We've worked hard, got an education, found jobs. But it's not enough
A recent episode of the Diary of a CEO podcast highlighted a vital debate we need to have. It featured rockstar British economist Gary Stevenson and Daniel Priestley, an acclaimed Australian serial entrepreneur. The host, Steven Bartlett, asked both men what advice they would give to young people.
Priestley suggested that we focus on entrepreneurship, as the digital economy offers incredible opportunities to create wealth. Stevenson disagreed, arguing that this advice is harmful because, if you can't get ahead, then it must be your fault. Instead, the economic problems we face are structural. Without reforming how our economy works, Stevenson argued, financial and business advice is like giving out stock tips on the Titanic.
The most common story we do hear is the one promoted by Priestley, about individual financial success. It's pushed by social media finfluencers, tech bros, and self-help gurus who claim that the pathway to economic security is through speculative property investing, starting a dropshipping business, or investing in the latest cryptocurrency. Movements like 'girlboss' and 'quiet quitting' have sent the message that you have to save yourself in these tough economic times.
The key to the social contract working, in whatever form, is that people feel their efforts are rewarded and that they believe the contract is fair. The contract, then, is hanging by a thread.
The cultural dominance of individualism, however, perpetuates an economic system that is harming us. It means that avenues for collective action, such as union membership, political party involvement, and volunteering, are in decline. Policy debates pit winners against losers without considering what's best for everyone, and the government and its tax and transfer system are cast as a 'burden'.
Loading
In contrast, the postwar version of the social contract promoted the idea that, in return for contributing through work, care, and paying taxes, individuals had rights to essentials such as healthcare, housing, and employment security. You could find a stable job paying enough to feed and house your family, retire with a pension, and be assured that your children would have it better.
A second version of the social contract was adopted in the 1980s and 1990s. It presented a more individualistic vision aimed at removing the 'shackles' of taxation and regulation. Tax rates on the wealthy were reduced, public services privatised and superannuation introduced to prioritise individual responsibility and private wealth accumulation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Can Jim Chalmers reap a healthy crop with the help of his big worm farm?
One observer describes next week's economic roundtable this way: "Chalmers has opened a can of worms - and everybody has got a worm". Even those close to the roundtable are feeling overwhelmed by the extent of the worm farm. There are many hundreds of submissions, five Productivity Commission reports, Treasury background papers, and stakeholders in the media spruiking their opinions ahead of the event. Business, unions and the welfare sector have largely settled into their predictable wish lists. In areas such as the housing crisis, it's actually not difficult to say what should be done - you hardly need this meeting to tell you. It just seems near impossible to get the relevant players (whether they be states, local councils, the construction industry) to do it, or be able to do it. On issues of deregulation generally, when it comes to specifics, a lot is contested. As the ACTU's Sally McManus, who'll be at the roundtable, says, "one person's regulations are another person's rights". As much as Treasurer Jim Chalmers might like to project the sunny side of Australia's situation, independent economist Chris Richardson (who will be at the summit's day three tax session) puts it more bluntly. "We have a problem: the average Australian saw their living standards rise by just 1.5% over the past decade," he posted on X. "That's embarrassingly shy of the 22% lift in living standards enjoyed across the rich world as a whole, and way below what Australians achieved in times past. "You'd have hoped that both sides would have talked about tackling that challenge at the last election, but they didn't." Richardson is hoping the roundtable can achieve "enough consensus to change some things", which the government can use as a springboard. But he's worried the meeting could underperform, given its "lead-up hasn't seen much consensus", Economist Richard Holden from UNSW says to be successful, the roundtable needs to get "broad agreement on some version of the 'Abundance agenda' [a reference to a currently fashionable book focusing on loosening regulatory blocks] - especially as it applies to housing. "In addition, to be successful would require that big issues like federation and tax reform are referred to Treasury for serious consideration and to present the government with options by year's end." There are two approaches for a government that wants to promote economic reform. It can, as then treasurer Paul Keating did at the 1985 tax summit, put up a model and see how much it can make fly. Or it can, as Chalmers is doing, ask a wide range of participants for their ideas, and then decide how much of what emerges to pursue - in terms of what has wide support and what fits the government's agenda. The closer we get to the meeting, the harder it becomes to anticipate its likely import (or lack of). Signposts are there, but they could be false signals, or ignored later. Despite all the talk about tax, the government - specifically the Prime Minister - has flagged it doesn't have the stomach for radical reform. Certainly not this term. Anthony Albanese said last week, "The only tax policy that we're implementing is the one that we took to the election". This doesn't rule out new initiatives this term - the phrasing is carefully in the present tense - but from what we know of the PM's approach, they would likely be limited rather than sweeping. Independent economist Saul Eslake said that a few weeks ago, he was optimistic the summit would give Chalmers the licence to spend some of the vast political capital the election yielded. "But the Prime Minister has made it clear he is not getting that licence. The government is not prepared to venture much beyond its limited mandate from the election. "The best that can be hoped for is a willingness to have an adult conversation with the electorate between now and the next election with a view to seeking a bold mandate in 2028," Eslake says. Predictably, the roundtable is putting the spotlight on the Albanese-Chalmers relationship. This can be summed up in a couple of ways. The PM is more cautious when it comes to economic reform, the treasurer is more ambitious. In political terms, it's that "old bull, young bull" syndrome. The different styles are clear. The "old bull" is blunt, sounding a touch impatient, for example, when he's asked about tax. The "young bull" is publicly deferential to his leader. One of the most potentially significant discussions at the roundtable will be around AI. Unlike many well-worn issues, this is a relatively new and quickly changing area of policy debate. There are varying views within government about whether firm or light guardrails are needed and whether they should be in a separate new act or just via changes to existing laws. READ MORE GRATTAN: Chalmers is in favour of light-touch regulation. The unions are not on the same page as Chalmers' regulatory preference, and they want a say for workers. The unions were the winners from the 2022 jobs and skills summit - the government delivered to them in spades at the meeting, and later. It's not clear they are in as strong a position this time. Their big claim for the roundtable - a four-day working week - has already been dismissed by the government. The ACTU doesn't seem much fussed by the rejection - it is on a long march on that one. Regardless of the diversity of views among those rubbing shoulders in the cabinet room next week, one man will stand out as something of an oddity. Ted O'Brien, shadow treasurer, invited as a participant, will be as much an observer. O'Brien might say he wants to be constructive, but his role means he will want to be critical. But he has to tread carefully. Others in the room, and outside observers, will be making judgments about him. For O'Brien, the gathering should be a networking opportunity more than an occasion for performative display. One observer describes next week's economic roundtable this way: "Chalmers has opened a can of worms - and everybody has got a worm". Even those close to the roundtable are feeling overwhelmed by the extent of the worm farm. There are many hundreds of submissions, five Productivity Commission reports, Treasury background papers, and stakeholders in the media spruiking their opinions ahead of the event. Business, unions and the welfare sector have largely settled into their predictable wish lists. In areas such as the housing crisis, it's actually not difficult to say what should be done - you hardly need this meeting to tell you. It just seems near impossible to get the relevant players (whether they be states, local councils, the construction industry) to do it, or be able to do it. On issues of deregulation generally, when it comes to specifics, a lot is contested. As the ACTU's Sally McManus, who'll be at the roundtable, says, "one person's regulations are another person's rights". As much as Treasurer Jim Chalmers might like to project the sunny side of Australia's situation, independent economist Chris Richardson (who will be at the summit's day three tax session) puts it more bluntly. "We have a problem: the average Australian saw their living standards rise by just 1.5% over the past decade," he posted on X. "That's embarrassingly shy of the 22% lift in living standards enjoyed across the rich world as a whole, and way below what Australians achieved in times past. "You'd have hoped that both sides would have talked about tackling that challenge at the last election, but they didn't." Richardson is hoping the roundtable can achieve "enough consensus to change some things", which the government can use as a springboard. But he's worried the meeting could underperform, given its "lead-up hasn't seen much consensus", Economist Richard Holden from UNSW says to be successful, the roundtable needs to get "broad agreement on some version of the 'Abundance agenda' [a reference to a currently fashionable book focusing on loosening regulatory blocks] - especially as it applies to housing. "In addition, to be successful would require that big issues like federation and tax reform are referred to Treasury for serious consideration and to present the government with options by year's end." There are two approaches for a government that wants to promote economic reform. It can, as then treasurer Paul Keating did at the 1985 tax summit, put up a model and see how much it can make fly. Or it can, as Chalmers is doing, ask a wide range of participants for their ideas, and then decide how much of what emerges to pursue - in terms of what has wide support and what fits the government's agenda. The closer we get to the meeting, the harder it becomes to anticipate its likely import (or lack of). Signposts are there, but they could be false signals, or ignored later. Despite all the talk about tax, the government - specifically the Prime Minister - has flagged it doesn't have the stomach for radical reform. Certainly not this term. Anthony Albanese said last week, "The only tax policy that we're implementing is the one that we took to the election". This doesn't rule out new initiatives this term - the phrasing is carefully in the present tense - but from what we know of the PM's approach, they would likely be limited rather than sweeping. Independent economist Saul Eslake said that a few weeks ago, he was optimistic the summit would give Chalmers the licence to spend some of the vast political capital the election yielded. "But the Prime Minister has made it clear he is not getting that licence. The government is not prepared to venture much beyond its limited mandate from the election. "The best that can be hoped for is a willingness to have an adult conversation with the electorate between now and the next election with a view to seeking a bold mandate in 2028," Eslake says. Predictably, the roundtable is putting the spotlight on the Albanese-Chalmers relationship. This can be summed up in a couple of ways. The PM is more cautious when it comes to economic reform, the treasurer is more ambitious. In political terms, it's that "old bull, young bull" syndrome. The different styles are clear. The "old bull" is blunt, sounding a touch impatient, for example, when he's asked about tax. The "young bull" is publicly deferential to his leader. One of the most potentially significant discussions at the roundtable will be around AI. Unlike many well-worn issues, this is a relatively new and quickly changing area of policy debate. There are varying views within government about whether firm or light guardrails are needed and whether they should be in a separate new act or just via changes to existing laws. READ MORE GRATTAN: Chalmers is in favour of light-touch regulation. The unions are not on the same page as Chalmers' regulatory preference, and they want a say for workers. The unions were the winners from the 2022 jobs and skills summit - the government delivered to them in spades at the meeting, and later. It's not clear they are in as strong a position this time. Their big claim for the roundtable - a four-day working week - has already been dismissed by the government. The ACTU doesn't seem much fussed by the rejection - it is on a long march on that one. Regardless of the diversity of views among those rubbing shoulders in the cabinet room next week, one man will stand out as something of an oddity. Ted O'Brien, shadow treasurer, invited as a participant, will be as much an observer. O'Brien might say he wants to be constructive, but his role means he will want to be critical. But he has to tread carefully. Others in the room, and outside observers, will be making judgments about him. For O'Brien, the gathering should be a networking opportunity more than an occasion for performative display. One observer describes next week's economic roundtable this way: "Chalmers has opened a can of worms - and everybody has got a worm". Even those close to the roundtable are feeling overwhelmed by the extent of the worm farm. There are many hundreds of submissions, five Productivity Commission reports, Treasury background papers, and stakeholders in the media spruiking their opinions ahead of the event. Business, unions and the welfare sector have largely settled into their predictable wish lists. In areas such as the housing crisis, it's actually not difficult to say what should be done - you hardly need this meeting to tell you. It just seems near impossible to get the relevant players (whether they be states, local councils, the construction industry) to do it, or be able to do it. On issues of deregulation generally, when it comes to specifics, a lot is contested. As the ACTU's Sally McManus, who'll be at the roundtable, says, "one person's regulations are another person's rights". As much as Treasurer Jim Chalmers might like to project the sunny side of Australia's situation, independent economist Chris Richardson (who will be at the summit's day three tax session) puts it more bluntly. "We have a problem: the average Australian saw their living standards rise by just 1.5% over the past decade," he posted on X. "That's embarrassingly shy of the 22% lift in living standards enjoyed across the rich world as a whole, and way below what Australians achieved in times past. "You'd have hoped that both sides would have talked about tackling that challenge at the last election, but they didn't." Richardson is hoping the roundtable can achieve "enough consensus to change some things", which the government can use as a springboard. But he's worried the meeting could underperform, given its "lead-up hasn't seen much consensus", Economist Richard Holden from UNSW says to be successful, the roundtable needs to get "broad agreement on some version of the 'Abundance agenda' [a reference to a currently fashionable book focusing on loosening regulatory blocks] - especially as it applies to housing. "In addition, to be successful would require that big issues like federation and tax reform are referred to Treasury for serious consideration and to present the government with options by year's end." There are two approaches for a government that wants to promote economic reform. It can, as then treasurer Paul Keating did at the 1985 tax summit, put up a model and see how much it can make fly. Or it can, as Chalmers is doing, ask a wide range of participants for their ideas, and then decide how much of what emerges to pursue - in terms of what has wide support and what fits the government's agenda. The closer we get to the meeting, the harder it becomes to anticipate its likely import (or lack of). Signposts are there, but they could be false signals, or ignored later. Despite all the talk about tax, the government - specifically the Prime Minister - has flagged it doesn't have the stomach for radical reform. Certainly not this term. Anthony Albanese said last week, "The only tax policy that we're implementing is the one that we took to the election". This doesn't rule out new initiatives this term - the phrasing is carefully in the present tense - but from what we know of the PM's approach, they would likely be limited rather than sweeping. Independent economist Saul Eslake said that a few weeks ago, he was optimistic the summit would give Chalmers the licence to spend some of the vast political capital the election yielded. "But the Prime Minister has made it clear he is not getting that licence. The government is not prepared to venture much beyond its limited mandate from the election. "The best that can be hoped for is a willingness to have an adult conversation with the electorate between now and the next election with a view to seeking a bold mandate in 2028," Eslake says. Predictably, the roundtable is putting the spotlight on the Albanese-Chalmers relationship. This can be summed up in a couple of ways. The PM is more cautious when it comes to economic reform, the treasurer is more ambitious. In political terms, it's that "old bull, young bull" syndrome. The different styles are clear. The "old bull" is blunt, sounding a touch impatient, for example, when he's asked about tax. The "young bull" is publicly deferential to his leader. One of the most potentially significant discussions at the roundtable will be around AI. Unlike many well-worn issues, this is a relatively new and quickly changing area of policy debate. There are varying views within government about whether firm or light guardrails are needed and whether they should be in a separate new act or just via changes to existing laws. READ MORE GRATTAN: Chalmers is in favour of light-touch regulation. The unions are not on the same page as Chalmers' regulatory preference, and they want a say for workers. The unions were the winners from the 2022 jobs and skills summit - the government delivered to them in spades at the meeting, and later. It's not clear they are in as strong a position this time. Their big claim for the roundtable - a four-day working week - has already been dismissed by the government. The ACTU doesn't seem much fussed by the rejection - it is on a long march on that one. Regardless of the diversity of views among those rubbing shoulders in the cabinet room next week, one man will stand out as something of an oddity. Ted O'Brien, shadow treasurer, invited as a participant, will be as much an observer. O'Brien might say he wants to be constructive, but his role means he will want to be critical. But he has to tread carefully. Others in the room, and outside observers, will be making judgments about him. For O'Brien, the gathering should be a networking opportunity more than an occasion for performative display. One observer describes next week's economic roundtable this way: "Chalmers has opened a can of worms - and everybody has got a worm". Even those close to the roundtable are feeling overwhelmed by the extent of the worm farm. There are many hundreds of submissions, five Productivity Commission reports, Treasury background papers, and stakeholders in the media spruiking their opinions ahead of the event. Business, unions and the welfare sector have largely settled into their predictable wish lists. In areas such as the housing crisis, it's actually not difficult to say what should be done - you hardly need this meeting to tell you. It just seems near impossible to get the relevant players (whether they be states, local councils, the construction industry) to do it, or be able to do it. On issues of deregulation generally, when it comes to specifics, a lot is contested. As the ACTU's Sally McManus, who'll be at the roundtable, says, "one person's regulations are another person's rights". As much as Treasurer Jim Chalmers might like to project the sunny side of Australia's situation, independent economist Chris Richardson (who will be at the summit's day three tax session) puts it more bluntly. "We have a problem: the average Australian saw their living standards rise by just 1.5% over the past decade," he posted on X. "That's embarrassingly shy of the 22% lift in living standards enjoyed across the rich world as a whole, and way below what Australians achieved in times past. "You'd have hoped that both sides would have talked about tackling that challenge at the last election, but they didn't." Richardson is hoping the roundtable can achieve "enough consensus to change some things", which the government can use as a springboard. But he's worried the meeting could underperform, given its "lead-up hasn't seen much consensus", Economist Richard Holden from UNSW says to be successful, the roundtable needs to get "broad agreement on some version of the 'Abundance agenda' [a reference to a currently fashionable book focusing on loosening regulatory blocks] - especially as it applies to housing. "In addition, to be successful would require that big issues like federation and tax reform are referred to Treasury for serious consideration and to present the government with options by year's end." There are two approaches for a government that wants to promote economic reform. It can, as then treasurer Paul Keating did at the 1985 tax summit, put up a model and see how much it can make fly. Or it can, as Chalmers is doing, ask a wide range of participants for their ideas, and then decide how much of what emerges to pursue - in terms of what has wide support and what fits the government's agenda. The closer we get to the meeting, the harder it becomes to anticipate its likely import (or lack of). Signposts are there, but they could be false signals, or ignored later. Despite all the talk about tax, the government - specifically the Prime Minister - has flagged it doesn't have the stomach for radical reform. Certainly not this term. Anthony Albanese said last week, "The only tax policy that we're implementing is the one that we took to the election". This doesn't rule out new initiatives this term - the phrasing is carefully in the present tense - but from what we know of the PM's approach, they would likely be limited rather than sweeping. Independent economist Saul Eslake said that a few weeks ago, he was optimistic the summit would give Chalmers the licence to spend some of the vast political capital the election yielded. "But the Prime Minister has made it clear he is not getting that licence. The government is not prepared to venture much beyond its limited mandate from the election. "The best that can be hoped for is a willingness to have an adult conversation with the electorate between now and the next election with a view to seeking a bold mandate in 2028," Eslake says. Predictably, the roundtable is putting the spotlight on the Albanese-Chalmers relationship. This can be summed up in a couple of ways. The PM is more cautious when it comes to economic reform, the treasurer is more ambitious. In political terms, it's that "old bull, young bull" syndrome. The different styles are clear. The "old bull" is blunt, sounding a touch impatient, for example, when he's asked about tax. The "young bull" is publicly deferential to his leader. One of the most potentially significant discussions at the roundtable will be around AI. Unlike many well-worn issues, this is a relatively new and quickly changing area of policy debate. There are varying views within government about whether firm or light guardrails are needed and whether they should be in a separate new act or just via changes to existing laws. READ MORE GRATTAN: Chalmers is in favour of light-touch regulation. The unions are not on the same page as Chalmers' regulatory preference, and they want a say for workers. The unions were the winners from the 2022 jobs and skills summit - the government delivered to them in spades at the meeting, and later. It's not clear they are in as strong a position this time. Their big claim for the roundtable - a four-day working week - has already been dismissed by the government. The ACTU doesn't seem much fussed by the rejection - it is on a long march on that one. Regardless of the diversity of views among those rubbing shoulders in the cabinet room next week, one man will stand out as something of an oddity. Ted O'Brien, shadow treasurer, invited as a participant, will be as much an observer. O'Brien might say he wants to be constructive, but his role means he will want to be critical. But he has to tread carefully. Others in the room, and outside observers, will be making judgments about him. For O'Brien, the gathering should be a networking opportunity more than an occasion for performative display.
AU Financial Review
an hour ago
- AU Financial Review
Profit season shows AI's arrival. Middle Australia is right to worry
Next week's economic roundtable is supposed to give Australians hope for their kids' prosperity. But will it address the threat that artificial intelligence may wipe out the middle class?
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Sydney startup Pyng pushes fee-free QR payments as RBA moves to scrap surcharges - but experts warn of hidden risks
An Australian start-up is launching fee-free QR payments to help shoppers get around the cost of paying by debit or credit card – but experts have warned the technology is not without risks. The start-up offers a solution to customers and small businesses who say they'll be left covering the costs caused by the Reserve Bank of Australia's proposal to ban card surcharges. Sydney restaurant Ipoh Hawker charges customers a flat one per cent surcharge, but owner Justin Ng says the restaurant still absorbs part of the bill. "I think on average we pay about 1.5 per cent. We're actually dipping into our pocket every single time someone settles through the card," Mr Ng told Sky News Australia. "It's not ideal at all, but the reality is we work on paper thin margins. I would reluctantly have to increase my prices." Chinta Ria restaurant owner Susanne Goh says paying surcharges is "just a way of life at the moment". Businesses are turning to alternative payments methods - like Sydney startup Pyng - which uses a QR code for transactions. The app links a customer's bank account directly to the merchant's at zero cost. Pyng founder Dipra Ray says the app removes the cost of middlemen. "When I send you money through pay ID... it doesn't cost you a cent and it doesn't cost me a cent. So why does it suddenly change when I go to a shop?" Mr Ray said. "The actual underlying technology to do transactions is relatively cheap. It's just that there are far too many middlemen in the middle taking their profits." The company's goal is to get two million small businesses on board. "In the future, our plan is to charge a very small fixed fee if required to be able to cover our costs. "But you know, we're not trying to be as greedy as the banks. We're just trying to create a non-disruptive way of making payments." Visa's Oceania group country manager Alan Machet says QR transactions may not carry the same protections if things go wrong. "There always is a catch and I referenced earlier the zero liability set up for visa cardholders," Mr Machet told Sky News. "If it wasn't you who did the transaction, you're never liable. One of the benefits we have is exactly that security - the mechanism to dispute." Independent Payments Forum Co-Founder Brad Kelly has submitted an enquiry to the RBA about consumer protection for account-to-account payments. "There are no standards around QR codes, there is no security around QR codes, there is no standard customer experience," he said. "Obviously for a litre of milk, we don't need consumer protection. But if you're buying an airline ticket and there is a risk between the time you pay for it and the time you get the goods - you're protected. And that is part of the Visa, Mastercard, Eftpos rules." The RBA is accepting feedback on the proposed policy options until August 26. The surcharge ban is scheduled to take effect from July 2026.
