Policy 'guard rails' for Australian real income?

Using national accounts, noting GDP deficiencies, this measure could set real income 'guard rails'.

We could add satellite national accounts measures. For example:

• an environmental satellite account, SNA/SEEA-based, measures emissions reduction efforts;
• these would subtract (net) costs from the net income mix;
• how do we measure our net emissions reduction benefits against our net abatement costs?;
• incorporating net costs/benefits for Australia likely is a necessary 'guard rail' headache?

'Comparative wage justice' and similar broad wage-setting rules rob the economy of needed micro-flexibility. Australian IR history is testament to this. National income 'guard rails' wouldn't help, either.

Must we re-learn that lesson?

The Hawke-Keating governments, supported by the Coalition, moved to more flexible enterprise-based alternatives. We need all the economic flexibility we can get.

Flexibility says national income 'guard rails' should be the sum of enterprise-level components. That is:

• enterprise-specific net disposable income should define that enterprise's income 'guard rails';
• industry-level net disposable income is a much less flexible alternative;
• nationalaverage income 'guard rails' should not apply to all enterprises/industries.

Can policy aim for sustainable real per capita incomes?

Enterprise-level real income 'guard rails', combined with the national inflation 'guard rails', deliver sustainable real income growth per capita, and more economic flexibility:

• only low general inflation, on average, feeds into nominal wages and incomes;
• real net enterprise disposable income per capita also feeds into nominal wages and incomes;
• in total, these generate sustainable national nominal wages and incomes growth;
• deviations from these (inflation + real income) 'guard rails' show how much we're off-track.

How wide should be the per capita real income 'guard rail' gauge be between upper and lower limits?