The ABS has just released its Measures of Australia's Progress summary report for 2011.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1370.0.55.001~2011~Main%20Features~Home%20page~1

It has measures of social, economic and environmental well-being and while there is much to be optimistic about, there are some worrying signs too, it seems to me.

On health, it is pleasing to see that boy's life expectancy at birth is edging closer to girls, with the average gap down to 4.6 years.

Higher education, which is dominated by women at the rate of 2:1, has increased its reach by 50% over the past decade. Much of that increase will have come from educational opportunities offered to single mothers. At the same time, vocational training is at best static, suggesting that the drive to get boys to do trades is not being successful, which demands we ask why. My feeling is that vocational training is nearly always linked to having a job, so the static outcome is demand driven.

Unemployment has been steadily falling for the past decade, driven to a large extent by the massive increase in bureaucracy and in government funded non-profit health and social services sectors. At present 35% of all our tax goes to paying for this and other more obvious welfare and redistributive measures and that's going up. How long can we keep paying people to do stuff that isn't necessary simply so we can say they've got a job?

Crime is falling, despite the alarming headlines.

National income per capita peaked in 2008 and has been steadily falling ever since.

At the same time, net national wealth per capita increased, based on the bubble in house prices and significant investment in mining.

Real household income has gone up for low and middle-income households, largely due to the redistribution mentioned earlier.

Rental affordability has been largely unchanged across the decade.

And the big one - productivity. After rising steadily for the first part of the decade, it has plummetted since 2003-4. Goldman Sachs noted this as well, in a report in 2009, saying that female productivity is the big concern, running at roughly 50% that of men.

Any comments?

Unemployment has been steadily falling.
Antiseptic,
Anything on the rise of unemployability ?

Individual, I think that's captured in the productivity and higher education figures...

Antiseptic:

...Good morning! The answer to the productivity question is subject to a highly manipulative mix of statistical outcomes, disallowing any one conclusion to any part of the question. Just to take a small section of the equation, take a look at figures relating to housing rentals and the commonwealth and state assistance to recipients.
On the surface it appears the most assistance to renters is to the most “unproductive” element of our society; raising further questions as to why this is, and why should society generally support the most unproductive elements in society?

...On the subject of crime: If crime is diminishing in our communities, why are prison populations increasing? All is not so simple! What type of crime is diminishing in society and what type of crime is increasing, is the question raised. So the statistic on crime highlights the danger of relying on statistical information alone. An addition to statistics ask those in the world mixing in the public arena such as on trains and public places, and suggest to them their reason for anxiety towards their personal safety is out of step with statistics.

...Interesting thread, let’s see how confined it gets!

that's captured
Antiseptic,
you mean they're suddenly of benefit to society ?

Any one who wants a job is entitled to have one. Your comments have a [is this necessary ] attitude. Because someone picks up rubbish off the floor, doesn't mean it is not a necessary job. When you are employed, don't you get a job description, or is that a state thing. Public servants are good insurance, when there is a downturn you sack half of them, and make the other half work. Australia's unemployment figures are in good shape, why disrupt that. There will always be a host of non productive jobs to be had, even sweeping the floor, for a livable wage.

'boy's life expectancy at birth is edging closer to girls, with the average gap down to 4.6 years.'

Oh my god. That is shocking. I never knew males were so far beind women.

'Higher education, which is dominated by women at the rate of 2:1'

I had no idea of this either. Do tell us more.

Signed,

Dorothy Dixer.

597, you still have nott explained what a livable wage is.

Care to do that this time round.

House, I suspect that's due to many women taking part Time studdies, you know, between school hours or after hubbies home from work so
he can look after the kids.

Just a hunch!

'Goldman Sachs noted this as well, in a report in 2009, saying that female productivity is the big concern, running at roughly 50% that of men.'

How productive IS raising children? I wonder how they calculate that.

I know for one, that I could really do all my work for the week in about 10 hours. But I like to drag it out a bit more. Then, in peak times when the boss piles 5 things on me at once, I can impres him with getting everything done under this extreme pressure, whilst still surfing the net for 4 hours a day and even reading some of Arjays crazy links and wondering how I found myself on wikipedia looking up the most random things.

'Real household income has gone up for low and middle-income households'

What is real? Some random cost of living index based not on bananas but strawberries? I think when interest rates are low, and you keep your job, your real income goes up.

'How long can we keep paying people to do stuff that isn't necessary simply so we can say they've got a job?'

Well, what's necessary anyway. I always tell the missus that there really is no need to vacuum 3 times a week. It's obsessive man! Kids need some germs for their immune system.

I remember in Egypt there was heaps of military people all over the place sitting around in groups chewing the fat. One even pointed his AK47 at me for fun to wake me up one morning when I was waiting or the Dive boat.

People need some structure it seems. What better way to wile away the hours than talking sh1t on forums. Its 'productive' in the sense that I enrich you all with my correct perspectives on life. In 'real' life you lot couldn't afford me.

How do they measure the productivity that you lot achieve as the result of my insights?

The great America just might be on the comeback trail. Wages in china are gaining at an ever increasing rate, and china's productivity rate is only half of that of the US.
Rectub has a problem with what a livable wage is. His idea is to pay peanuts for non productive jobs @ 38 hrs a week. Him and Abbott would be a good pare, of skunks.

579,
stop twisting the gist of the post, it's heinous. I didn't make any reference to the work you're referring to. I brought up the subject of unemployable not un-prestigeous. Get your facts straight.
I want you to explain how those who either through inability or as in most cases due to unwillingness can not be employed are suddenly absorbed somehow into productivity ?
The unfortunate who are in various ways too handicapped are not & never should be part of this equation.

Houellie,

"How productive IS raising children? I wonder how they calculate that."

They "don't" calculate that....that is unless you pay someone else to do it - then it gets included in GDP. Which is why everyone is encouraged into the "workforce" and the tots and school-aged kids are parked in an institution. not to mention the old folks.

If you're not taking part in out-of-home work, you're more likely, in our society, to be institutionalised in one form or another.

Poirot has found my little dorothy dixer just for her.

579,

China's productivity is only half the rate of the U.S.?

Methinks you ought to go and check your facts on that one. China is a production juggernaut and its cheap products are actually assisting the American economy to stay afloat. American industry is in the doldrums and has been for yonks.

I'm forever indebted to you, Houellie : )

The debt is all mine Poirot.

I'm sure I didn't really have to explain my facetiousness or the way I contrasted my own 'worker' productivity against my hard working child rearing partner to some, but it gives me some satisfaction when some posters 'get' what I'm on about.

But back to 'productivity'. I despise the word. It's like when you read a job advertisment and they use terms like 'high paced' and 'self starter', and 'can do attitude'. It really turns me off the job. Although self starter at least gives the impression they'll leave you the fock alone to do your work. Sometimes it sounds like they want some sort of circus clown really. I imagine their offices must be like some sort of roller disco.

Anyway, back to 'productivity'. I think it's a case of the question is wrong. The question is not how 'productive' we are, it's 'what is productive' and 'is that what we want to be'. These kind of figures and reports beg the question IMHO LOL LMAO.

Slow food, and a pretentious imitation of an imagined rural 19th century European existance full of nice wines and wonderfaully cooked fresh produce consumed at lively get-togethers full of philosophical discussion and jovality in Tuscan settings with a wonderful village atmosphere may well actually be what everyone is really after.

Patrick Bateman types may even allude to having holidays like that even for a long weekender. But just to impress their colleagues.

If you watch films like Betty Blue or Antonia's Line (Anti would love that one), the romantacism of the simple life and good friends and good (local) wine and conversation is a more fulfilling life. It's even 'sustainable'! I can sustain that image.

Then again your average shop keeper in Montepulciano probably dreams of a big screen TV and replacing the rustic charm of his tuscan house with the latest range from Ikea.

But back to productivity. I produce widgets, sometimes quite literally. I have no idea how that really translates to a 'productive economy' more than someone whose blocked toilet helps the local plumber.

In the spirit of Paul kellys Careless (How many cabs in New York City...)

How productive is a Business Lunch
How productive is a Hug from a mum
How productive is a shared gram of coke
How productive is a malignant melanoma
Will Bryce Lawrence put his whistle away
just for once
reset that scrum!

I know....
he's just...
happy...
for a tryless quater final.

How productive is Schalk Burger
How productive is David Pocock
How tough is the South African scrum
Will Quade Cooper have a cry to his mum
It's not like the backs will get the ball
more than likely they'll catch a cold!

I know...
this is...
not pro-...
ductive

But I couldn't care less!

But back to productivity...

Diver Dan, yes, the statistics are prone to changes in methods, but the bureau lists where there have been changes to methodolgy, so it isn't a problem.

On the topic of rents, they've remained static as a proportion of income, but income has gone up a great deal. It seems not unreasonable to make it possible for people to have somewhere to live.

Crime was defined as violent and property crime. I'm not sure about other classes.

579:"Any one who wants a job is entitled to have one"

Well, there are a few problems with that, although it sounds nice in theory. What sort of job are they entitled to? What should it pay? How many hours is the minimum entitlement? What duties? If there are jobs for everyone, what of those who DON'T want a job?

Would you be happy to be employed picking rubbish up in the streets for your minimum "entitlement"?

579:"Public servants are good insurance, when there is a downturn you sack half of them, and make the other half work."

Well, that's where this sort of all falls down, because the public servants' spending is what keeps a lot of the wheels of the Australian economy turning, not to mention that sacking one half of a couple who have both been earning a good wage will mean they will likely face problems in servicing their mortgage and other commitments, leading to still more downstream problems. Better not to restructure your economy to require both partners to work in the first place. It's too late to stop it now, but it's not going to end well.

Houellie, for you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multifactor_productivity

The household income is based on total income divided by number of households I guess. It wouldn't be too hard to calculate, with some fudge factors around the black economy and income-shifting.

While I agree with you about the choice of metrics, MFP is what we've got. We're now stuck with a social model of "woman as worker" instead of "woman as mother/homemaker/social networker" and the result is measured by the MFP. The thing is that paying women to do the things they'd have done anyway has proven not to be very productive...

The solution offered by Goldman Sachs is to convince women that they really want to do the work that men do.

Great.

Well good subject, had intended some thing like it.
It however has many heads, we could talk about that many different aspects of it.
Not easy with the extremely uninformed commentator trying to, well two of them,blame every thing on this government.
Lets look first at crime figures, and target those responsible.
US! we let intrusions like not my child! he/she is only a kid rule in courts.
Strutting around in clown suits wigs, and ribbons, our judges are so remote, even from police, some crime is free.
Gee hear the howling now! yet the PC Monster is worthless kids will tell you,nothing happens till after your third offense.
And white collar crime, less time in prison than a car thief.
At least we measure productivity now and act, only some times on it.
A fact, the cost of imprisonment has hidden impacts on why some never see the inside of one.
Governments contract even them out, build more use them and watch productivity in that area grow and crime fall.

The following website may be of interest:

http://www.gs.com.au/documents/About/MediaRoom/2009/Gender_Research_Report_2009.pdf

This is much more interesting

http://www.theonion.com/articles/study-finds-working-at-work-improves-productivity%2c2318/

And this

http://www.theonion.com/articles/layoffs-are-necessary-if-we-want-to-keep-the-light,26250/

I'm also thinking of laying off my cat because it is unproductive. My 3 year old is getting nervous. If not she should be.

http://www.theonion.com/video/in-the-know-are-reality-shows-setting-unrealistic,14308/

http://www.theonion.com/articles/apple-user-acting-like-his-dad-just-died,26270/

597, why don't you simply answer the question. What is you definition of a liiveable wage?

It's hard to respond unless you set the boundaries.

Antiseptic,

This is for you:

http://www.menslineaus.org.au/Upload/136.pdf

What did govt; policy have to do with the requirement for both partners having to work, to pay a mortgage. The requirement was self inflicted, by the, must have mcmansion, and 4 w drive. And now it is out of control. 7 or 800,000 for a house in a city. How can anyone live with that hanging over your head. The boomers are on easy street, look at the mess the younger gen; have got themselves into now. The whole balance of life has been put at risk because of greed.

"How do they measure the productivity that you lot achieve as the result of my insights?"

Houllie you really are an OLO gem. Onion's working at work to achieve 100% productivity was eerily all too familiar :).

Any bureaucrat worth their salt can spirit up a measure for any occasion. If you ever read annual reports thoroughly you will find in each subsequent year there are often 'Amendments' to the previous year's annual reports mostly in relation to figures. The same figures used to justify a program or section's existence. One database I worked with many years ago would come up with a different result for the same period when applying different search parameters (ie. monthly, weekly, daily or yearly) over the same period. The results differed every single time - probably a programming issue. A search over the year might come up with 25,000 but using a monthly search x 12 (with correct time parameters) would always differ sometimes by thousands. These were the figures used in the reports.

Smoke and mirrors.

Human factors and other more subtle contributions to society are not easily measured but are sorely missed if they are diminished.

GDP is meaningless when used alone. Knowing women are 'measured' as only 50% productive compared to men does not cause me to lose sleep at night. Women and any 'unproductive' men are probably busy doing other important 'unmeasurable' work.

Hollie

"How productive is a Hug from a mum"

These things seem to be measured in dollars. How much would you pay your mum for a hug? If she suddenly died, would you pay more than that for one last hug from mum? If so, the economy requires you to shoot your mum. All of us must do whatever we can to increase productivity.

After you have done your bit for productivity, get back to work. Australia's seems to be experiencing a desperate widget shortage. My local Bunnings doesn't seem to have a single widget in stock.

579, I'm not so sure it's greed, rather, it's lack of wanting o commit an go without that stop many youg ones from owning a home.

Take a look at any of the many eat streets on a Friday or Saturday night, they are usually crowded with young ones spending what could be their mortgage money.

It's all about choices. It easier to buy a house today than it was thirty years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/09/04/opinion/04reich-graphic.html?ref=sunday

I can't reproduce it, unfortunately, but I recommend everybody have a look at this.

Antiseptic,

OK. So what's your point?

Lexi, that graphic is obviously based on the US situation, which is somewhat worse than ours, since ours is masked by redistribution and welfare spending to the tune of 35% of gross tax receipts. Once that unsustainable subsidisation of lifestyle is taken into account, I suspect our own situation would look very similar, if not a whole lot worse. I'm struck by how similar the household debt curve looks to the productivity curve that the ABS produced and I referenced in the original post. The correlation seems very good; is there a causal relationship? I suspect so

Feminism is quite simply about transferring wealth from middle-income families who now require 2 breadwinners to those who control capital, who have increased "productivity" and increased cashflows out of people doing just as they've always done. the only difference is that now they have little choice but to do it for pay, since that's what is needed for minimal access to house purchase and to live the consumer dream. As Pelican said earlier, it's a con.

Don't you feel just a little silly for falling for it?

Dear Antiseptic,

I don't understand your references to feminism
or people being "conned" to having two income
families. In my case - My husband being self-
employed for a greater part of his life - meant
that he didn't have a secure income which is what
we needed in order to survive, raise our family,
put food on our table, and pay for the basic
essentials. I've always worked full-time to supplement
what was needed. We both shared and did what needed
to be done as I imagine many other couples did and
continue to do.

But Thanks for explaining your take on things.
You may feel it's all some sort of "con."
To me - it's simply life - you do what both of you
feel needs to be done - sharing things equally.
Neither of us has ever based our actions on "roles"
or our gender. "Your job," "My job,"
That has never come into the equation.

Lexi, it's not a question of "your job, my job", or whther you WANT to work. You have NO choice if you want to own a home or live a comfortable lifestyle as a family. This is the great con and you seem to have fallen for it. If you choose to take time off to raise a child or simply because you like taking care of the home, as Benk and squeers say they do, would you be able to contemplate that if there was no Government subsidy paid? When the whole paid maternal leave business was being dicussed, lots of women on very good incomes claimed they couldn't.

Moreover, none of the benefits from the increased productivity over the past 30 years have flowed to low or middle-income people in the US, according to that chart. Productivity has increased by 80%, while average wages have increased by just 7%. Meanwhile, the proportion of women in the paid workforce has increased to over 70% and will increase to close to parity with men once the retiree bubble dissipates, I suspect. It would be nice to get some solid data on that.

We have mining money generated by a few very high-income earners to prop up the illusion that this is not a losing game all round, but the money will run out in a few years. Where will that leave those who require welfare to prop up their incomes when two people working just isn't enough to sustain a family, let alone one as it was when I was a boy?

My point is that the model isn't sustainable. What will succeed it?

Dear Antiseptic,

I've raised my children. I took the time off to do it,
while working full-time, and completing my degree with
the help of my husband. We own our own home. And we
never at any time received any help from the government.
We managed on our own. As far as helping those who
can't manage on their own. I'm a firm believer in the
Government helping those that need help. As has always
been the case. I do not agree with you that this "model"
as you put it is unsustainable. Part of the problem in
the US is that the rich do not pay their fair share of
taxes - they receive tax cuts that they shouldn't.
And if they only gave up some of their enormous
spending on their military expenditure -
they may just solve some
fo their financial problems. It's a question of
priorities.

Lexi, when we had Keating's recesssion we had to have just 20% of national receipts went to welfare and redistribution. That was only 20 years ago, just after the time that wages started to flatline in the US despite productivity continuing to climb unabated. Today, over 35% does. What has changed and how long do you think we can sustain that sort of increase in government spending? If you had children today, would you be able to afford the time off without the handouts? Try to be honest about it Lexi, and overcome the blind adherence to partisan politics: This has occurred under both Labor and Liberal.

under both Labor and Liberal.
Antiseptic,
Yes, neither has the gonads to change the insidious tax system. Can anyone explain that it isn't the tax that is the main stifling tool in Australia's economy ?

It's more that Trotskyite feminism acts as a pawl on a rachet: any change to policy that results in either more handouts for low-paid women or more power for elite women becomes locked in and no politically palatable way can be found to remove the more egregious examples.

Moreover, thanks to the fact that women comprise nearly 51% of the voting population and they tend to vote specifically on "women's issues" or "family issues" ("family issues" is code for welfare handouts to mothers, while "women's issues" is code for more power to political and business women).

Very few people can resist being told they're "special" and as a result they will get special treatment. The whole feminist agenda has been about giving women choices that have to be paid for by men's work, but where it was once a personal interaction between a man and a woman, now it's mandated and mediated by the State. Smart capital has naturally exploited that, while women like Lexi try to convince themselves it's what they want.

Once the rent-seeking mining money runs out we'll be just as deep in the poo as Greece and the US. Possibly deeper, since none of our Govrnments seems to have the courage to put aside more than a tiny portion of national income against future need. Howard tried and now Gillard is raiding his creation. Keating tried to make individuals responsible for doing so with super, rather than making the tough decision to do it by reducing government spending.

The crunch is going to be very tough when it comes.

Dear Antiseptic,

Just letting you know that I've been made a grandmother
again -
as of 4am this morning. My daughter-in-law gave birth
to a baby boy. It's their second child. And they haven't
had a need to ask for any welfare payments or government
support.

Your continuing rants about feminism, et cetera - to me
are just that - rants. So I'll leave you to it. Frankly
you live in a different world to me.

Congratulations to you and your family, Lexi. I'm sure you're a wonderful grandmother.

Lexi:"they haven't
had a need to ask for any welfare payments or government
support. "

No Family Tax Benefit? No paid maternal leave? No child care subsidy?

I don't think you're thinking about things too clearly. Which might explain why you "live in a different world".

I do resent your use of the term "rants", as well. I always base my posts on logical reasoning and try to present some supporting argument or data. You rarely respond with anything but personal anecdote and avoid engaging with the broader topic.

I should also point out that I somehow managed to truncate my second paragraph above. Such is life.

Dear Antiseptic,

As far as I know they did not ask for nor get
any payments from the government. As for paid
maternity leave. No. she's an architect - and
she took a leave of absence - it's a small
company.

As for my not engaging in the broader topic
with you - frankly I tend to do that when I
actually don't see the point in broadening
the discussion.
You may not realise it - but often your
remarks when dealing with females - come across
as put-downs and that immediately makes me lose
interest. I notice that you seem to respect the
opinions of the guys far more. That's why I tend to
give you anecdotal stuff- I suppose to try to win you over
with - "I'm not like that." A weakness, I know.
I am trying to
understand why you've got such a strong negative
view of women.

Anyway, Thanks for your congratulations. I love
being a glam mum, sorry, gran mum.
Now off to make lunch.

Lexi, the PPL scheme is paid for by the govt

http://www.familyassist.gov.au/payments/family-assistance-payments/paid-parental-leave-scheme/

So, presuming she doesn't earn more than $150,000 a year, she's going to be likely to claim. She'll also get Family Tax Benefit, and she'll be eligible for a significant childcare subsidy.

None of those things were required when women weren't required to work if they didn't want to.

Lexi:"you've got such a strong negative
view of women. "

I'm not going to repeat the whole disclaimer business. If you think that, go right ahead and think it. It doesn't make it true, of course. Speaking for myself, I'm more interestedint the defensiveness you exhibit at the suggestion that feminism is basically an enabling technology for corporatism, rather than the fluffy, fuzzy vision that you prefer to see

Dear Antiseptic,

I actually don't think about feminism at all.
Never have. I, like so many others - male
and female - simply live my life best as I can
and do what needs to be done as much as I'm able.
As for your disclaimers - you're entitled to them.
However, I would bet that I'm not the only person
on this forum you thinks you have issues regarding
females.

Lexi:"I actually don't think about feminism at all."

So much is obvious, yet you respond aggeessively when feminist doctrine is challenged. Why is that?

Lexi:"I, like so many others - male
and female - simply live my life best as I can"

As we all do. however, I also like to observe the forces that are shaping my world. I am self-employed, which means it behooves me to take notice of factors which you, as an employee in a line of work which is about as non-competitive as it is possible to get, simply have no interest in looking at.

That's fair enough, but it frustrates me immensely that you're obviously intelligent, but you speak so often in platitudes and repeat other people's thoughts with little effort to put your own interpretation on them.

Now, you might not agree with my intrpretation of the importance of some of these forces, but that's why I post - to read the view askance. It's only by doing so that we can achieve a proper understanding of issues.

I've mentioned before that my background is in science and engineering. The primary drive in those fields is to question everything. An engineer who relies on other people's tables for his design without doing a proper analysis can only be at best a hack and at worst a disaster waiting to happen. He can never produce anything truly new or inspiring.

I think we have lots of people in bureaucracy and government who are very content to rely on someone else's tables for everything they design. No wonder we have such an ugly outcome.

Dear Antiseptic,

I think you've hit the nail on the head this
time - and I've been saying the same thing
over many threads and posts in the past.

We are who we are as a result of our education,
upbringing, past experiences, et cetera.

You're from a science and engineering background.
That's terrific. My is a humanities background,
majoring in literature. So much for that.
I was raised to always put others first. Professionally
as you know libraries have always been very structured
places - where one simply didn't question much at all.
So I suppose some old habits die hard. It was only
when I travelled overseas - that I changed and began
to question things. Anyway, I'm not going to go into
my history here - there's too much of it to explain
in 350 words - most of it quite personal - and not
appropriate to explain on a public forum.

But yeah, I can see where our backgrounds play a vital
part in the way we react to things. That doesn't mean
of course that we can't try to change.

cont'd ...

Why do I react so strongly to the "feminism" label?
Why do you keep bandying the label about?
Take an intelligent guess. I don't like labels.
Of any kind.

Lexi:"I don't like labels.
Of any kind."

Lexi:"you've got such a strong negative
view of women. "

Lexi:"Your continuing rants about feminism, et cetera"

Lexi:"you have issues regarding
females."

You really have no idea what you think, do you? You're not even a hypocrite.

LOL!

Antispetic,

If you don't like what I say about
you - you can always improve.

Is this about productivity. China is only 25% as productive as the US. It is only cheap labor that is the drawcard, and that is changing rapidly. Because China is not as automated as the US, this is why China has to fake their currency worth, to keep thousands in work.

579, how do you figure that China is so unproductive? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, since it seems likely, but i'd be interested to know why you think so.