(continuedfromabove - also at http://candobetter.org/node/162#comment-749)

* Bulk-billing has been emasculated. Before Howard stuffed up Medicare we could walk into a doctor's practice and get treatment without having to pay money and stuff around with Medicare claim forms and, when the cheques arrived, having to bank them. I estimate that it takes well over an hour of my time to do all this for each visit to the doctor and I am still out of pocket as the payment from the Government is less than the fee.

* Credentials creep : a degree is necessary precondition for most white collar occupations, whereas year 12 used to be easily sufficient. Occupations which once required a degree now require postgraduate qualifications.

* Loss of on-the-job training such as the apprenticeship and cadetship schemes run by Telecom (now Telstra) and other government owned utilities. Nurses and paramedics now require a degree.

* Loss of career paths for entry level employees. On ABC Radio National's Street Stories of 24 June (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/streetstories/stories/2007/1954374.htm - audio file no longer available) a prostitute in Kalgoorlie revealed that she had turned to prostitution in order to go to University. Asked why she needed to go to University, she explained that she needed a degree to get promoted beyond her entry-level job in an advertising agency. Think about it: the only path to career advancement for this girl was through prostitution. A generation ago most employees who were good enough could hope for career advancement without having to sleep with the boss or turn to prostitution. Rhian, do you think this is a step forward or a step backwards?

* Education is no longer free. Most of today's graduates have crippling HECS bills.
(tobecontinued)

Ok. There are several Factors affecting "well-being"; the material, spiritual, environmental etc etc etc. You can argue until the cows come home that a few bad things negate the good things; you can claim that some new law or other is "fascist", or that "materialism" is destroying the environment, or that Sydney's rail System is a F**king disgrace. Or whatever.

Anyhow "The Economist" magazine does an annual survey of 132 cities world-wide, using about 100 factors, covering everything under the sun, to come up with their livability index. This balances everything (and more) that you could think of which might enhance or detract from quality of life, material and non-material. Bear in mind this is "cities", not countries.

OK. First was Vancouver then Adelaide, then Vienna, then Melbourne, then Sydney, then Toronto, then Perth. OK, of all the world, Australia has 4 of the top 7 cities (containing about 55% of Australia's population). That ends the whole discussion. Aussies have never had it so good (overall, averaged out) and are the envy of the world. We've got it far better than anywhere else. Sure, feel free to fiddle at the edges but get a grip and stop this moaning + whinging; enjoy life; it's short and you got the smooth end of the pineapple.

No point looking for greener grass; there isn't any.

PS. I've lived in a number of the non-Aussie cities in the top 20, and 2 of the bottom 10, and concur with "the Economist". That's why I live here, and why you do too. JWH has done what any competant skipper should do; kept the boat on a steady course and off the rocks, even when the occasional swell comes up. We all know it; that's why we're on JWH's boat and not on some rusting hulk. Cheers

Acticdog,

thanks for your post.

I respect your views and those of others such as Haygirl. I certainly don’t deny your experience, or think it’s your fault.

But the article makes specific claims about the experience, not just of some people, but of the community at large – specifically, that official data misrepresent economic conditions, and most people’s living standards have fallen. It is these claims that I have tried to address.

Apart from the ABS data on objective measures of living standards, the subjective measures too tend to be positive. Opinion surveys consistently show that more people report improving than deteriorating living standards. In Roy Morgan’s most recent poll, 40% of respondents said they were better of than this time last year, and 23% said they were worse off – a net positive balance of 17%. One month’s survey may not be representative, but in almost every month more people report improving than deteriorating living standards.
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2007/669/

Daggett
You have misinterpreted many of my points.

The questions I posed about youth suicide and drugs, for example, were not intended to “prove” that things are getting better, but rather to show that that there is no common objective basis to compare positive and negative trends in these areas, so there can be no consensus measure of whether quality of life, broadly defined, is improving or not.

Your deductions about “Howard’s inspired government” are a product of your imagination that bears no relation to anything I’ve posted here (my only mention of Howard was to say he probably deserves less credit than Hawke and Keating for our economic successes).

Briefly – trades apprenticeships are at an all-time high:
http://abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/C29360250F66B9C3CA25732C00207435?opendocument#Untitled%20Section_1

The fact that many more jobs now require degrees reflects that fact that many more people now have them. Again, you pick the most negative slant on any indicator.

The psycho-analysis on Schadenfreude was initially Clive Hamilton’s not mine, though the more I read of your posts the more convinced I am he’s right (on this).

We’ve spent a lot of time discussing indicators that give part of the story on whether standards of living are getting better or worse. Many research institutes are dedicated to examining these questions in detail. One of Australia’s most well-respected is the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM), at the University of Canberra.

Their detailed modelling looks at different income groups and adjusts income from all sources for the effects of different household characteristics and direct and indirect taxes and benefits to derive “equivalent disposable income” as a measure of economic resources (this is widely used in welfare analysis internationally). This should capture changes in pharmaceutical benefits and education costs and many – admittedly, not all – of the myriad other effects we’ve discussed here.

Its research gives some comfort to the pessimists – inequality has risen, they’re not sure what the impact of WorkChoices will be, and they’re suspicious of evidence that inequality dropped between 2002-03 and 2003-04.

But on the key question at issue in this forum – whether absolute living standards have fallen for most of the population, or most at the bottom of the income range – the evidence from NATSEM is crystal clear. For all income groups and all time periods studied, real equivalent gross household income has risen.

http://www.canberra.edu.au/centres/natsem/publications?sq_content_src=%2BdXJsPWh0dHAlM0ElMkYlMkZhbmltYWwuY2FuYmVycmEuZWR1LmF1JTNBNTgwJTJGbmF0c2VtJTJGaW5kZXgucGhwJTNGbW9kZSUzRHB1YmxpY2F0aW9uJTI2cHVibGljYXRpb24lM0QxMDIyJmFsbD0x

The apposition of yours and James view, Rhian, is delightful. May there be more of it! However, again, I am going to stick my two bob's worth in. The point that James makes is that increasing levels of poverty HAS become the experience for the community at large - it is no longer the exception, or isolated incidents, despite some nefarious claims. Like James I was unable to substantiate many of the ABS figures you quote, (but this may be a deficiency more of my ability to get more out of the computer!). However I have to say that the one month that you state can not possibly be representative and determining whether the group polled is representative also presents problems. How can you determine therefore that the figures have not been massaged to produce the desired outcome? Given the large amount you indicate, it appears not, but are you drawing them together in a way that substantiates your view? There are an equal number purportedly showing the opposite view. One more point - it was stated that most cars these days are computerised, making it difficult for running repairs in the garage at home. I agree. However there is a significant group with cars so old they dont have any computerised systems in them. Repairs are still possible. However I am aware that new car sales were higher last quarter than at any time previously. But does this say that the majority of cars on the road are new cars? I think not.

Rising incomes are not indicative of an increase in the standard of living until you compare income with prices ie. cost of living.

It is all very well to show that incomes have increased by say 20% over a period of time, but this means nothing if the real cost of living has increased by 30% in that same period meaning a real decline in incomes ie. spending power.

CPI is not a true indicator. CPI does not include the cost of mortgages,personal debt and other factors.