We are too profit-focused to address productivity

Politics may seem to open a blind box: you will get something, but probably not as you want. Jim Chalmer’s economic round table was no different. Every option is on the table, yes, but what we will take, Labubu.

First, they are positive. Keeping the round table is at least an indication that the government wants to expand the task. In spite of the repeated statements of Anthony Arbanese (always expressed carefully in the present time)The only tax policy we implemented, the tax policy we take to the election”Every Labor Party deputy, not only the need to do more about tax, but also accepts the area specially. The majority of a cough tends to focus on even the most stubborn minds of the most stubborn minds.

The problem with the round table is that the same groups that advise how to disarm the inter -generation economic bombs that begin to explode are the same groups that help adjust them.

The productivity commission, the Treasury, the Business Council – claims that they are Panaceas for the increase in productivity – the same clothes that spend the last 25 or more years of privatization and tax reduction – now show alarms in which productivity continues to fall.

And while they’re all I’m trying to find the man who does thisTheir answers are shocking The regulations are exact and tax. Confident This Time will be the way to increase productivity. Clearly. It worked very well in the past. However, most of these people spent their careers to teach Australians to accept low -paid growth for the country’s good, because “higher wages mean lower productivity” “We love high profits and we don’t want to eat it much easier than.

Efficiency is a measure of the output of goods and services per unit input. However, priority is given first of all, where our capital class focuses on returns to profits and shareholders. Just see Qantas: it is determined by productivity and managers, but workers are always expected to pay the price. Lower wages, higher prices, a lower standard of living, but they are asked to make the first sacrifice.

No surprise, the round table screaming titles were a “stitch için for unions. ACTU Boss Sally McMmanus admitted that he felt more than a little more than a number ” at the event. In the end, trade unions cannot be sure of any victory beyond a captain-open measure, and for any job used to educate the AI ​​models that can replace them, and a compromise that the technology council is not hostile to an AI action as it was once.

However, Mcmanus would never be heard above the abundance bro, who saw the cutting arrangement as a way to productivity – often forced them to take into account climate, neoliberal policies or weak planning effects. No, the only obstacle of increasing productivity is bureaucracy. Let’s just ignore Each Royal Commission It determines the great failures of politics as contributing to the lack of government supervision and regulation.

Since the establishment of the Productivity Commission, the average increase in productivity fell after ten years after ten years. This is not the error of the productivity commission, but either no one listens to his advice or his advice is ineffective.

Or maybe we don’t know what the problem is. Is it because we move on to things that are more difficult to measure productivity? Then we don’t have a problem. We can easily double the productivity of teachers by doubleing class dimensions, but we do not do so because we know that it will not improve the results of the educational results. Since we are measuring, productivity does not take into account quality, but it does not seem like something we want to discuss.

Perhaps Australia passes more to industries that you cannot measure traditional “productivity” (such as elderly and child care). However, this is not what the business council wants to discuss, because it will often mean a greater role for the government. Everyone He knows that you cannot have public services and higher efficiency – except for Scandinavian countries, Where they have a bigger public sector than us, but also greater productivity growth.

At least when we wanted to pay it for younger generations, we focused on the inequality between generations from the habit of the Grandfather of Australia to a great extent. This is not new: A new moment The study found that “the pre-tax income of the Australians older than 60 years is equal to 65% of the population of 18-60 years of age and 95% of the income of post-tax income”.

At least even though he had a little bit of reserve taxes, framed by Australia Financial Review – It is largely seen by the press gallery without very logical and motivation, it is a capital paper and therefore as a “attack on retirement and reserve rather than an objective red distribution such as green weekly (we have worked hard for our tax cuts”.

The workers’ government has all the fields in the world to make changes. Expanding the conversation. Now it has to find the courage to use the power it is given to make the necessary reforms that people not only expect but also the necessary reforms.