Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Living standards fall as unreliables rise

By Geoff Carmody - posted Friday, 16 August 2024


Today, some 'clean' electricity sources are called 'renewables'. Reflecting their intermittent, weather-dependent nature, I prefer 'unreliables'. As suggested by Matt Ridley and others.

We'll never see the promised 100% dependence on unreliables. They're far too costly, all-up. But living standards will fall as governments push unreliables higher, and cut base-load power.

Most agree promoting higher living standards is a good idea. How can this be done?

Advertisement

More productivity. The only game in town. No extra pie, no extra slices. For anyone. It's not possible to increase all living standards unless more output is produced from less inputs. Redistributing incomes shuffles pie slices. It doesn't add to the pie. It may well shrink it.

Without more pie, announced policies claimed to boost incomes for all will fail. 'Magic puddings' are the fantasies of Bunyip Bluegum and Norman Lindsay. Not the real world.

Such policies drive more inflation, less growth, or both. Paying more cash incomes than real outputs must deliver more inflation, more unemployment, or both, to clear markets. As now.

They are unfair. More inflation and/or unemployment most hurt the economically weak. That's especially the jobless and those on lower incomes. As now. The RBA's inflation concern is right.

Where to start? We must know where we are, and why. The following is based on ABS data.

GDP growth. There's lots of public and political focus on inflation-adjusted (that is, 'real') GDP. Real GDP increased 1.1% in the latest year available.

Advertisement

GDP per capita. For a start, measuring living standards requires dividing real GDP by persons receiving it. Real GDP per capita fell 1.3% in the latest year available.

Real net national disposable income. Even real GDP per capita doesn't tell the full living standards story. It doesn't allow for terms of trade effects, net income from overseas, and other stuff. These are covered in an all-up measure, real net national disposable income per capita. In the latest year available, this measure fell by 2.8%. The terms of trade fell by 7.3%.

Productivity. Capacity to pay overall increases in living standards is determined by productivity. In the latest year available, GDP per hour worked did not increase at all. Real unit labour costs increased by 3.4%.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

15 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Geoff Carmody is Director, Geoff Carmody & Associates, a former co-founder of Access Economics, and before that was a senior officer in the Commonwealth Treasury. He favours a national consumption-based climate policy, preferably using a carbon tax to put a price on carbon. He has prepared papers entitled Effective climate change policy: the seven Cs. Paper #1: Some design principles for evaluating greenhouse gas abatement policies. Paper #2: Implementing design principles for effective climate change policy. Paper #3: ETS or carbon tax?

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Geoff Carmody

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 15 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy