Living Standards in Australia

Living Standards in Australia

There are different indicators of living standards used to gauge the wellbeing and quality of life across the world. Australia uses various indicators, such as poverty, real income, and growth in national income, among many others. However, the divergence on the measures of living standards does not alter the nation’s socio-economic changes and consumerism effect on individual Australians’ over the years. Inequality in the country is ignited by market forces, government interventions, and unequal distribution of resources. Moreover, the government emphasizes income-based average living standard that is tagged on the total national output as opposed to individual Australians’ income and equal distribution of national output. The approach only widens the gap between the haves and the have-nots in society. Although the political perspective of Australian living standards gives a clue on the bigger picture, a deeper look at the capacity for freedom, national output, policy interventions, equality, and poverty measurements gives an explicit image of the living standards in Australia.

Capacity for Freedom

The experience of living standards in Australia is widely expressed through various indicators that define the designated living condition of Australians over the years. The effect of unrealized capacity for freedom, particularly on children, has a long-term impact on their livelihood. The struggle is a typical measure of the standard of living in Australia with a spectrum on the children. In 2003, many Australian children were considered to be living in a deplorable state, below what was considered as an honorable life that matched their socio-economic equity and equality objectives (Callander, Schofield, & Shrestha, 2012). About 230,000 children and teens between the age of 5 and 19 were found to live within the Freedom poverty circle (Callander, Schofield, & Shrestha, 2012). The children were victims of low family income, poor health, and lower levels of education. They double as the most disadvantaged members of the Australian society who have limited access to socio-economic capacities. Ever since, the political structure has set precedence for increased development, particularly in education, considering its ability to enhance the participation capacity of the disadvantaged children and youths. Educational participation enhances the future labor force capacity of the children that will offer an avenue for improving their livelihood and that of their families.

However, the intended political drive for national equity and equality through education remains undermined in the nation. With already a heavy burden of poverty on the children, attaining higher education levels as key to better life remains trapped in the poverty circle. A similar case applies to disabled children who face more hurdles in their constructed capacity for freedom. Poor, disabled children have the least access to higher education, which implies that their access to a brighter future remains restricted (Callander, Schofield, & Shrestha, 2012). The lack of education translates to poor health, shelter, and a lack of basic needs. Therefore, according to the freedom poverty measure, many Australian children trapped within the poverty-driven capacity for freedom cannot afford education, good health, and shelter, among other standard utilities.

National Output

The growth in nation output is another trending reflection of the living standards in Australia. During the first quarter of 2015, Australia experienced economic growth of 0.9% in real GDP and 0.6% in market trend shifts. Export was the greatest contributor to economic growth, with a rise of 5% from the previous economic year (Canberra Times, 2015). The changes in economic growth are reflections of individual Australians’ choices on consumption, private investment, and global trade. Thus, every Australian yarn for greater economic growth as a mirror of transferable better living standards in the long run through improved clothing and better food, shelter, leisure, transportation, and other goods and services associated with improved quality of life.

The perspective of economic growth also comes with an expectation reflection on Australian standards of living. Individual quality of life is reliant on economic growth that contributes to cheaper market supplies and productions, thereby supporting higher wages and salaries for the citizens. Economic growth also offers enough national resources to be shared by the citizens as category equitable revenue distribution and through national development, such as health, education, and transport, among other social amenities that improve the quality of life (Dave, 2015). Besides, economic growth is a reprieve to social developments, such as democracies and civil liberalities that enhances human goodwill and satisfactions that are attracted by higher income and leisure’s wealth.

Economic growth as a measure of living standards also tests the sustainability of the quality of life among many Australians. Surplus economic income creates abundant resources required in environmental preservation. The preservation includes increased financing of scientific researches and innovations on ecological development. The view is supported by the Australian government’s initiatives to develop progressive fiscal and other public regulatory policies that steer microeconomic development alongside the wider macroeconomic development in the nation. Such programs include the 2015 financial fast track policy that aimed at reducing the nation’s deficit level by promoting an open economy that projected GDP growth rates of 2.5% and 3.25% for the period 2016 to 2017 (Canberra Times, 2015). The changes oversee a subsequent supply of goods and services and better wages for workers in the markets. Therefore, the economic growth approach to understanding Australian living standards explores microeconomic and macroeconomic drivers like higher wages and government-led policy reform in education, health, and infrastructure that directly affect the quality of life of Australians.

Policy and Inequality

Another spectrum of Australian living standards is the current unmatched policies and inequality in the nation. Australian society is characterized by a widening inequality that has dominated the 21st century. The policies widened income inequality between 1980 and 2010. The trend follows global income distribution that has seen the developed nations experience an increase in income inequality. The inequality is catalyzed by technology and market deregulations. Technology facilitates the faster exchange of goods and services, which makes the rich able to make more rapid income than the poor. The wealthy and larger companies can acquire and accumulate larger amounts of production assets and better services using technology that contradicts the geographical barriers and incapacitation of the poor that bars the low-income earners from accessing similar goods and services. Thus, the distribution capacity and effect of the technology have trapped a larger percentage of the national income to a few wealthy individuals in the society while the majority face threats of relegation into the bottom poverty class.

The government’s policy of deregulation has an impeccable role in the nation’s living standards. The government has taken various measures to reduce its regulatory responsibility in various markets, including privatization, trade liberalism, tax cuts, reduced public expenditures, and policy elimination on social developments. Though the government targets to increase production as a factor of living standards, the increase in the capitalism and effect of the deregulations for the period ending 2010 surpassed the targeted economic growth. The shred effect was a deceleration or fall in the labor share of the national income because the policies allowed producers to make more profit at the expense of ingrowing individual income for the workers, as shown in figure 1.

Figure 1: Labor Income Share (2017)

The nation has experienced a historical imbalance in income earned between the wealthy and the poor. The economic correlation between deregulated income, as given in Figure 1, shows a trending drop in individual income amidst labor compensation and an increase in total national income. The cause of the drop in income proportion to national income is policy deregulations put in place by the Australian government over the year that only favor the rich. The policies include tax cuts to businesses that allow them to gain more capital and upper-income levels. The drop in transfer payments by the government also widened the gap between the rich and the poor. While the wealthy can afford a luxury lifestyle, the middle and low-income earners are enshrined into the incapacitated disposal income that cannot afford good health, education, shelter, transportation, and other social enmities that no longer get incentives from the government. Besides, the privatization of corporations and formerly public companies in 2010 usurped trade powers and public asset distributions, thereby showing the unfavorable living conditions among the Australian low-income communities.

Poverty and Equity

Poverty is an explicit reflection of the nation’s standard of living. The inconsistency in human capital and resource equity gives a deplorable state in the nation where there is a distinct line between the haves and the have-nots. The economic equity perspective deviates from the popular income level approach to poverty. The diversity of the nation’s economic and socio-political frameworks gives a wider view of life beyond what each individual earns (Callander, Schofield, & Shrestha, 2012). Equity looks at the wide gap in housing, health, and education as an acute measure of relative and absolute poverty in the nation. While the rich can afford good houses in the prime estates that provide all accommodation utilities like power, water, and sewer systems, the poor have the least access to affordable houses. The difference in housing and lack of affordable houses by the underprivileged pushes many low-income families to street life, which does not inform the government’s definition of improved leaving standards. A similar situation applies to health and education. What the political forums define as basic education and health is based on the national average of national output share, but not on individual Australians (Callander, Schofield, & Shrestha, 2012). Economic affordability still plays a crucial role in the determination of the levels of education and health accessible to all Australians. The situation is worsened by overlapped privatization that offers services at higher costs to some Australians. The result is a society divided into economic feasibility cut-off lines. While privileged people enjoy sufficient education, health, and houses, the underprivileged experience insufficient health, education, and houses. Therefore, Australian living standards are sharply divided between haves and have-nots.

Conclusion

The living standards in Australia are best explained by the capacity for freedom, national output, policy interventions, equality, and poverty levels. The indicators give an analysis of the microeconomic view of production and consumption that is overlooked by the government in their output model. Instead of using the national output as a determiner of the quality of life, the indicators consider individual income and distribution of national resources as the determinants of quality of life experienced by Australians. The capacity of freedom shows how people are trapped in incapacitated life choices for poor education, health, and house, among other amenities. The national output shows the inconsistency between the national output obtained and low income earned by the low-income earners, which affordable and adorable life. The situation is worsened policy deregulations that only favor businesses. The result is a consistent inequality that confirms poor living standards in society. Therefore, some Australians are still trapped in a poor quality of life due to unfavorable systems, regulations, and unequal distribution of resources.

References

Callander, E. J., Schofield, D. J., & Shrestha, R. N. (2012). Capacity for freedom—a new way of measuring poverty amongst Australian children. Child Indicators Research, 5(1), 179-198.

Callander, E. J., Schofield, D. J., & Shrestha, R. N. (2012). Towards a holistic understanding of poverty: a new multidimensional measure of poverty for Australia. Health Sociology Review, 21(2), 141-155.

Canberra Times. (2015). Growth means a better standard of living. The Canberra Times.

Dave, O. (2015). Working Together to Improve Living Standards of Australians. The Australian Financial Review, Melbourne.

Hetherington, D. (2017). Drowning in the rising tide: Policy and inequality in Australia. AQ-Australian Quarterly, 88(3), 11.