MELBOURNE, August 5, 2004 (theage.com.au): The interaction of the politics of values and the politics of wealth will be the key to the election result, writes Gregory Hywood in The Age today – As material wealth rises and the competitive ethic takes hold, so too do signs of social stress. The result, inevitably, is greater focus on community values.”…a fascinating backdrop to the forthcoming federal election. The politics of values and how they interact with the politics of wealth will be decisive in determining who prevails.
Let there be no mistake about how dramatically the landscape of the Australian economy has changed and, with it, the nature of politics.
Consider the following statistics and judge whether they are consistent with the Australia of 20 years ago: a quarter of Australians are self-employed; there are fewer full-time jobs in Victoria and NSW than six years ago; more than 70 per cent of new jobs growth in the past decade has been casual; the proportion of full-time workers in Australia has fallen from 89 per cent to 69 per cent in three decades; service industries employ 75 per cent of people, compared with less than 60 per cent 30 years ago; the participation of females in the workforce has increased from 37 per cent to 55 per cent, while male participation rates have declined; the percentage of the workforce with bachelor’s degrees or higher has increased from 3 per cent to 19 per cent.
Australia has a workforce that is more female, better educated, more independent and more flexible. It delivers services rather than goods, many of them highly sophisticated.
Certainly job security has fallen dramatically. But the country is decidedly wealthier. Over the past decade real economic growth has averaged 3.8 per cent a year.
Lower, middle and higher income earners have all proportionately shared in the spoils. And as I pointed out in this column last week, we now also have a more creative workforce. Melbourne and Sydney rank up with the top US cities in terms of talent quality for the creative service industries that have been driving the global economy over the past decade.
These high-value “creatives” make up a flexible, mobile workforce. So while on the surface casual and part-time employment looks like a poverty spiral for the low-skilled, the reality is more complex, and positive.
For John Howard and Mark Latham, all this poses a dilemma. The new economy has broken down traditional political allegiances. This is why, despite unbroken economic prosperity through its term of government, the Coalition has struggled to break free of Labor.
Howard cannot depend on an army of full-time, security-conscious white-collar workers to automatically support him.
Labor no longer has its phalanx of union members to back it in. Instead, there is a vast force of self, casual and part-time employed of varying levels of wealth and potential who have learnt to look after themselves in this new world. And there are those who rapidly churn through full-time jobs with little expectation of long-term careers in a company.
In general, they are thriving amid the uncertainty of their lives. They are confident of the future. Surveys consistently show consumer confidence at an all-time high.
Australians were more confident going into 2004 that any time in the past two decades. But there are clear signs they are seeking a different type of political leadership. Having taken more responsibility for their economic futures, this new class wants more than just tax cuts.
For more visit http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/04/1091557913602.html
Thanks to Tim Williams, C.M. for this lead.
Tags: Poverty Analysis
