Second, it has often been argued that the adverse effects on employment may have been cushioned by a reduction in working hours, and more specifically by increased use by employers of short-time working. The data collected in the HILDA Survey confirm that there was a shift towards shorter work hours in the immediate wake of the GFC, but the size of this effect was very small. It is estimated that in the absence of such trends the unemployment rate would only have been 0.1 percentage point higher.
Third, despite the rise in unemployment, household incomes actually grew substantially in the financial year (2008-2009) following the onset of the GFC. This was a direct consequence of the fiscal stimulus policies implemented by the Australian Government in late 2008 and early 2009 to counter the expected negative effects of the GFC.
Further, given these payments were disproportionately targeted at lower income households, they should, and did, have the effect of reducing measured income inequality. That said, an interesting feature of the HILDA Survey data, and one that is not shared with most cross-section data sources, is that there is little evidence of any sustained rise in inequality in real disposable incomes over the decade leading up to the GFC.
Fourth, most subjective measures of well-being and health seem to have been largely unaffected by the changing economic circumstances in the wider economy. Among a battery of questions intended to measure satisfaction with different aspects of life, it is only the item on employment opportunities that exhibits any marked deterioration post-GFC. Thus, as would be expected, many Australians became more pessimistic about their employment and job prospects. This, however, did not spill over into any sizeable negative impact on satisfaction with other aspects of life, or with life in general.
