Hmm, I don't see this issue as black-white, labour-liberal, as
many do. My politics is issue based, not party based.

Yup, overall Costello has done a good job as treasurer. He
continued what Keating started, as they both understand
economics and that Australia could no longer continue as it
had in the past. Globalisation was the reality, we could not
pretend it was not happening. our economy would now be a disaster,
if they hadn't changed direction. I think that Rudd understands
all that too. I don't have a problem with Rudd, its all the
hangers on that could be his undoing, we'll see.

Fact is, young people now have more opportunities then they
ever had, overall people are doing better then they ever did.

The author seems to confuse standard of living with quality of
life. They are separate issues. We each have to decide how
we want to live and how much we value each of them.

I can't really blame rising land prices for houses on the Feds.
Thats a State Govt issue. Many of those in the chardonay set
in State beurocracies, decided that urban sprawl had to be stopped,
high density living was the way to go. People clearly did not
agree and voted with their wallets. State Govts are free to drop
costs on new land releases, Australia is not really short of land.
That would make housing much more affordable.

The internet? That has certainly improved my quality of life.
People have short term and selective memories. In 1995, when
I first went online, I had the option of one ISP here. That
was Frank Blount's Telstra/MSN, at 6$ an hour, eventually
9$ an hour! That Allah for a deregulated market!

Thats just one of many examples. Deregulation and the global
economy benefit me every day, when I go shopping for anything.
Few people take the trouble to be aware of the many benefits.

Some people will just always complain and blame their situation
on anyone but themselves. Thats a very human foible and common
as chips.

You're never going to change the fact that a substantial portion of voters vote in their "narrow short-term self-interest".

The fact that the opinion polls are consistently showing that a large majority of voters are not happy with the current state of affairs is to me the best evidence there is of a disconnect between the "official" GDP and unemployment-figure-based measure of the economy and the actual standard of living that most Australians are experiencing. People will vote in their narrow short-term self-interest, and a large number will vote against Howard because they don't feel that the economic "good times" have made them better off.

I will say though that the most damning evidence that our economic and productivity and wealth has not improved particularly in the last 50 years, official figures aside, is that it now almost invariably takes two incomes to achieve what could previously have been done with one. No doubt our expectations have risen too, and I suspect if you able to travel back in time to observe in detail how your grandfather managed to afford a 6-week family holiday in Queensland every year, you would find their overall standard of living somewhat austere. However, I would question to what extent their overall qualify of life was any less.

For our society to be moving ahead, or at least, not be going backwards, then I believe the following conditions need to be met:

1. That we are, on average, no worse off materially, that is, in the broadest sense, and not in the sense of automatically equating the consumption of resources with prosperity,

2. that most of us are sharing in that prosperity,

3. that all of us are sharing in that prosperity, and

4. That this is ecologically sustainable in the longer term.

I dispute that any of these conditions have been met, whilst Rhian, for his part, only aims to convince us that the first two have been met.

Rhian has shown no concern for the fact that at least a large minority of this country including myself and other forum contributors, have been deliberately harmed by Howard's policies.

John Howard aims to convince a majority that he will look after their best interests better than Rudd and not to concern themselves about those on social welfare, workers whose skills are no longer marketable and who cannot afford the exorbitant costs of retraining, those who don't own their own homes, etc. And they are also to be convinced to care still less about the long term viability of our planetary life support system and the death and destruction that he has brought to people of Iraq.

Howard achieved that in 2004 and aims to do that again in 2007.

---

Rhian accuses me of ignoring the positive changes to our lives and of only focussing on the negatives. If he had read my article carefully, he would know differently. I don't dispute the positives. I love, as much as anybody, computers, the Internet, high-tech entertainment media, and, if I could afford them, and my conscience would allow me, fast cars and more frequent air travel.

However, I think anyone, who considers these a substitute for trees, open spaces, time and the opportunities for the more natural forms of recreation, which have been lost to many in recent decades, has warped priorities.

(moreToCome)

James Sinnamon (author)

Billie
Surely the fact that you now have access to Internet and mobile telecommunications services that you didn’t use were unavailable 10 years ago is evidence that your living standards are rising. If you wanted to do without a mobile and internet you could (many people do), and then in real terms your phone bill would be lower than it was 10 years ago, while your land line services would be no worse (in fact, probably far better) than they were then. But it’s a bit rich to complain that you pay more for telecommunication services including a land line, mobile and Internet than you did 10 years ago for a land line alone.

The hours data are here - you’ll have to install SuperTable (free on the ABS website) to read them:
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6291.0.55.003May%202007?OpenDocument file 6291.0.55.003 E

The ABS recently revised its annual average hours worked estimates downwards, as they previously under-counted holidays. Australia no longer looks worse than other countries:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/log?openagent&1352055077_jun 2006.pdf&1352.0.55.077&Publication&D86A10534E2B7743CA2571B0001A6933&0&Jun 2006&20.07.2006&Latest

The OECD’s estimated participation rate for Australian men aged 15-64 is not 55% but 82.9%, compared to an OECD average of 80.4%:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/53/15/36900060.pdf

Could you give links or sources for your other stats?

Kanga – the comments on the ‘deprivation model’ are quotes from Clive Hamilton, who is hardly a spruiker for “corporate press and government PR”.

Daggett – adjectives aren’t arguments. Telecom world leading? That’s not what international comparisons were showing at the time Labor embarked on its reform program. I do remember waiting weeks to get a phone installed or a line repaired, and paying a fortune for international calls that nowadays cost less than a dollar.

You ask “So what does the fact that telecommunications services were once more expensive than they are today prove?” It proves that there is a strong incentive for businesses in that sector to innovate, and competition to drive down prices. The key issue is contestability, not ownership – as I indicated previously, for natural monopolies like Telstra the case for privatisation is less clear-cut than for businesses like building societies.

Daggett, it seems to me that in your hatred for Howard, you are
confusing philosophies. Its more complicated then that!

I am no Howard fan, but I do try to see things as they are.

Yes, all Australians benefit from the global economy. The
90 billion$ plus a year distributed as welfare, certainly
helps the less fortunate. On top of that, largely free education,
largely free health care. Few on this planet, have it so good!

But Govts can't help people help themselves, they have to do that.
Some will blow the lot at the pokies etc, then blame the world
for their problems. That seems to be human nature too.

As to sustainability, thats a whole other argument, way above
the local short term political issues, by which people vote.

Neither Rudd or Howard are going to turn those around, as we are
such an insignificant part of the global situation. Fact is
that if every Aussie was wiped out tomorrow, the world would take
just 90 days to replace us.

6.5 billion heading for 10 billion, is a global issue.
Even agriculture is questionable in terms of sustainability. I
remind you of what happened to the so called "Fertile Cresent",
where modern agriculture first began.

I'm starting to believe that its a genetics issue, as much as
anything. I am fairly content with my lot in the world, but when
I go and pick up my newspapers, the lotto stand is right there.

Some very wealthy individuals, some of them not even in good
health, go and buy their tickets. I often ask them why they would
want even more then they already have. None has ever been able
to answer that question. Somehow it seems to be some primitive
instinct that drives them.

I agree that it now takes 2 incomes for what you could do in the past on one.I do agree that quality of life was not less years ago.When we only had radio and books, people were quite happy with their lot.I have all the mod cons and appreciate them.These things i purchased when i could still afford to ie before howard.I own my home,don't have credit cards or hire purchase.I can no longer afford a holiday,to put in the lotto,buy new appliances or play the pokies if i wanted to.(which i dont).All i'm saying is ,the small increase in wages has not covered the massive increases in the overall cost of living.As for free medical,we had that before howard.Supposedly free education,we had that before howard.Howard has not done one thing to improve the lives of the lower income earners.We are on the fringe of the income test for govt help.I do not want and never have had social security but this is the first time in my 56 years that i have had to struggle so hard to survive.I raised 7 kids on one income and things were tight but not this bad.Their is only my husband and i now,so why can i not afford to do the things i used to, if the federal govt have done such a good job.Sure i look at my corner of the world but this is the only life i have.