NAIRU — out of bounds? Or a legitimate topic of discussion?

Anyone following politics has always heard about "unemployment this" and "unemployment that." Government is always trying to fix unemployment apparently, but it's also the fault of the "bludgers" and feckless welfare recipients, who need to be put on a starvation rate and policed as a result.

What if I told you creating a pool of unemployed to fight inflation was a deliberate bipartisan government policy, given to the RBA as a monetary policy — a "hands off" measure? If unemployment exceeds this "natural" level or the RBA's "full employment" level, inflation results. So a minimum level of unemployed is needed — a pool sometimes called the "reserve army". Also, that sends a signal to people in crap jobs: keep working or we'll make an example of you.

The name for this is the Non Accelerating Inflationary Rate of Unemployment (or NAIRU).

https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/why-does-the-rba-want-more-unemployed-aussies/

Look back in history and you'll see unemployment sat around 1-2% before Neoliberalism came into force. People didn't stay unemployed long. At the behest of employers, the government reversed this and decided to let it hike up to the "non inflationary" rate — a good way to keep wages down and to make sure people apply for low-quality jobs and stay in them. If anyone could easily switch jobs or be unemployed for a temporary period while they look for something else, the poor-quality jobs would fail to attract candidates. It's basically a labour rights issue unions won't touch with a 10ft pole.

Labor made meek noises about wanting to return to this old form of "full employment", but quickly ran for the hills.

How about the long-term unemployed? Many are disabled (40% on JobSeeker). They were kicked off the DSP by Gillard. Some are homeless (10%). Others are using JobSeeker as a de facto student payment, and will get a suitable job when they graduate. Many are underemployed and need the payment as a top-up, but need to be policed because they're "unwilling" to work — make that make sense! And yes, there might be a few disadvantaged people or stereotypical "bludgers" left over. The system needs to punish virtually everyone on the system with a big stick to go after those "gaming" it — for a pittance while going through a hostile Job Provider program and being stigmastised by society at large.

Everyone will "know" the bludgers from anecdotal evidence — N<12 observational studies with a healthy amount of confirmation bias and tabloid journalism writing the conclusions. Confirmation bias, instead of independent thought, will select their opinions for them.

By all means, look up NAIRU and prove me wrong. I suspect this topic will generate a lot of heat and hostility — that's fine by me. It's the price of admission to this discussion. If my notifications light up with ad hominems, I'll know this post did its job creating engagement.

If one or two people learn what NAIRU is, I'll consider this a success.