CZE) 38
47 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 3
48 Volandri, Filippo (ITA) 72
49 Rochus, Olivier (BEL) 105
50 Sanchez, David (ESP) Retired

Twenty nine of them no longer play, 8 are no longer in the top 100. At that time a young Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic had been on the tour for 15 and 17 weeks respectively. Murray was the number 544 in the world, and Djokovic was ranked 680.

It is almost a different era. Except of course it was about to be the start of the Federer era – and era which in some respects is still ongoing. Federer today said of Roddick:

We've seen so many different champions go out in different ways and I am so happy for him (Roddick). Some expected better (from his career), some expected worse, but I am sure he's happy with what he achieved because he almost achieved everything he ever wanted. Maybe the Wimbledon title potentially, but let's forget about that. 

He was in those Wimbledon finals, he could have got those titles and that's what I said when I beat him in '09 - he deserves this title as well.

In my mind he is a Wimbledon champ as well and a wonderful ambassador of the game. And I am thankful for everything he's done for the game and especially here for tennis in America.'

That is kind, and truly the 2009 Wimbledon Final that Federer won 16-14 is a contender for the greatest match of all-time, but everyone knows they only give the title to the bloke who wins the final match and Roddick never did that at Wimbledon.

To compare him to Federer is perhaps unfair. It’s a bit like saying of a playwright who has won a Pulitzer Prize, “Look you write well, but when I compare you to Shakespeare…”. But then that is the nature of sport – especially tennis which is mano-a-mano.

Roddick was a player who came up at the time when the big serve was still the big weapon. His was huge and had he been born 5 years earlier it might have brought him 4 or 5 more Grand Slam titles. But as Jim Courier (I think) said of him, when playing Federer, once the rally went more than 5 shots, Roddick might as well hit the ball in to the stands.

And it’s not like Roddick didn’t see it coming. In the third time they ever met in Basel in 2002, Federer beat Roddick 7-6, 6-1 and reeled off one of the more amazing selection of winners to break Roddick for the 2nd time in the second set. You don’t need to speak the language of the commentators to understand what they’re saying:

Perhaps though the bigger shame is that Roddick outside of Wimbledon only made it to 2 Grand Slam finals. He never made it past the 4th round of the French Open, and he made it to the semi-finals of the Australian Open 4 times – losing to  Raineer Schuttler in 2003, Leyton Hewitt in 2005 and Federer in 2007 and 2009. Oddly he made it to the US Open final twice (winning once) but never made it to the semi final in any of the other 10 times he played it.

For me however the match I most recall of Roddick’s is the quarter finals of the 2003 Australian Open that he played against Younes El Aynaoui which he won 21-19 in the 5th set. It was one of those long night matches that seems to always happen at the Aus Open and it ended well into the morning. The fifth set went for 2 hours 23 minutes, and was then the longest fifth set in the open era.

At the time I thought Roddick a brash American and wasn’t really sold on him. But his play and demeanour after the victory won me over and his regular banter each year with Jim Courier at the Australian Open and his prickliness but also honesty with journalists at post match press conferences I found refreshing. He truly played with his heart on his sleeve and that sleeve was usually wet with sweat.

It is easy to suggest Roddick should have achieved more, but given the incredible era in which he played – in which two of the very greatest of all time in Nadal and Federer dominated, it is hard to think he underachieved. Since the 6th August 2001 the highest he has been ranked in the world is 34th – which was for a week in March this year. He is no journeyman, he was in the top 10 give or take the odd week or 3 he fell to number 11 or 12 from August 2002 to August 2011. He reached the top 10 a couple weeks prior to his 20th birthday.

That’s a career to die for. (And by comparison, Tomic is also a few weeks short of his 20th birthday is ranked 43 in the world)

He carried the men’s game in America for all of that time. Since the 2001 French Open he has only missed 2 Grand Slam tournaments.

image

(8 is a win, 7, Finalist; 6, Semi; 5, Quarter Finalist)

It is good for him to go now – when he is still a threat to get to the final 8 if not the final.

And if he goes out now, he’ll always be able to look back to the last time he played Federer. It was in Miami this year. Roddick had played well to take the first set in a tie breaker. In the second Federer took over and won 6-1. In the third Roddick was down break points early in the set and the standard operating procedure looked about to take place. But Roddick held by playing some outrageous forehands. He then broke Federer in the next game by absolutely creaming 4 shots in a row. Federer was completely stunned and the match was gone as Roddick continued to hit winner after winner.

He won the set 6-4 and took their head to head record to 3-21.

Roddick might occasionally wish he had been born in another time, but he was a big part of this era, even while his game seemed to belong more to the 1990s.

As much as anything if Roddick was playing you’d stop to watch it, because you knew you’d see an honest match from a guy who left it all on the court. The sweat would pour off his body – literally dripping onto the court. Every match was a battle to the death – an attribute he shares with Leyton Hewitt (and to be honest all other great players). For that reason alone it’s hard to think he underachieved. And given the way he took apart Tomic today 6-3, 6-4, 6-0, it is the attribute of Roddick’s of which his younger opponent perhaps should most seek to emulate.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

The Rise of the Fifth Estate–excerpt

My book, The Rise of the Fifth Estate is released tomorrow. It is available in ebook form in various formats.

Here is a bit of a taste – an excerpt from the first chapter.

******

Chapter One: Thrills and Spills

 

For as long as the media have had any say in how the news is to be provided to the public, journalists within its warm and self-protecting bosom have adopted the role of gatekeepers.

This is never more the case than when it comes to the Canberra press gallery. Imagine what it is like to be one of those few — well, actually, the not-so-few. The email list of the federal parliamentary press gallery runs to nine pages, and contains nearly three hundred names (The Australian has eighteen by itself, and the ABC’s names run for over two pages). But when you get down to it, the number of them who get by-lines, whose faces appear on television, and whose voices broadcast the news of the day, are few and privileged.

Oh, to be one of those few. Imagine the power — to be able to decide what to write, the angle, the slant, the lead. To be able to head off for dinner in Kingston or Manuka with some minister — either government or shadow — for a little off -the-record briefing (because we can safely assume that not all of those un-named ‘government sources’ are made up). Imagine being one of those who sit in the parliamentary gallery, overlooking the elected and deciding their fates. Oh, mighty Fourth Estate! Gatekeepers of the
news; provider of opinions for us all!

And should you disagree with a particular opinion or with the presentation of the news, send an email, or get hold of pen and paper, and write a letter to the editor — and see the wonders of free speech and freedom of the press combined (ignoring the fact that the media is the gatekeeper of even the public’s views of the media).

Back in 2007, in the run-up to the November election, the world of political blogs in Australia was beginning to disrupt this nice, century-old tradition. The ‘old media’ — The Australian, most particularly — didn’t take it particularly well. This was odd, not only because it was strange that a paper that held itself up as the leading newspaper of the country should care what a few ‘amateurs’ might think, but because at the time The Australian had one of its best journalists doing great work as a blogger.

The late Matt Price would have been perfect for the Twittersphere. A love of politics and sport, and the ability to mesh both with popular-culture references — such as when he compared the voting publics’ declining attraction to John Howard with Price’s own inexplicable indifference to the band REM — along with an ability to see both sides of a debate, and also to find humour in all things, would have seen Price as assuredly the dominant Australian political journalist on Twitter.

In 2007, Price’s output on The Australian was also the only kind of writing that deserved the name of a ‘blog’ being posted on a mainstream-media website by a journalist. Sure, by this time, Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt had blogs running on The Daily Telegraph and the Herald Sun websites, but Price’s blog was secondary to his work as a journalist. On news.com.au, Tim Dunlop was showing everybody how it should be done, as he spent long hours responding to comments, guiding the debate, providing updates and links, and moderating the comments.

Dunlop, however, was a blogger from way back, and was an anomaly among the authors of new-fangled ‘blogs’ that News Limited websites were trying to fashion. While the newspapers would occasionally fi re shots at the blogosphere, and journalists would obviously read the blogs — especially when their own name was mentioned — the interaction between the public and the gatekeepers remained as it ever had been. This was a state of media stasis that, a mere five years later, seems quaint. A look back over recent years shows the great changes that have occurred in the way that political events are reported.

On 11 September 2007, news came through from Canberra of a possible leadership spill within the Liberal Party. In the morning, Sky News ran a story that Malcolm Turnbull and Alexander Downer were withdrawing their support for John Howard. Both Tim Dunlop and Andrew Bolt were onto the story quickly on their respective blogs. Bolt ran with ‘Downer, Turnbull give up on Howard’; Dunlop, with ‘The last days of chez Howard?’ But the best place for readers to find answers to their questions was from Matt Price, who was also covering the story on his blog with the tantalising opening stanza of ‘Something is on in Parliament House’.

What we saw this day would not be the end of the Howard prime ministership, but it was the start of social media breaking down the gate-kept world of Australian politics. Throughout the day, Price provided updates of events taking place:

On the way out of questions, Downer walked past a bunch of journalists and dismissed all this as much ado about nothing, declared nothign [sic] would happen with the leadership, and predicted we’d all get sick of idle speculation over the next six weeks or so.

Yes, even the odd typo would get through — something that bloggers and Twitter users know happens, and that only the most miserable of pedants worry about. The social-media space is fast and messy, and is not the environment for as perfect a news article as one that has passed under the watch of a vigilant subeditor (back when sub-editors were employed directly and were valued).

However, Price was doing more than just providing updates; he was also responding to comments and questions from his readers. During the day he responded fourteen times to readers’ comments.

Some of these involved his calming down the hopes of lefty readers:

LukeH Tue 11 Sep 07 (10.45am) looks and smells like D-Day has arrived for the PM. baseball bats ready?! present arms!

Matt Price Tue 11 Sep 07 (12.18pm) Not so sure, Luke. Howard will need to be blasted out.

Or the delusions of the right:

deadcato Tue 11 Sep 07 (11.35am) Matt, a hypothetical: Costello’s unelectable, Howard’s gone, Turnbull hasn’t had much cut-through despite being fairly high- profile: what are the chances of a genuinely fresh face being vaulted in? I’m thinking Julie Bishop- two months to tart her up, election in January?

Matt Price Tue 11 Sep 07 (12.29pm) You’re dreaming, Deadcato.

He also gave insights into how the system works, and how journalists are never passive agents during a leadership spill:

Jane Tue 11 Sep 07 (11.42am) Is this a case of the Canberra press gallery getting too excited or is it going to be one of those historic days in Federal politics?? I guess we’ll just have to stay online (with Sky news on in the background) to see what happens …

Matt Price Tue 11 Sep 07 (12.33pm) Let’s be clear about this, Jane. When leadership battles are on, MPs use the media to pressurise rivals and send messages to colleagues. I don’t believe David Speers is inventing his story on Sky — clearly, senior Libs are attempting to force JWH to quit.

And then a final summing-up:

nomad3 Tue 11 Sep 07 (01.23pm) Matt, someone asked you a question earlier ... please respond … have you ever seen anything like this this close to an election … whats your take ? you think today is the day?

Matt Price Tue 11 Sep 07 (01.31pm) We’re in new territory, Nomad. Right now it seems Howard will hang in, but who one earth knows?

Over on Andrew Bolt’s blog, predictions were being made:

UPDATE 2: .... Costello isn’t stirring any of this, but is ready to lead. He’ll be prime minister tomorrow

And Matt Price was being used as a primary source:

UPDATE 4: No confirmation from Matt Price, but a sense of end of empire …

This was the blogosphere come to the mainstream media — blogs referencing other blogs, readers discussing events with each other, and it all being done in a fluid and (in the case of Bolt’s prediction) messy way.FIFTHESTATE_300dpi

There is often a messiness to blogs that is tough for the traditional media to accept (except when they make similar errors). But while it is easy to go in hard on Bolt’s error of foresight, it is clear that he was expressing his gut reaction. On some occasions (such as, much later, when he speculated wrongly about the religion and motives of Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik), this can be unwise, and can lead to false conclusions being made that become fact in the minds of trusting readers. But in the case of the machinations of political parties, Bolt’s readers were after his insights and hunches — and they knew they were just that. No one was thinking it was fact that Costello would be prime minister on 12 September.

Such discussions were not new to the blogging world, but what made this day unique was the presence of Matt Price inside the walls — responding directly to readers, and not filtering them through his editor or the editor of the letters pages.

It was an indicator of where the media would be going, because it was where consumers were demanding the media go. Write a letter to the editor? Why on earth would you bother to do that, when you could leave a comment on a blog of the journalist who wrote the very piece about which you wished to comment? While Price’s responses to his readers showed the way, they were still just a taste of what could be. His fourteen responses were written between 12.17 and 1.31pm. Most of them were in reply to comments written at least an hour earlier.

The nature of the moderation policy for blogs on media websites reduces the ability of the blogger/journalist to provide quick responses, and means that there is next to no chance for there to be quick dialogue between the commenters. Those blogs in September 2007 had brought the interaction between readers and journalists closer than ever before, but real-time responsiveness was still beyond reach. Readers could call out their comments, and know that the journalist would hear them, but the distance between producer and consumer was still there, and it could be measured by the lapse in time between query and response.

The cheek-by-jowl closeness of Twitter was yet to arrive.

Even by the time the leadership of a political party next became the subject of urgent political discourse, little had changed in the social-media landscape of Australian politics. On 15 September 2008, when Malcolm Turnbull challenged Brendan Nelson, none of the journalists in the Canberra press gallery had yet joined Twitter.

There were a few early adopters who existed on the periphery — Sky News director John Bergin had joined on 3 September. The earliest joiner of Twitter from among the main political journalists in the country was news.com.au’s Paul Colgan, who had signed up at the extraordinarily early date of 7 April 2007. Political blogger Malcolm Farnsworth and Crikey blogger Possum Comitatus (Scott Steel) had joined respectively in April and May of 2008, but had little cause to use it. Of the over three hundred journalists who covered federal politics or national affairs, only ten were on Twitter at the time of Turnbull’s leadership challenge.

Some politicians were also on Twitter, but little to do with politics was happening or said there — and certainly not by them. The Greens’ Senator Sarah Hanson-Young was the first Australian politician on Twitter. She joined in April 2007, but she would not find another parliamentarian to tweet to until Malcolm Turnbull joined in October 2008 after his ascension to the leadership of the Liberal Party. Thus, for the social-media history of Australian politics, we can move swiftly past this glorious peak for the Member for Wentworth, and move to his awful valley.

Throughout 2009, Twitter — a social-media program that enabled conversations of 140 characters in length that had been around since March 2006 — suddenly became popular in the Australian political-media world. Journalists who would scarcely admit to reading blogs, let alone commenting on them, were suddenly joining up and putting themselves out in the world of the Internet, and ‘micro-blogging’.

At the end of 2008 there were fourteen Canberra press gallery journalists and Australian political bloggers on Twitter: Paul Colgan, Malcolm Farnsworth, Scott Steel (‘Pollytics’), Michael Rowland, Sophie Black, John Kerrison, Tim Dunlop, Andrew Landeryou, Jonathan Green, John Bergin, Joshua Gans, James Massola, and Jessica Wright. By the end of March 2009, there were forty-six. Among the group that had joined were some of Australia’s most high-profile journalists — the ABC’s Leigh Sales (then with Lateline); Mark Colvin, the host of PM; Annabel Crabb, who quickly built up a large following, and remains the most followed Australian political journalist on Twitter; Crikey’s Canberra correspondent and ex-public servant Bernard Keane; The Age’s Misha Schubert; and News Limited’s David Penberthy.

After being badgered by Scott Steel on the Crikey blog Poll Bludger, I also decided to join — putting aside my concerns that not much of worth could be said in 140 characters, and after I was convinced it was not just a mini-Facebook. I joined in June 2009, by which time seventy-three journalists, political writers, and bloggers were on board. Others less political but ready to ride the social-media wave were aboard — Mia Freedman, having discarded the dead-tree magazine life, and finding branches online with her blog, Mamamia, had joined in February.

One of those journalists less well known to the broader public was Latika Bourke — a young reporter for Fairfax radio. She had joined in March, and quickly took to the medium in a manner that would bring her to a prominence well above what someone in her situation would normally command. She would be one of the first to grasp the possibilities that 140 characters afforded, and it would lead to her becoming one of the top-four most followed journalists covering federal politics — trailing, on the Twitter
mountain, only Annabel Crabb, Laurie Oakes, and Leigh Sales.

Australian politicians were also joining in greater number during 2009. Malcolm Turnbull had been joined by Kevin Rudd on 17 October 2008, and they were later followed by others such as Rob Oakeshott, Steven Ciobo, George Christiansen, Joe Hockey, and Jamie Briggs. Other than Rudd, Labor MPs and senators were somewhat slow on the uptake — the concerns of stuffing up in government being somewhat higher than when they were in opposition — but long-time social-media/Internet champion ACT Senator Kate Lundy joined Twitter in February 2009, followed the next month by Kate Ellis and Tony Burke, whose Twitter style would be the source of amusement and notoriety eighteen months
later, during the 2010 election campaign.

This all led to a community of political writers, participants, and watchers who were ready to put the speed of Twitter to use. Twitter denizens who were confident that they would discover the news well before it made it onto a news website or radio bulletin boasted that Twitter was the future of news here and now. All that was needed was an event of such importance that it would galvanise everybody interested in Australian politics.

This event happened in the last sitting week of the parliamentary year in 2009.

********

The book charts the use of blogs and twitter in the coverage and debate of Australian politics and what happens when the traditional media collides with this world – most notably on Twitter. Rather than focus on how media companies and political parties attempt to use the internet to further their aims and adjust their business models I instead examine how journalists and politicians themselves are coping in this new environment. I look at the problems both blogs and the MSM have dealing with comments and misogyny, the fights that can occur on Twitter and what can happen when those in the social media tweak the nose of the traditional media – including what happened when I was outed by The Australian.

The chapter titles are:

Introduction
1. Thrills and Spills
2. The Australian Blogosphere: what, what, how, who, why?
3. Where Are All the Women?
4. Never Read the Comments
5. The MSM v Bloggers: ‘let the professionals do their job’
6. How to Become a Twitter Hashtag
7. Journalists All a Twitter
8. One, Two, Three, Four, I Declare a Twitter War
9. How Many Votes Are There on Twitter?
Conclusion

Hope you enjoy it.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

June Quarter WPI shows once again Wages fail to Breakout.

I’ve written about this quite a few times, but if there has been one aspect of the economic debate that has been more subject to obdurate facts it is that of IR and the predictions of the Fair Work Act bringing about a wages breakout.

Take Terry McCrann in April last year:

Counting cost of wage breakout

UH oh. Are we about to go back to a Peter Reith and John Howard future. Except, obviously, without them, or crucially, their legislation.

Glenn Stevens' real nightmare scenario - and trust me, it's every mortgage borrower's as well -- is a wages breakout. Is it about to start on the waterfront?

Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard dismantled the immigration rules and the boats started coming again.

They dismantled the IR rules and industrial disruption and exaggerated wages claims are starting to come again.

On a side note, it takes a real skill to make a link between asylum seekers and IR, though I take points off McCrann for not also mentioning climate change.

Well today the June Quarter’s Labour Price Index was released by the ABS. It showed an increase in seasonal terms of 1% in the quarter and 3.7% in past 12 months:

image

image

Can you spot the breakout? It might help if you tilt your screen sideways 90 degrees.

Let’s look at the public sector – public servants are always bloody greedy, no doubt the total figure hides a big breakout there:

image

Ummm…

Ok let’s look at selected Industries:

image

Mining again (as it was in March) is where the big jump occur. Also interestingly Wholesale Trade also jumped by a lot, but one of the problems with these breakdowns is they’re not seasonally adjusted at all, so you don’t want to read too much into one quarter.

Let’s look at mining, given that’s where the demand for labour is, and thus according to the laws of supply and demand (Adam Smith's invisible hand and all that) that is where we should see the increases in wages. A look over the past 6 years is interesting – ie after the March quarter of 2006 when Work Choices came into effect till now):

image

The last two quarters have been above the 6 year trend, but a fall from the March quarter, which some suggested was the start of a big spike.

What about the non-mining industry areas of construction and manufacturing over the same period:

image

Again no sign of a breakout occurring due to the Fair Work Act.

But let’s look at the waterfront. Most of the work involved with that sector comes under the “Transportation, Postal and Warehousing” sector. How has that been going since June 2006 (or indeed since McCrann wrote his piece April last year)?

image

At some point it might be time for the fear mongers to admit that anecdote doesn’t cope well when it goes toe-to-toe with facts.

*****

On another note, today the Gallery of Australian Democracy (Old Parliament house) released a GREAT website that features all the campaign launch speeches from the Prime Ministers and Leaders of the Opposition from every election since 1901.

You can read the speeches or you can “explore” and type in key phrase to look at when certain issues were of importance (or not).

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Australia’s Unemployment Rate is 5.2%

And so the ABS released the monthly employment figures came out today. The headline grabber is that unemployment stays at 5.2%.

But technically the unemployment rate fell from 5.3% in seasonally adjusted terms to 5.2%, it’s just that last month when the figures were released they had the rate at 5.2%. When the ABS calculated the June rate this time round it ticked just over 5.25% and thus got rounded up to 5.3%. The decline from June to July wasn’t actually a 0.1 percentage point increase, it was 0.02575 percentage point. So lets call it no change and be done with it.

In trend terms the rate did remain unchanged at 5.2%.

On the graph of the past 5 years it all looks like this:

image

Riveting.

One thing to note about the adjustments is that the adjustments are more marked in the trend rate that the seasonally adjusted rate.

Here’s the different seasonally adjusted rates over the past 12 months as measured in May, June and now July:

image

Other than the June amount, there is not much difference. But now look at the trend rates in the same months:

image

Back in May the ABS estimated the trend unemployment rate was below 5.1%, and that it had been trending down for a good six months. In June the trend showed a definite flattening. Now the ABS shows that the trend rate had actually already started increasing in May (and perhaps a month or 2 before hand). Thus we know now that the labour market was doing worse in May than we thought then.

So yes, the trend is your friend, but always remember that a trend result inherently takes longer to adjust to changes. The Seasonally Adjusted rate however showed April was the start of the increase. The point however is that we only know now that is was a start. So don’t rely on just one measure, use both together.

Of course the unemployment rate is just one statistic, let’s look at actually jobs growth – both seasonally adjusted and trend:

image

After a big drop last month, there was an increase in seasonally adjusted terms of 14,000 (0.1%) to 11,512,600. Also Full-time employment increased 9,200 to 8,073,700 and part-time employment increased 4,800 to 3,439,000.

The trend is going down – due mostly to that big drop last month. We wait to see next month’s figures to see if June was an anomaly or indicator of things to come.

But anytime it;s going down is not a good sign, and also more so when you look at the growth in aggregate hours worked per month:

image

It’s all a little weak, really.

And finally forget all of this, we know only one figure really matters, and that’s the Employment to Population ratio:

image

It is flat, but has declined from the start of the year. This again shows that there is still a lot of weakness (and capacity) in the economy.

When we compare the decline in the employment to population ratio since the GFC hit, you can see we still haven’t got back to where we were in June 2008:

image

And if we compare that decline against other recessions, we see that the climb out of the GFC is mirroring the patterns somewhat of the 1981-82 and 1991 recessions where a recovery occurs before a decline. By this measure the rate should begin to climb soon.

image

Now to the states.

image

Interestingly, Queensland’s unemployment rates in Seasonal terms went from 5.3% to 5.8%, and yet it’s employment numbers increased – mostly because its participation rate also increased from 66.1% to 66.5%. Seasonal adjusted at the state level really jumps around, so here is it best to look at the trend, and again it’s all a bit flat. 

In short, the unemployment rate is good – there are always caveats to the rate, but it remains a good indicator. But employment growth is pretty slight, and despite the RBA on Tuesday signalling no more reductions in the cash rate, I think what we see here is that the previous reductions still haven’t flown through, and given the way the trend rate of unemployment is going, I wouldn’t rule out another drop in rates before the end of the year.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS