Evaluation of the Australian Wage Subsidy Special Youth ...

45
In July1978, the subsidy was calculated to be equivalent to 62 per cent of the average
junior award pay rate for the applicable ages, as can be seen in Table 2.3. The
information in Table 2.3 can only be used as a broad guide as award rates and weekly
earnings in the award system vary by age, gender, occupation and industry. Subsidy
participants were guaranteed at least the minimum award rate from employers, but could
be offered more, although this is less likely. As the number of hours worked could vary
the average weekly wage, the average hourly earnings can be a more useful indicator.
Windshuttle (1985) p20 also pointed out that males and females faced differing hourly
rates on average and so the overall average for juniors can be misleading. Windshuttle
(1985) p21 also argued that in times of growing employment, adults were more likely to
receive overtime than juniors. In light of this, the junior ratio to the adult average hourly
earnings for fulltime employees is also shown for the same period, with a breakdown by
sex as a point of comparison. The issue of the lower rate for juniors relative to adults is
returned to in later discussion of the economic environment.
Expansion of the eligibility criteria and subsidy amount were perceived to be the source
of the noticeable rise in SYETP placements (see later Table 2.6 SYETP annual
expenditure and placements1976/77-1985/86), but most noticeable to Government was
that the expenditure on SYETP rose most dramatically. Indeed Table 2.6 shows that
change, in the year to 78/9 from the previous year, was remarkable for a doubling of
expenditure but little change in placement numbers. A considerable lag in stock would
have been evident due to the 26 week placement, so although new placements (flow) did
not change much the length of the subsidy meant that the stock on SYETP at a point in
time would rise quite high over the period.