I was told by a banker in the early 1990s that the middle class was going to shrink, a few people would remain middle class but the vast majority would become poor. By and large these predictions were accurate.

How many posters know people who were fired / retrenched from their secure job and rehired for the same job later, after they had exhausted all their savings, at a lower wage.

The period from the end of World War 2 until the 1990s because society was upwardly mobile. Now we have reverted to the more typical situation of downward mobility that has galloped under Howard. To be truthful we are following in the footsteps of the United States so I don't think Labor would have done much better. And you can bet what Workchoices has stripped away will not be reinstated by Rudd.

The real sorrow of the loss of the middle class is the vast numbers of people who aren't able to plan their future. Workers are now at the mercy of their employers paid grudgingly when demand for their labour is high and laid off at the the drop of a hat. Meanwhile corporate profits are at an all time high as successful well run companies are bought out by private equity investment vehicles bloated on their extraordinary debt levels.

Rhian,

Glad that it has finally occurred to you, after three days discussion and five previous posts, to mention that you are "not indifferent to the fact that many people are struggling financially, and some are worse off now than they were in the past."

---

Apart from statistics from the ABS, which you insist, suggest "that most employees work the hours they want", you have barely answered any of the arguments in my article. (BTW not being a Micro$oft Windoze user, I can't use the SuperTable software to which you referred.)

If you are correct about those statistics, they run counter to my own personal experience, and it would seem, to the personal experiences of a number of others posting to this forum, much anecdotal evidence including that in Elisabeth Wynhausen's "Dirt Cheap" of 2005 and many studies done into the effects of the "WorkChoices" legislation.

In any case, I hardly consider 'most' to be good enough. Any figure which falls significantly short of 100% is not satisfactory IMHO.

BTW, does the fact that 'most' work the hours they want mean that they are working the hours they need to meet financial commitments or does it mean that they are working the actual number of hours they want to work?

I think that none other than John Howard inadvertently answered that question when he was heralding the "WorkChoices" laws in 2005.

He postulated that some workers would be willing to voluntarily trade in two weeks of annual leave and morning tea breaks for additional money.

Did this tell you anything, Rhian?

It told me that even Howard and Costello didn't believe their own b#@#%!t about how much better off workers supposedly are due to their allegedly brilliant economic management.

For what reason, other than sheer financial desperation, would any worker contemplate giving away two weeks of their measly four weeks annal leave?

So, whatever happened to promises of shorter working weeks and longer holidays that all the newer technologies were supposed to bring to us?

(More to come. Please also see http://candobetter.org/node/162#comment-748)

Daggett
It’s hardly reasonable to say I haven’t addressed the “arguments” in your article. I’ve tried to answer all your main assertions with reason and evidence.

You say GDP is “flawed” but that economists ignore this fact. I’ve pointed out this is wrong – GDP has limitations which economists recognise, but is nonetheless a useful indicator.

You say the omission of land from the CPI is “scandalous”, I say it probably makes little difference to measured movements in the overall cost of living.

You say that increased commuting time and the inability to repair our own cars mean our standard of living is rising by less than official measures such as GDP suggest. I say other improvements in quality of life, such as longer life spans and increased educational attainment, more than offset these losses.

You say mobile phones and the Internet are just another cost. I say they’re also an improvement in our quality of life.

You say many Australians work longer hours. I pointed out that the data show average hours worked falling.

Of the minority of workers who’d prefer different hours to the ones they work, many more want longer hours than shorter ones. The longest hours are worked by well-paid occupations such as managers. This suggests to me that working longer hours is a matter of preference, not compulsion or desperation.

You say that the standard of living of most Australians is falling. I say the overwhelming weight of evidence points the other way – which is not to deny that some people’s living standards have dropped, or that some measures of quality of life has deteriorated.

You prefer anecdotes to evidence wherever the facts contradict your preconceptions. This is the mark of an ideologue, and your persistent refusal to recognise the validity of any indicators suggesting that standards of living are rising seems to me consistent with Clive Hamilton’s telling description of the “collective schadenfreude” of the ''deprivation model."

"For what reason, other than sheer financial desperation, would any worker contemplate giving away two weeks of their measly four weeks annal leave?"

Daggett, you make the same mistake as many do, ie. seeing the world
through your limited worldview.

I happen to know quite a few young people, who are quite ambitious.
They are driven by clear goals. Some couples I know, decide to
work and save, own their first or even second home by the time they
are in their 30s, then do things like have babies, from a position
of financial strength. That should be their choice.

The same applies with workchoices. The ultimate situation is one
where the needs of both employer and employee are met, in a win-win
situation. Good employers realise that the most valuable thing
that they have, are their best staff. They compensate them accordingly, for everyone wins.

Now the terms between these two should be as flexible as what suits
both of them the best. Limiting that flexibility by introducing
3rd parties, new rules etc, really benefits nobody, apart from some
union officials who need a job.

Ok so have a fall back system for those unable to negotiate their
own terms. But leave those quite capable and happy to reach their
own agreements, to do so.

"The data do nonetheless show that, for most Australians - including those on lower incomes - economic conditions are improving." (Quote:Rhian)

Well there you go!

".......I don't care if you CAN see it on the shelf; the computer says we haven't got any........"

"we are more likely than any past generation to stay at school beyond 15 or go to university"

....Yes, and today it is very much user pays. I can remember free tertiary education and benefited from it. Should I have done the same today I would be graduating much the poorer. Now Rhian, you seem to like a mathematical perspective, so you might like to consider how long it would take graduates today to pay off their education debt and a house, and compare the result with graduates from 10, 20, 30, and 40 years ago.