The Human Cost of Unemployment in Australia

By Denis Hay  

The human cost of unemployment reveals why controlling inflation through job losses harms Australian workers, families and communities.

The Human Cost Behind the Statistics

Imagine being told that losing your job is unfortunate but necessary for the economy.

Your rent still has to be paid. Your family still needs food and security. Your confidence may collapse, your skills may deteriorate and your chance of finding another job may diminish with every month that passes. Yet, in national economic debate, these consequences are often reduced to phrases such as “spare capacity” or “labour-market easing.”

In June 2026, Australia’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 4.4 per cent. The number of officially unemployed people increased by 12,700 to 686,800, while youth unemployment reached 10.7 per cent.

The underemployment rate – covering employed people who wanted and were available for more hours – rose to 6.5 per cent. Combined unemployment and underemployment produced a labour underutilisation rate of 10.9 per cent. The headline unemployment rate therefore reveals only part of Australia’s shortage of adequate paid work. (Australian Bureau of Statistics: Labour Force, June 2026).

Behind these figures are young people unable to begin careers, parents cutting back on essentials and older workers wondering whether they will ever be employed again.

The human cost of unemployment raises a fundamental question: should hundreds of thousands of Australians bear the burden of controlling inflation when fairer and more precise alternatives are available?

Key Points

• Higher interest rates slow spending and investment, weakening demand for labour.
• The unemployment rate targeted by policymakers is an uncertain estimate, not a proven boundary.
• Joblessness harms income, health, confidence, skills and entire communities.
• Inflation can arise from supply disruptions, housing shortages, energy costs, market concentration and excessive demand.
• Australia’s monetary sovereignty gives the federal government the financial capacity to pursue full employment, subject to real-resource and inflation constraints.
• A carefully designed federal Job Guarantee could replace unemployment as an economic buffer with paid, socially useful work.

Is Unemployment Deliberately Kept High?

No Australian government or Reserve Bank announces that it wants named individuals to lose their jobs. The Reserve Bank of Australia is required to pursue price stability and full employment while contributing to the economic prosperity and welfare of Australians.

Nevertheless, the way higher interest rates reduce inflation is not mysterious.

Higher rates increase mortgage repayments and borrowing costs. Households reduce spending, businesses experience weaker sales, investment slows, and employers hire fewer workers. Some businesses cut hours or dismiss employees. The RBA describes these pathways in its explanation of the transmission of monetary policy.

On 11 August 2026, the RBA left the cash-rate target at 4.35 per cent after three increases during the year. It said tighter financial conditions were slowing the economy and that aggregate-demand growth needed to remain subdued to reduce capacity pressures. (RBA monetary policy decision, 11 August 2026).

The RBA’s May forecasts anticipated weaker growth, reduced labour demand and unemployment rising to 4.7 per cent by mid-2028, leaving the labour market with “a little spare capacity.” The RBA also emphasised that this forecast was highly uncertain. (RBA economic outlook, May 2026)

It is therefore more accurate to say that higher unemployment is knowingly tolerated – and sometimes forecast – as a consequence of inflation control. The suffering is not necessarily the declared objective, but it is a foreseeable result of the policy mechanism.

The Theory Behind the Unemployment Buffer

Central banks commonly use a concept called the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment, or NAIRU.

The theory proposes that unemployment cannot remain below a certain level without creating increasing wage and price pressures. When jobs are plentiful, workers gain bargaining power, and wages may rise faster. When unemployment is higher, competition for scarce jobs is expected to weaken wage growth and reduce inflationary pressure. (RBA explanation of the NAIRU).

In practice, this framework treats unemployed people as an economic buffer. Price stability is pursued in part by maintaining unused labour and restraining workers’ bargaining power.

The terminology sounds impersonal – “capacity pressures,” “demand moderation” and “labour-market easing” – but the consequences are experienced by real people.

The NAIRU Is an Estimate, Not a Known Boundary

The NAIRU cannot be directly observed. Economists estimate it from historical relationships among unemployment, wages and inflation.

The RBA acknowledges that estimates of full employment and the NAIRU involve considerable uncertainty and judgement. There is no warning light that tells policymakers precisely when employment has become inflationary. (RBA: Full Employment in Australia).

That uncertainty matters enormously.

If policymakers estimate the NAIRU too high, they may suppress employment unnecessarily. Thousands of people could be denied work because a model incorrectly suggests that employing them would create unacceptable inflation.

Inflation can be driven by many interacting forces:

1. Energy and fuel prices.
2. Wars and international supply disruptions.
3. Natural disasters.
4. Exchange-rate movements.
5. Housing shortages and rising rents.
6. Infrastructure and skills constraints.
7. Weak competition and market concentration.
8. Business pricing decisions.
9. Wages and household demand.

Reducing this complicated process to one preferred unemployment rate risks placing too much responsibility on workers—especially those with the least power.

Were Australian Workers Responsible for Inflation?

Wages and household demand can contribute to inflation, particularly when spending exceeds the economy’s ability to supply goods and services. It would be misleading to claim that labour-market pressure never matters.

However, not every price increase is caused by excessive wages or consumer spending.

In its May 2026 outlook, the RBA forecast that fuel and raw material costs associated with the conflict in the Middle East would lift inflation. Headline inflation was forecast to peak at 4.8 per cent in the June quarter of 2026. (RBA Statement on Monetary Policy, May 2026).

Making an Australian retail worker unemployed cannot produce oil, construct housing, expand electricity generation or repair an international supply chain.

Interest rates are a blunt instrument. They reduce overall spending even when inflation begins in a particular sector. They also distribute the burden unevenly among mortgage holders, renters, small businesses and people whose jobs are most vulnerable.

Market power deserves attention as well. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission concluded that important aspects of the supermarket sector, dominated by Coles and Woolworths, were not working well and were producing poorer outcomes than would be expected in a more competitive market. (ACCC Supermarkets Inquiry).

Corporate market power is not the sole cause of inflation, but it should not be ignored while wage earners are asked to absorb most of the adjustment.

Who Pays the Price of Unemployment?

The burden is not shared evenly.

Young people

A youth unemployment rate of 10.7 per cent means young Australians are much more likely to be unemployed than the workforce overall.

When a young person cannot obtain a first secure job, the loss extends beyond immediate income. They miss workplace training, professional networks, references and opportunities to build confidence.

Australian Treasury research found that graduates entering the workforce during much weaker labour markets had lower initial earnings, with some adverse effects persisting for a decade. (Australian Treasury: Effects of graduating in a recession)

A period of high youth unemployment can therefore shape an entire working life.

Older workers

Older people who lose jobs may face discriminatory assumptions about their ability, adaptability or value. The Australian Human Rights Commission’s 2026 research found that age was perceived as one of the most common grounds of workplace discrimination and harassment. (Australian Human Rights Commission: Age, assumptions and access at work)

For someone approaching retirement, prolonged unemployment can deplete savings and lead to lasting financial insecurity.

People with disability

People with disability continue to experience substantially higher unemployment and underemployment than people without disability. Barriers can include inaccessible workplaces and transport, inadequate workplace adjustments and employer discrimination. (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Employment and disability).

First Nations people and disadvantaged communities

Unemployment is often concentrated in particular suburbs, towns and regions. National averages can hide communities where long-term unemployment and limited opportunities are entrenched.

The Australian Government’s employment white paper identifies sustained and inclusive full employment and the removal of employment barriers as national priorities. (Treasury: Working Future – White Paper on Jobs and Opportunities).

First Nations people, people with disability, carers and residents of disadvantaged regions should not be treated as an expendable reserve of labour.

The Damage Extends Beyond Lost Income

Secure employment normally provides income, routine, social connection, purpose and participation in community life. Losing it can affect every part of a person’s wellbeing.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare identifies employment and working conditions as important social determinants of health. Unemployment and insecure work increase financial stress and restrict access to resources needed for healthy living. (AIHW: Social determinants of health)

National Health Survey data cited by AIHW found that 43 per cent of unemployed Australians aged 15 and over had a mental or behavioural condition, compared with 26 per cent of employed people. This association does not prove that unemployment caused every condition – poor health can also make employment difficult – but it demonstrates the close relationship between joblessness and wellbeing. (AIHW: Employment and unemployment).

The human cost of unemployment can include:

1. Housing insecurity and homelessness.
2. Debt and unpaid essential bills.
3. Anxiety, depression and loss of confidence.
4. Relationship and family stress.
5. Social isolation.
6. Deteriorating skills and work experience.
7. Greater pressure on health and community services.
8. Reduced lifetime earnings and retirement savings.

These costs do not appear in the monthly unemployment headline, but they are genuine social and economic losses.

Unemployment Can Weaken the Economy

High unemployment does not simply place workers on hold until the economy improves. Prolonged joblessness can erode skills, health, confidence and connections to the workforce – a process known as labour-market scarring.

When employment eventually recovers, some people may find it much harder to return. The economy then loses knowledge and productive capacity that could have been preserved.

Weak employment also reduces household spending, harms small businesses and increases demand for income support, health services and crisis assistance. Communities with persistently high unemployment can lose population, services and investment.

A policy intended to restrain inflation may therefore create lasting economic and budgetary costs.

Better and Fairer Ways to Address Inflation

Australia does not have to rely so heavily on unemployment and mortgage stress. Different causes of inflation require different responses.

1. Target excessive demand more fairly

If total spending must be reduced, the federal government can use temporary, progressive taxation aimed at people with the greatest capacity to pay. This can withdraw purchasing power more fairly than forcing low-income workers into unemployment.

Tax changes should be timely and carefully targeted. Poorly designed measures could arrive too late or discourage productive activity.

2. Remove supply bottlenecks

Public investment can expand renewable energy, public transport, housing, healthcare, training and essential infrastructure. Such investment increases productive capacity instead of merely suppressing demand.

The timing matters: spending must be matched to available labour, equipment and materials so that it does not intensify existing shortages.

3. Build public and affordable housing

Housing inflation cannot be solved by simply making tenants and mortgage holders poorer. A sustained program of public, community and cooperative housing would address shortages and reduce dependence on highly leveraged private investment.

Read more: Public Housing Blueprint Could Solve the Crisis Fast

4. Strengthen competition policy

Governments should act against anti-competitive conduct, excessive market concentration and exploitative pricing in essential sectors. Stronger competition, transparency, and enforcement can address price pressures that higher unemployment cannot.

5. Use targeted price stabilisation during shocks

During serious temporary disruptions, governments can consider strategic reserves, regulated utility prices, targeted subsidies linked to additional supply, or carefully designed temporary price controls.

These measures are not risk-free. Poor design can create shortages or protect profits without increasing supply. They should be transparent, monitored and withdrawn when conditions normalise.

6. Improve productivity without attacking wages

Investment in skills, technology, public infrastructure and cooperative workplaces can help wages rise alongside productive capacity. Productivity policy should improve how work is organised – not merely demand that fewer employees do more.

Australia’s Monetary Sovereignty Changes the Question

The Australian Government issues the Australian dollar through the nation’s monetary institutions. Unlike a household, business, state government or eurozone member, the Commonwealth does not depend on earning Australian dollars before it can spend in that currency.

This does not mean government spending is unlimited or costless.

The real constraints are available workers, skills, equipment, energy, raw materials, productive capacity and ecological limits. If public and private spending together exceed what the economy can produce, inflation can result.

That distinction changes the central policy question. Instead of asking, “Where will the government find the dollars?”, we should ask:

What can Australia produce with the people and resources available without creating excessive inflation?

Taxes remain essential. They help create demand for the currency, redistribute income and wealth, influence behaviour and reduce private purchasing power when inflationary pressure is too strong. Government securities also support interest-rate management and provide a safe financial asset.

However, unemployment itself is evidence that labour is not being fully used. When people are ready and willing to work and valuable tasks remain undone, the barrier is not an intrinsic shortage of Australian dollars. It is the failure to mobilise available labour and real resources.

For a fuller explanation, read Australia’s Dollar Sovereignty: Power to Fund Our Future.

A Federal Job Guarantee

A Job Guarantee would offer a publicly funded job to every person willing and able to work who could not obtain suitable employment elsewhere.

The Commonwealth would fund the program, while councils, public agencies, First Nations organisations and approved not-for-profit bodies could identify and administer useful local work.

Possible roles include:

1. Environmental restoration and disaster preparedness.
2. Community support in aged care and disability services.
3. Community gardens and local food programs.
4. Cultural, heritage and arts projects.
5. Public-space maintenance.
6. Tutoring, mentoring and youth support.
7. Household energy-efficiency improvements.
8. Landcare and climate-adaptation projects.

Participants would receive a socially inclusive wage, training, superannuation and normal workplace protections.

The Job Guarantee workforce would expand when private-sector employment weakened and contract when private employers hired more people. Because the program would offer a fixed wage rather than bid against employers for workers already employed, supporters argue that it could provide an anchor for prices while maintaining full employment. This proposal has been developed in Australian research comparing an employment buffer with the present unemployment buffer. (Mitchell and Wray: Fiscal Policy and the Job Guarantee).

In other words, Australia could replace a buffer stock of unemployed people with a buffer stock of employed people.

Design would be critical. A Job Guarantee must not:

• Become punitive work-for-the-dole.
• Replace permanent public-sector positions.
• Subsidise private profit.
• Coerce people who are unable to work.
• Provide unsafe or meaningless tasks.

Participation should be voluntary, jobs should serve a genuine public purpose and people unable to work should continue to receive adequate income support.

Read more: Why a Job Guarantee in Australia Ends Precarious Work

Full Employment is a Political Choice

Australia once treated full employment as a fundamental responsibility of government. Today, unemployment is too often presented as an unavoidable technical requirement.

Price stability matters. Inflation hurts low-income households, pensioners and everyone whose income fails to keep pace with prices. But controlling inflation by weakening workers and increasing unemployment also inflicts serious harm.

The choice is not simply between high inflation and high unemployment.

Australia can use targeted taxation, stronger competition laws, public investment, supply measures and a carefully designed Job Guarantee. Australia’s monetary sovereignty gives the federal government the financial capacity to mobilise resources available for purchase in Australian dollars. The genuine limits are inflation, productive capacity and environmental sustainability – not an arbitrary shortage of currency.

We should stop treating unemployed people as economic shock absorbers.

A wealthy, sovereign nation can aim for stable prices, secure employment and a dignified life for everyone willing to contribute.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the RBA deliberately creating unemployment?

The RBA does not declare unemployment to be its objective. However, higher interest rates deliberately slow demand, and weaker hiring or higher unemployment can be foreseeable consequences. The most accurate description is that unemployment is tolerated as part of the current inflation-control framework.

Does full employment always cause inflation?

No. Inflation depends on the relationship between total spending and the economy’s capacity to supply goods and services. If employment and production can expand together, more people can work without necessarily causing excessive inflation. Bottlenecks and sector-specific shortages still require targeted management.

Can Australia afford a Job Guarantee?

As the issuer of the Australian dollar, the Commonwealth has the financial capacity to fund a program in its own currency. The practical limits are whether sufficient workers, supervisors, equipment and materials are available, and whether the spending would exceed productive capacity.

Would a Job Guarantee replace unemployment benefits?

It should not. A Job Guarantee would provide an option for people willing and able to work. Adequate income support must remain available to people who cannot work, are temporarily unavailable or cannot accept a suitable position.

The Question Australia Must Answer

Is it acceptable to protect price stability by weakening the bargaining power and employment prospects of hundreds of thousands of Australians—or should governments adopt fairer and more precise ways to manage inflation?

Share your view in the comments below. If this article helped clarify the human cost of unemployment, please share it with your community and help move the national debate beyond statistics to the lives behind them.

Support Independent Analysis

Social Justice Australia receives no funding from corporations, political parties or lobbyists. Reader support helps keep its public-interest analysis independent, evidence-based and freely available.

Support Social Justice Australia with a one-time or monthly contribution.

You can also submit comments or suggestions through Reader Feedback.

Editorial Note

This article distinguishes verified evidence from policy analysis. Labour-market and monetary-policy figures were checked against official ABS and RBA publications on 14 August 2026. Predictions and policy proposals are identified as forecasts, arguments or recommendations. Readers may report a possible error through the Reader Feedback page.

This article was originally published on Social Justice Australia