Are Australian Living Standards Declining? A Cursory Look.

The OWS protests have brought a lot of new knowledge to light about inequality, greed and corruption in the USA. Not least of these little insights has been the fact that average incomes (those of 'the 99%') peaked relative to the cost of living in the 1970s and Americans have in effect been worse off ever since.

What about my little country then: Australia? Well, a cursory glance at the graph (below) of real household disposable income, would suggest we're doing pretty well. Have a look, then I'll continue. 

Well that one doesn't go back to the 70s, so here's one that does, but doesn't quite cover the little dip in the last few years: 

There. Now there seems to be a reasonably steady trend upwards. That one is in '99/2000 prices. 

However, commentators have argued that women's workplace participation has been a contributing factor to increasing income. Here is a graph showing the increase in workplace participation by gender. The bottom line is dotted (hard to see) and, as may be expected, represents women. 

That's from here. The explanation notes that male participation has declined, but female participation has increased enough to make the overall participation rate increase, which has been extremely beneficial to the economy. 

So, disposable income has about doubled in about the same time that womens' participation in the workforce has not quite doubled. Very well. Each of us must be better off. Right? 

Well, here's another graph from the same document: 

Married women's participation in the workforce is growing much faster than that of non married women. This means there has been a significantly greater increase in the proportion of people living together, married on dual incomes than data manipulators like The Australia Institute would claim. There isn't equivalent data available to show de facto arrangemnts, I'm afraid, or at least I can't find it right now. Young single people often live in share houses to lower costs. There isn't data on this, since the arrangements are often illegal (the landlords don't know) and share houses aren't regarded like families by gatherers of data like the ABS. 

Either way, based on this cursory glance, it looks like we're not much better off than the 1970s. Right wing extremists like the 'Australia Institute' bewilderingly state, in rather sexist and patronising terms, that without women's participation in the workforce, average household disposable income would be higher. This is obviously misleading. There is a need here for more detailed analysis and also for concern. It quite clear that far more of us are working in order to achieve similar living standards to what we had in the 1970s. Whether those standards are in fact slightly higher or slightly lower though, that's something that needs to be investigated further. I'll look into it soon. 

Conscience Votes for Life and Death Issues

The Star Observer, an important community publication, today published predictions by an anonymous senior Labor MP that prime minister Gillard would call a conscience vote on the issue of marriage equality. It was suggested that this was a political move, designed to minimise any possible damage to her popularity that could be caused by ongoing public debate over the issue and that she would otherwise find her own position at odds with the majority of her party.

The source quoted was apparently concerned that a conscience vote could be used in this way, as normally they are used only for matters concerning 'life of death issues.' Making a distinction of that nature though, is not as straight forward as it may sound. Certainly the prevention of marriage isn't in itself going to kill anybody. However, what is at stake here is the issue of discrimination. Upholding the right to marriage equality will bring about profound cultural change by freeing us from a sticking point that contributes to the perpetuation of socially constructed difference. Discrimination without social structure becomes an obviously unacceptable act of individual aggression and will recede. Discrimination and social stigma are life and death matters, arguably far more significant than the examples the source used, such as abortion. They are, therefore, worthy of a conscience vote. 

The prime minister's motivations in this matter are certainly going to be subject to a great deal of speculation. Political convenience is certainly a possibly, but it would seem out of character. This is a prime minister who has got a huge amount of legislation and reform passed under difficult circumstances. It's worthwhile considering that she in fact hid her support for a price on carbon until it became politically achievable. It is therefore entirely possible that she has done the same in this instance and is playing her hand carefully with the intention of making marriage equality a reality. When the opportunity does arise, change will occur and no doubt the prime minister's actions will be instrumental. The prime minister is obviously no great social conservative and probably isn't all that reverential toward the institution of marriage, since she hasn't pursued it with her partner.

Marriage equality will certainly be brought about within the next couple of years. There is enough public support and there are plenty of MPs beginning to support it. We all have to keep pushing for it in public debate, but we are now at a stage when we can do so with a great deal of confidence.