We desperately want productivity growth. But granting that wish has a huge cost
How do you define a failed generation?
Surely, it's this: it's when you knowingly pass on to your children a worse standard of living than what you enjoyed yourself.
If that definition sounds fair to you, I've got bad news for you. The long-term growth in living standards in Australia comes from productivity growth, and productivity growth has been dying a slow death under our watch for decades now.
This decline in productivity growth, combined with climate change, a policy-induced housing crisis, and rampant destruction of the environment and biodiversity means that Baby Boomers and Millennials are poised to be failed generations: we are giving our children a worse standard of living. And we know it.
Who or what will turn this around?
For most, including yours truly, we've got a lot of eggs in a single basket: the hope that rapidly evolving new technologies and the increased adoption of new and existing technologies will save the day.
Productivity growth is about doing more with less, and this is exactly what new and existing technologies offer.
But where does this productivity growth actually come from? This is where its dark side becomes clearer.
A lot of productivity growth comes from what economists call "allocative efficiency", which basically means having economic resources (think: workers and capital) reallocated towards their most effective use.
Take trade as an example. Australia would be dirt poor if we manufactured everything we consume here in Australia. Openness to trade makes us rich because it lets us focus our scarce workers and capital on the things that earn us lots of money (mining, agriculture, services) so that we can import the stuff we can't make as cheaply as other countries (iPhones, cars, TVs).
In short, trade reallocates labour and capital away from unproductive industries towards productive ones. Domestic competition does the same thing, and so does technology.
In my job, generative AI means I spend less time on mindless tasks like organising data, searching for studies, and preparing repetitive documents, and more time on creative tasks like helping clients solve problems, teaching students and writing op eds like this.
It has reallocated my time from unproductive tasks to productive ones. What's the dark side? The dark side is that this reallocation is not painless for everyone.
Technology changes the nature of my job in a positive way. But, for a small minority, it changes their job in a negative way, or wipes out their job and business altogether.
The overall result is a big collective benefit - since the vast majority of Australians are big winners - while a minority suffers a big cost.
The solution to this inequity is not rocket science: the majority who benefit should compensate the minority that suffers.
This isn't about stopping the technology change or putting up trade barriers or putting a stop to pro-competition measures.
That would be crazy given the huge benefits on the table. Rather, it is about using some of the benefits which accrue from these changes to help affected people retrain, reskill, find new jobs and be compensated for losses.
Sadly, this is not our current strategy. Our current strategy is to hope that technology, trade and other transitions deliver big productivity improvements through allocative efficiency gains while pretending that there is no dark side to this story.
READ MORE:
The payment received by unemployed people (JobSeeker) is woefully inadequate.
Retraining and reskilling programs are inadequate and inconsistent: fragmented across federal, state and territory governments.
Our insolvency laws make it hard to wind-up a business and redeploy capital elsewhere.
Countless regulations and taxes, often inconsistent between states and territories, turn the dream of starting a new business into a nightmare.
All these shortcomings make the dark side of productivity growth worse.
If you want an example of the consequences of this, look at the United States.
The social safety net is thin in the United States. It provides very little support to the unemployed through payments, retraining or reskilling.
The consequence is that the costs and benefits of disruptions like trade and technology have more unequal outcomes.
Getting more of the good stuff with less of the bad stuff means fixing these problems before they start.
This isn't just good economics, it's good politics. Although the beneficiaries of technology are a silent majority, the losers from technology are a very loud minority who could very well stop the drive for productivity dead in its tracks.
This is why the Prime Minister's Productivity Summit in August is well timed. The summit is the perfect opportunity to get everyone on the same page - governments, businesses, unions, civil society - on the big benefits that technology, trade and other transitions will have for productivity and how we can collectively manage their costs and build confidence.
We want productivity growth, we hope technology delivers it. But we can't pretend it's costless. We need to acknowledge the dark side of productivity growth and have a plan to manage it.
If we want to get this right, we need to get our head in the game, and out of the sand.
How do you define a failed generation?
Surely, it's this: it's when you knowingly pass on to your children a worse standard of living than what you enjoyed yourself.
If that definition sounds fair to you, I've got bad news for you. The long-term growth in living standards in Australia comes from productivity growth, and productivity growth has been dying a slow death under our watch for decades now.
This decline in productivity growth, combined with climate change, a policy-induced housing crisis, and rampant destruction of the environment and biodiversity means that Baby Boomers and Millennials are poised to be failed generations: we are giving our children a worse standard of living. And we know it.
Who or what will turn this around?
For most, including yours truly, we've got a lot of eggs in a single basket: the hope that rapidly evolving new technologies and the increased adoption of new and existing technologies will save the day.
Productivity growth is about doing more with less, and this is exactly what new and existing technologies offer.
But where does this productivity growth actually come from? This is where its dark side becomes clearer.
A lot of productivity growth comes from what economists call "allocative efficiency", which basically means having economic resources (think: workers and capital) reallocated towards their most effective use.
Take trade as an example. Australia would be dirt poor if we manufactured everything we consume here in Australia. Openness to trade makes us rich because it lets us focus our scarce workers and capital on the things that earn us lots of money (mining, agriculture, services) so that we can import the stuff we can't make as cheaply as other countries (iPhones, cars, TVs).
In short, trade reallocates labour and capital away from unproductive industries towards productive ones. Domestic competition does the same thing, and so does technology.
In my job, generative AI means I spend less time on mindless tasks like organising data, searching for studies, and preparing repetitive documents, and more time on creative tasks like helping clients solve problems, teaching students and writing op eds like this.
It has reallocated my time from unproductive tasks to productive ones. What's the dark side? The dark side is that this reallocation is not painless for everyone.
Technology changes the nature of my job in a positive way. But, for a small minority, it changes their job in a negative way, or wipes out their job and business altogether.
The overall result is a big collective benefit - since the vast majority of Australians are big winners - while a minority suffers a big cost.
The solution to this inequity is not rocket science: the majority who benefit should compensate the minority that suffers.
This isn't about stopping the technology change or putting up trade barriers or putting a stop to pro-competition measures.
That would be crazy given the huge benefits on the table. Rather, it is about using some of the benefits which accrue from these changes to help affected people retrain, reskill, find new jobs and be compensated for losses.
Sadly, this is not our current strategy. Our current strategy is to hope that technology, trade and other transitions deliver big productivity improvements through allocative efficiency gains while pretending that there is no dark side to this story.
READ MORE:
The payment received by unemployed people (JobSeeker) is woefully inadequate.
Retraining and reskilling programs are inadequate and inconsistent: fragmented across federal, state and territory governments.
Our insolvency laws make it hard to wind-up a business and redeploy capital elsewhere.
Countless regulations and taxes, often inconsistent between states and territories, turn the dream of starting a new business into a nightmare.
All these shortcomings make the dark side of productivity growth worse.
If you want an example of the consequences of this, look at the United States.
The social safety net is thin in the United States. It provides very little support to the unemployed through payments, retraining or reskilling.
The consequence is that the costs and benefits of disruptions like trade and technology have more unequal outcomes.
Getting more of the good stuff with less of the bad stuff means fixing these problems before they start.
This isn't just good economics, it's good politics. Although the beneficiaries of technology are a silent majority, the losers from technology are a very loud minority who could very well stop the drive for productivity dead in its tracks.
This is why the Prime Minister's Productivity Summit in August is well timed. The summit is the perfect opportunity to get everyone on the same page - governments, businesses, unions, civil society - on the big benefits that technology, trade and other transitions will have for productivity and how we can collectively manage their costs and build confidence.
We want productivity growth, we hope technology delivers it. But we can't pretend it's costless. We need to acknowledge the dark side of productivity growth and have a plan to manage it.
If we want to get this right, we need to get our head in the game, and out of the sand.
How do you define a failed generation?
Surely, it's this: it's when you knowingly pass on to your children a worse standard of living than what you enjoyed yourself.
If that definition sounds fair to you, I've got bad news for you. The long-term growth in living standards in Australia comes from productivity growth, and productivity growth has been dying a slow death under our watch for decades now.
This decline in productivity growth, combined with climate change, a policy-induced housing crisis, and rampant destruction of the environment and biodiversity means that Baby Boomers and Millennials are poised to be failed generations: we are giving our children a worse standard of living. And we know it.
Who or what will turn this around?
For most, including yours truly, we've got a lot of eggs in a single basket: the hope that rapidly evolving new technologies and the increased adoption of new and existing technologies will save the day.
Productivity growth is about doing more with less, and this is exactly what new and existing technologies offer.
But where does this productivity growth actually come from? This is where its dark side becomes clearer.
A lot of productivity growth comes from what economists call "allocative efficiency", which basically means having economic resources (think: workers and capital) reallocated towards their most effective use.
Take trade as an example. Australia would be dirt poor if we manufactured everything we consume here in Australia. Openness to trade makes us rich because it lets us focus our scarce workers and capital on the things that earn us lots of money (mining, agriculture, services) so that we can import the stuff we can't make as cheaply as other countries (iPhones, cars, TVs).
In short, trade reallocates labour and capital away from unproductive industries towards productive ones. Domestic competition does the same thing, and so does technology.
In my job, generative AI means I spend less time on mindless tasks like organising data, searching for studies, and preparing repetitive documents, and more time on creative tasks like helping clients solve problems, teaching students and writing op eds like this.
It has reallocated my time from unproductive tasks to productive ones. What's the dark side? The dark side is that this reallocation is not painless for everyone.
Technology changes the nature of my job in a positive way. But, for a small minority, it changes their job in a negative way, or wipes out their job and business altogether.
The overall result is a big collective benefit - since the vast majority of Australians are big winners - while a minority suffers a big cost.
The solution to this inequity is not rocket science: the majority who benefit should compensate the minority that suffers.
This isn't about stopping the technology change or putting up trade barriers or putting a stop to pro-competition measures.
That would be crazy given the huge benefits on the table. Rather, it is about using some of the benefits which accrue from these changes to help affected people retrain, reskill, find new jobs and be compensated for losses.
Sadly, this is not our current strategy. Our current strategy is to hope that technology, trade and other transitions deliver big productivity improvements through allocative efficiency gains while pretending that there is no dark side to this story.
READ MORE:
The payment received by unemployed people (JobSeeker) is woefully inadequate.
Retraining and reskilling programs are inadequate and inconsistent: fragmented across federal, state and territory governments.
Our insolvency laws make it hard to wind-up a business and redeploy capital elsewhere.
Countless regulations and taxes, often inconsistent between states and territories, turn the dream of starting a new business into a nightmare.
All these shortcomings make the dark side of productivity growth worse.
If you want an example of the consequences of this, look at the United States.
The social safety net is thin in the United States. It provides very little support to the unemployed through payments, retraining or reskilling.
The consequence is that the costs and benefits of disruptions like trade and technology have more unequal outcomes.
Getting more of the good stuff with less of the bad stuff means fixing these problems before they start.
This isn't just good economics, it's good politics. Although the beneficiaries of technology are a silent majority, the losers from technology are a very loud minority who could very well stop the drive for productivity dead in its tracks.
This is why the Prime Minister's Productivity Summit in August is well timed. The summit is the perfect opportunity to get everyone on the same page - governments, businesses, unions, civil society - on the big benefits that technology, trade and other transitions will have for productivity and how we can collectively manage their costs and build confidence.
We want productivity growth, we hope technology delivers it. But we can't pretend it's costless. We need to acknowledge the dark side of productivity growth and have a plan to manage it.
If we want to get this right, we need to get our head in the game, and out of the sand.
How do you define a failed generation?
Surely, it's this: it's when you knowingly pass on to your children a worse standard of living than what you enjoyed yourself.
If that definition sounds fair to you, I've got bad news for you. The long-term growth in living standards in Australia comes from productivity growth, and productivity growth has been dying a slow death under our watch for decades now.
This decline in productivity growth, combined with climate change, a policy-induced housing crisis, and rampant destruction of the environment and biodiversity means that Baby Boomers and Millennials are poised to be failed generations: we are giving our children a worse standard of living. And we know it.
Who or what will turn this around?
For most, including yours truly, we've got a lot of eggs in a single basket: the hope that rapidly evolving new technologies and the increased adoption of new and existing technologies will save the day.
Productivity growth is about doing more with less, and this is exactly what new and existing technologies offer.
But where does this productivity growth actually come from? This is where its dark side becomes clearer.
A lot of productivity growth comes from what economists call "allocative efficiency", which basically means having economic resources (think: workers and capital) reallocated towards their most effective use.
Take trade as an example. Australia would be dirt poor if we manufactured everything we consume here in Australia. Openness to trade makes us rich because it lets us focus our scarce workers and capital on the things that earn us lots of money (mining, agriculture, services) so that we can import the stuff we can't make as cheaply as other countries (iPhones, cars, TVs).
In short, trade reallocates labour and capital away from unproductive industries towards productive ones. Domestic competition does the same thing, and so does technology.
In my job, generative AI means I spend less time on mindless tasks like organising data, searching for studies, and preparing repetitive documents, and more time on creative tasks like helping clients solve problems, teaching students and writing op eds like this.
It has reallocated my time from unproductive tasks to productive ones. What's the dark side? The dark side is that this reallocation is not painless for everyone.
Technology changes the nature of my job in a positive way. But, for a small minority, it changes their job in a negative way, or wipes out their job and business altogether.
The overall result is a big collective benefit - since the vast majority of Australians are big winners - while a minority suffers a big cost.
The solution to this inequity is not rocket science: the majority who benefit should compensate the minority that suffers.
This isn't about stopping the technology change or putting up trade barriers or putting a stop to pro-competition measures.
That would be crazy given the huge benefits on the table. Rather, it is about using some of the benefits which accrue from these changes to help affected people retrain, reskill, find new jobs and be compensated for losses.
Sadly, this is not our current strategy. Our current strategy is to hope that technology, trade and other transitions deliver big productivity improvements through allocative efficiency gains while pretending that there is no dark side to this story.
READ MORE:
The payment received by unemployed people (JobSeeker) is woefully inadequate.
Retraining and reskilling programs are inadequate and inconsistent: fragmented across federal, state and territory governments.
Our insolvency laws make it hard to wind-up a business and redeploy capital elsewhere.
Countless regulations and taxes, often inconsistent between states and territories, turn the dream of starting a new business into a nightmare.
All these shortcomings make the dark side of productivity growth worse.
If you want an example of the consequences of this, look at the United States.
The social safety net is thin in the United States. It provides very little support to the unemployed through payments, retraining or reskilling.
The consequence is that the costs and benefits of disruptions like trade and technology have more unequal outcomes.
Getting more of the good stuff with less of the bad stuff means fixing these problems before they start.
This isn't just good economics, it's good politics. Although the beneficiaries of technology are a silent majority, the losers from technology are a very loud minority who could very well stop the drive for productivity dead in its tracks.
This is why the Prime Minister's Productivity Summit in August is well timed. The summit is the perfect opportunity to get everyone on the same page - governments, businesses, unions, civil society - on the big benefits that technology, trade and other transitions will have for productivity and how we can collectively manage their costs and build confidence.
We want productivity growth, we hope technology delivers it. But we can't pretend it's costless. We need to acknowledge the dark side of productivity growth and have a plan to manage it.
If we want to get this right, we need to get our head in the game, and out of the sand.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
23 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Iran evacuations ‘difficult' as ADF helps dozens more out of Israel
Dozens of Australians fleeing Israel have been evacuated from Tel Aviv on a second government-assisted flight, NewsWire understands. Twenty-Nine Australians and their immediate family members were on-board the plane overnight after Israel opened its airspace amid a ceasefire with Iran. It is unclear how long the ceasefire will hold and the airspace could shut again with little-to-no notice. Some 300 Australians were offered seats on the latest flight, which was supported by defence and diplomatic personnel. Senior minister Katy Gallagher said on Thursday the government was 'providing further assisted travel'. 'We've had defence assets in the region ready to go for when air space opens up,' she told the ABC. 'We had 4000 Australians register in both Iran and Israel who have indicated they would like to come home. 'And so, those flights have helped with that. 'As airspace opens and more commercial options are available, we would expect to see more Australians coming home through those options as well.' Earlier this week, 119 Australians were evacuated from Tel Aviv on a government-assisted flight. DFAT officers, with ADF personnel, have supported an assisted departure flight from Tel Aviv with 119 Australians and their family members onboard. The Australian Government continues to move quickly when opportunities to safely move Australians become available. — Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 🇦🇰 (@dfat) June 25, 2025 As for Iran, Senator Gallagher said the situation was harder. Australia closed its embassy in Tehran and moved diplomatic operations to neighbouring Azerbaijan last week. 'That's obviously the most difficult country to return home from,' she said. 'We have (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade) staff assisting on the border of Azerbaijan and they will continue to be there. 'But, I haven't been advised of any further changes to essentially how people are able to get out of Iran. 'It is difficult.' Senator Gallagher said the government was 'hoping that if the ceasefire holds … we would be able to see further options available to people'. 'Because obviously they are the ones that are really wanting to return home as soon as possible,' she said.
Perth Now
29 minutes ago
- Perth Now
‘Difficult': Update for stranded Aussies
Dozens of Australians fleeing Israel have been evacuated from Tel Aviv on a second government-assisted flight, NewsWire understands. Twenty-Nine Australians and their immediate family members were on-board the plane overnight after Israel opened its airspace amid a ceasefire with Iran. It is unclear how long the ceasefire will hold and the airspace could shut again with little-to-no notice. Some 300 Australians were offered seats on the latest flight, which was supported by defence and diplomatic personnel. Senior minister Katy Gallagher said on Thursday the government was 'providing further assisted travel'. Australian defence personnel have assisted Australians evacuating Israel. NewsWire / ADF / CPL Adam Abela Credit: NewsWire 'We've had defence assets in the region ready to go for when air space opens up,' she told the ABC. 'We had 4000 Australians register in both Iran and Israel who have indicated they would like to come home. 'And so, those flights have helped with that. 'As airspace opens and more commercial options are available, we would expect to see more Australians coming home through those options as well.' Earlier this week, 119 Australians were evacuated from Tel Aviv on a government-assisted flight. As for Iran, Senator Gallagher said the situation was harder. Australia closed its embassy in Tehran and moved diplomatic operations to neighbouring Azerbaijan last week. 'That's obviously the most difficult country to return home from,' she said. 'We have (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade) staff assisting on the border of Azerbaijan and they will continue to be there. 'But, I haven't been advised of any further changes to essentially how people are able to get out of Iran. 'It is difficult.' Senator Gallagher said the government was 'hoping that if the ceasefire holds … we would be able to see further options available to people'. 'Because obviously they are the ones that are really wanting to return home as soon as possible,' she said.
7NEWS
an hour ago
- 7NEWS
Property rush: Aussies fast-track home buying
If you're thinking about buying or selling property in Australia, there's one clear message from new research: buyers aren't wasting time anymore. According to a new study by done in partnership with market research agency Australian Regional Insights, Australians are dramatically speeding up their home buying journey. The average time it now takes for a buyer to go from the "dreaming" phase to actually purchasing a property has fallen from 29.6 months in 2020 to just 20.6 months in 2025. More than 700 property-engaged Australians took part in the national survey, which aimed to better understand how buyers and sellers approach the property journey, what drives them, how they find information, and how long it all takes. This is the fourth time has run this study since 2020, giving it a rich historical lens on changing market behaviours. Paul Tyrrell, Chief Marketing Officer at View Media Group, says the findings reflect a real shift in buyer urgency. "The significant reduction in time buyers are taking to move along the path to purchase is a clear sign of increased buyer urgency amid falling interest rates and a more favorable lending landscape," Tyrrell explains. "Stock availability due to the ongoing housing availability crisis is clearly an issue that accelerates this urgency." It's not just about starting the journey sooner, buyers are also finishing it quicker. Once in the "active" phase of their search (putting in offers or attending auctions), the average time to purchase has more than halved from 6.8 months in 2022 to just 3.2 months this year. "The research highlights that buyers know the time to act is now, and they want to purchase before another property boom cycle hits the market, driven by government first home buyer and downsizer incentives, interest rate cuts and greater borrowing capacity," Tyrrell adds. The bigger picture: Housing market conditions in 2025 The study's findings align closely with broader housing market trends. Cotality's (formerly CoreLogic) latest Pain & Gain Report for the March 2025 quarter shows the vast majority (94.9 per cent) of residential property resales were profitable, up from 94.6 per cent in the previous quarter. That equates to a median gain of $305,000 per sale. But not all segments of the market are equal. Units continue to lag behind houses in performance. 9.9 per cent of unit resales were made at a loss, compared to just 2.8 per cent of house resales. This discrepancy is especially important for investors to note as they weigh which property type offers better long-term returns. The recent increase in property profitability is likely to drive more investors and sellers into the market, while also putting pressure on available stock. Add in Australia's ongoing housing supply shortage, and it's no surprise buyers are jumping in quickly when they find the right opportunity. Who's buying (and selling)? According to the survey, two groups are especially active right now: first-home buyers and downsizers. This insight reflects a combination of government incentives targeted at both ends of the market and shifting lifestyle preferences in a post-pandemic world. For sellers, the data offers some helpful insights too. Vendors typically sell within three months, with settlements taking just under four. Most still choose to go through a traditional real estate agency, and agents and brokers are chosen based on their personality, local suburb expertise and sales approach - vendors are choosing an individual more than a brand. Trent Casson, Managing Director of Residential at View Media Group, says the annual research is key to understanding how both buyers and sellers are adapting. "The path to purchase research is key for our business as it helps us in further understanding the ever-evolving behavior of buyers and sellers," Casson says. "This in turn helps inform our product strategy, whilst also validating our commercial strategy. Furthermore, this research assists in educating our premium partners and helping them further understand the behaviors of potential customers." How are buyers finding information? While property portals remain a go-to source, the study found a growing reliance on Google searches and social media, especially among Gen Z and Millennials. In fact, Gen Z buyers reported using social media as a property resource at a rate of 58 per cent, compared to 33 per cent of Millennials. This shift in information sources has implications for how sellers market their homes, and how investors research new opportunities. What it means for you Whether you're a buyer trying to beat the competition, a seller hoping to time the market, or an investor watching for the next upswing, the message is clear: the property market is moving faster than ever. Falling interest rates, rising buyer confidence, and a tight housing supply are combining to create a competitive landscape. Acting quickly, but with the right information, has never been more important. And with profitability climbing, particularly for house resales, there's reason for confidence whether you're entering or exiting the market.
