How Australia compares - the statistics
Apr 30th 2004, 3:20 pm
#1
BE Forum Addict
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Coogee, Sydney
Posts: 1,017
How Australia compares - the statistics
Apologies for the cut and paste, but for those who do not want to check out the link, full paste is below. Taken from Sydney Morning Herald - could be a useful book for joining in those 'which country is better' threads
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...224585827.html
Australians are now the hardest workers in the developed world. Hard to believe, but true.
Australians average 1855 hours of work a year, ahead of the Americans on 1835 hours and the Japanese on 1821, according to official figures.
But this doubtful honour comes only partly because some of us are working very much longer hours than we did. Annual hours of work have actually been falling since about 1980 in most developed countries.
We've hit the lead on the league table because annual hours have declined only fractionally in Australia, whereas they've fallen by 2.5 per cent in the US and by 14 per cent in Japan.
The news is even more surprising when you remember we have the second-highest proportion of part-time workers - 27 per cent - after the Dutch. This implies that some full-timers must indeed be working very long hours each week.
The notion of the laid-back Aussie worker taking it easy in the land of the long weekend is just one of our cherished beliefs about ourselves to be demolished by a book to be published next week, How Australia Compares.
Advertisement
Advertisement
With a little help from yours truly, Rodney Tiffen, an associate professor of government at Sydney University, sifted through mountains of statistics to produce the study.
We limited the comparison to 18 decent-sized, developed democracies - Australia, New Zealand, the US, Canada, Japan, Britain, Ireland and 11 countries in continental Europe.
So, how does Australia compare? The bad news is that, in various respects, we're not the hot shots we imagine ourselves to be. The good news, however, is that in other respects we're not as hopeless as we sometimes assume.
A second shock to our self-image is that we're no longer the outstanding nation of home owners. Our rate of owners - 69 per cent - has hardly changed in 25 years.
In that time the Brits' rate has risen from 49 per cent to equal ours. And then there's the Italians on 78 per cent and the newly prosperous Irish on 83 per cent.
Never mind, console yourself with a drink. They can't match us on the hard stuff, surely?
Our alcoholic consumption per person has been falling since 1980, in which time it's gone from above average to just average. We're only the seventh-biggest beer drinkers and eighth on wine - which puts us well below average.
The one tipple where we hard-drinking macho Aussies top the list is "flavoured alcoholic drinks" - the ones where the maker pre-mixes a soft drink with an alcoholic base. Wow.
Next, though Australia remains one of the world's great producers of agricultural goods, we're not nearly as rural as we fondly imagine.
Australia is second only to Belgium for the highest proportion of the population living in urban areas - 91 per cent. And we're tops on the proportion of population living in cities of more than 750,000 people - 69 per cent - with daylight second.
But Australians have been remarkably quick to embrace the gadgetry of the IT revolution - or so we're told. Sorry. Among the 18 countries, Australia comes third last in take-up of mobile phones. We have 576 mobiles per 1000 people; the Italians have 883. But note: we're having more "Where are you?" conversations than the Yanks and Canadians.
We're doing better on personal computers per 1000 - coming fifth with 516, which is well above the average. But we're not as much above average as we were in 1988.
The dinkum Aussie is, however, a generous and open-hearted soul. Really?
We have the fourth-lowest level of official foreign aid, giving $US54 ($74) a year per Australian, compared with the average of $US112. And the second-lowest proportion of aid going to the poorest countries.
But perhaps we save our charity for home? Nuh. When you compare the income of disabled people with that of the able, we come last on 44 per cent. The average for 16 countries is 80 per cent.
And the benefits we pay our long-term unemployed represent the third-lowest proportion of their previous wage - 49 per cent, compared with the average of 62 per cent.
This brings us to our fond image of ourselves as an unusually egalitarian nation, the land of the fair go where men ride in the front seat of taxis and Jack is a good as his master.
I guess most people realise that Australia is a pretty unequal place, but I doubt if many appreciate how much so. We have the fourth-widest gap between the incomes of the rich and the poor. Only Britain, Italy and, widest of all, the US are more unequal than we are. It's the Scandinavians who are most equal, led by Sweden.
After the US, we have the second-highest proportion of people with incomes below the poverty line - more than 14 per cent - with that line drawn at half the median income. And we top even the US on the proportion of elderly people living in poverty - 29 per cent. (We mightn't look so bad, however, if account were taken of the proportion of oldies owning their own homes - we'd be well up on that league table.)
But surely we must be doing well on economic growth. Well, yes, we are - it's not just politicians' spin. During the 1990s we had the third-highest rate of growth in income (real GDP) per person - 2.2 per cent a year - after Norway and Ireland. During the last half of the '90s we had the third-highest rate of improvement in the productivity of labour (output per worker), after Finland and Ireland.
But note this: our medal-winning performance during the '90s was needed to lift our record over the past 30 years from below average to just average. We did particularly badly in the '70s and no better than OK in the '80s.
Even so, don't let the exorbitant price of a cup of coffee in Copenhagen or a fare on the London Tube convince you we're the poor among the world's rich.
No, those hip-pocket shocks are owed mainly to the vagaries of floating exchange rates. And don't confuse the Europeans' high cost of living with a high standard of living.
Our material living standard - measured as GDP per person - is right up around average for the world's richest countries. What's more, most of the other 17 countries in the study are clustered around the average.
It's really only the Americans who are a lot - 35 per cent - richer than we are. Next after them are the oil-rich Norwegians, and they're only 15 per cent up on us.
Feeling complacent? Don't. When you turn to the environment, you find we have the highest emissions of greenhouse gases per person, the second-highest generation of municipal waste per person and the third-highest petrol consumption per person.
There's more, but I'll spare you. In fact, if all this is sounding a bit negative, let's move to the good news. As I say, there are various respects in which we're doing better than we think or are more outstanding than we imagine.
Take health. We're doing much better than all our complaints would leave you thinking. Our total spending on health care is only average - 8.9 per cent of GDP, compared with the Yanks on 13.1 per cent and the Brits on 7.3 per cent - but in terms of the ultimate health outcome, life expectancy, we're second only to the Japanese. Switch to the more exacting measure of expected years of good health and we're still coming fourth after Sweden, Switzerland and Japan.
Our relative performance on education is pretty spotty - particularly with how much we're spending - but when it comes to how our 15-year-olds shape up on reading, maths and scientific literacy, only Japan, Finland and Canada do better. Finally, a distinction that's hard to categorise: our rate of imprisonment has more than doubled since the early '80s, giving us the fourth-highest rate - 110 prisoners per 100,000 population - after Britain, New Zealand and the daddy of them all, the US (700 per 100,000).
But is that good or bad? It doesn't suggest that tougher punishment is much of a deterrent.
How Australia Compares, by Rodney Tiffen and Ross Gittins, Cambridge University Press, $49.95.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...224585827.html
Australians are now the hardest workers in the developed world. Hard to believe, but true.
Australians average 1855 hours of work a year, ahead of the Americans on 1835 hours and the Japanese on 1821, according to official figures.
But this doubtful honour comes only partly because some of us are working very much longer hours than we did. Annual hours of work have actually been falling since about 1980 in most developed countries.
We've hit the lead on the league table because annual hours have declined only fractionally in Australia, whereas they've fallen by 2.5 per cent in the US and by 14 per cent in Japan.
The news is even more surprising when you remember we have the second-highest proportion of part-time workers - 27 per cent - after the Dutch. This implies that some full-timers must indeed be working very long hours each week.
The notion of the laid-back Aussie worker taking it easy in the land of the long weekend is just one of our cherished beliefs about ourselves to be demolished by a book to be published next week, How Australia Compares.
Advertisement
Advertisement
With a little help from yours truly, Rodney Tiffen, an associate professor of government at Sydney University, sifted through mountains of statistics to produce the study.
We limited the comparison to 18 decent-sized, developed democracies - Australia, New Zealand, the US, Canada, Japan, Britain, Ireland and 11 countries in continental Europe.
So, how does Australia compare? The bad news is that, in various respects, we're not the hot shots we imagine ourselves to be. The good news, however, is that in other respects we're not as hopeless as we sometimes assume.
A second shock to our self-image is that we're no longer the outstanding nation of home owners. Our rate of owners - 69 per cent - has hardly changed in 25 years.
In that time the Brits' rate has risen from 49 per cent to equal ours. And then there's the Italians on 78 per cent and the newly prosperous Irish on 83 per cent.
Never mind, console yourself with a drink. They can't match us on the hard stuff, surely?
Our alcoholic consumption per person has been falling since 1980, in which time it's gone from above average to just average. We're only the seventh-biggest beer drinkers and eighth on wine - which puts us well below average.
The one tipple where we hard-drinking macho Aussies top the list is "flavoured alcoholic drinks" - the ones where the maker pre-mixes a soft drink with an alcoholic base. Wow.
Next, though Australia remains one of the world's great producers of agricultural goods, we're not nearly as rural as we fondly imagine.
Australia is second only to Belgium for the highest proportion of the population living in urban areas - 91 per cent. And we're tops on the proportion of population living in cities of more than 750,000 people - 69 per cent - with daylight second.
But Australians have been remarkably quick to embrace the gadgetry of the IT revolution - or so we're told. Sorry. Among the 18 countries, Australia comes third last in take-up of mobile phones. We have 576 mobiles per 1000 people; the Italians have 883. But note: we're having more "Where are you?" conversations than the Yanks and Canadians.
We're doing better on personal computers per 1000 - coming fifth with 516, which is well above the average. But we're not as much above average as we were in 1988.
The dinkum Aussie is, however, a generous and open-hearted soul. Really?
We have the fourth-lowest level of official foreign aid, giving $US54 ($74) a year per Australian, compared with the average of $US112. And the second-lowest proportion of aid going to the poorest countries.
But perhaps we save our charity for home? Nuh. When you compare the income of disabled people with that of the able, we come last on 44 per cent. The average for 16 countries is 80 per cent.
And the benefits we pay our long-term unemployed represent the third-lowest proportion of their previous wage - 49 per cent, compared with the average of 62 per cent.
This brings us to our fond image of ourselves as an unusually egalitarian nation, the land of the fair go where men ride in the front seat of taxis and Jack is a good as his master.
I guess most people realise that Australia is a pretty unequal place, but I doubt if many appreciate how much so. We have the fourth-widest gap between the incomes of the rich and the poor. Only Britain, Italy and, widest of all, the US are more unequal than we are. It's the Scandinavians who are most equal, led by Sweden.
After the US, we have the second-highest proportion of people with incomes below the poverty line - more than 14 per cent - with that line drawn at half the median income. And we top even the US on the proportion of elderly people living in poverty - 29 per cent. (We mightn't look so bad, however, if account were taken of the proportion of oldies owning their own homes - we'd be well up on that league table.)
But surely we must be doing well on economic growth. Well, yes, we are - it's not just politicians' spin. During the 1990s we had the third-highest rate of growth in income (real GDP) per person - 2.2 per cent a year - after Norway and Ireland. During the last half of the '90s we had the third-highest rate of improvement in the productivity of labour (output per worker), after Finland and Ireland.
But note this: our medal-winning performance during the '90s was needed to lift our record over the past 30 years from below average to just average. We did particularly badly in the '70s and no better than OK in the '80s.
Even so, don't let the exorbitant price of a cup of coffee in Copenhagen or a fare on the London Tube convince you we're the poor among the world's rich.
No, those hip-pocket shocks are owed mainly to the vagaries of floating exchange rates. And don't confuse the Europeans' high cost of living with a high standard of living.
Our material living standard - measured as GDP per person - is right up around average for the world's richest countries. What's more, most of the other 17 countries in the study are clustered around the average.
It's really only the Americans who are a lot - 35 per cent - richer than we are. Next after them are the oil-rich Norwegians, and they're only 15 per cent up on us.
Feeling complacent? Don't. When you turn to the environment, you find we have the highest emissions of greenhouse gases per person, the second-highest generation of municipal waste per person and the third-highest petrol consumption per person.
There's more, but I'll spare you. In fact, if all this is sounding a bit negative, let's move to the good news. As I say, there are various respects in which we're doing better than we think or are more outstanding than we imagine.
Take health. We're doing much better than all our complaints would leave you thinking. Our total spending on health care is only average - 8.9 per cent of GDP, compared with the Yanks on 13.1 per cent and the Brits on 7.3 per cent - but in terms of the ultimate health outcome, life expectancy, we're second only to the Japanese. Switch to the more exacting measure of expected years of good health and we're still coming fourth after Sweden, Switzerland and Japan.
Our relative performance on education is pretty spotty - particularly with how much we're spending - but when it comes to how our 15-year-olds shape up on reading, maths and scientific literacy, only Japan, Finland and Canada do better. Finally, a distinction that's hard to categorise: our rate of imprisonment has more than doubled since the early '80s, giving us the fourth-highest rate - 110 prisoners per 100,000 population - after Britain, New Zealand and the daddy of them all, the US (700 per 100,000).
But is that good or bad? It doesn't suggest that tougher punishment is much of a deterrent.
How Australia Compares, by Rodney Tiffen and Ross Gittins, Cambridge University Press, $49.95.
Apr 30th 2004, 6:42 pm
#2
Dutch expat/Aus citizen
Joined: Apr 2003
Location: South East, Perth (was Holland)
Posts: 5,789
wow, how very interesting!
Thanks!
Thanks!
May 1st 2004, 9:44 am
#3
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,375
Bump, is this the article everyones trying to bring up?
May 1st 2004, 10:04 am
#4
Bitter and twisted
Joined: Dec 2003
Location: Upmarket
Posts: 17,503
Quote:
"The one tipple where we hard-drinking macho Aussies top the list is "flavoured alcoholic drinks" - the ones where the maker pre-mixes a soft drink with an alcoholic base. Wow."
I like this bit
G
"The one tipple where we hard-drinking macho Aussies top the list is "flavoured alcoholic drinks" - the ones where the maker pre-mixes a soft drink with an alcoholic base. Wow."
I like this bit
G
May 1st 2004, 10:10 am
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by Grayling
Quote:
"The one tipple where we hard-drinking macho Aussies top the list is "flavoured alcoholic drinks" - the ones where the maker pre-mixes a soft drink with an alcoholic base. Wow."
I like this bit
G
Quote:
"The one tipple where we hard-drinking macho Aussies top the list is "flavoured alcoholic drinks" - the ones where the maker pre-mixes a soft drink with an alcoholic base. Wow."
I like this bit
G
I think his words were something like "thats not a mans drink is it ?" but translate that into ex Royal Navy language, and you get the drift !!
May 1st 2004, 10:14 am
#6
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from canned Oz
Posts: 1,833
Originally posted by ABCDiamond
I think his words were something like "thats not a mans drink is it ?" but translate that into ex Royal Navy language, and you get the drift !!
I think his words were something like "thats not a mans drink is it ?" but translate that into ex Royal Navy language, and you get the drift !!
May 1st 2004, 10:21 am
#7
Bitter and twisted
Joined: Dec 2003
Location: Upmarket
Posts: 17,503
Originally posted by ABCDiamond
I had one of these when I was over in UK, year before last, and my old Dad gave me a look that could kill !
I think his words were something like "thats not a mans drink is it ?" but translate that into ex Royal Navy language, and you get the drift !!
I had one of these when I was over in UK, year before last, and my old Dad gave me a look that could kill !
I think his words were something like "thats not a mans drink is it ?" but translate that into ex Royal Navy language, and you get the drift !!
G
May 1st 2004, 2:37 pm
#8
AWOL
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Victor Harbor, SA
Posts: 1,256
Originally posted by ABCDiamond
I had one of these when I was over in UK, year before last, and my old Dad gave me a look that could kill !
I think his words were something like "thats not a mans drink is it ?" but translate that into ex Royal Navy language, and you get the drift !!
I had one of these when I was over in UK, year before last, and my old Dad gave me a look that could kill !
I think his words were something like "thats not a mans drink is it ?" but translate that into ex Royal Navy language, and you get the drift !!
May 1st 2004, 2:42 pm
#9
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: I'm right here
Posts: 380
Originally posted by MikeStanton
Weren't these alcopops invented in Oz? Started in SA, I think, with the "Two Dogs" alcoholic lemonade.
Weren't these alcopops invented in Oz? Started in SA, I think, with the "Two Dogs" alcoholic lemonade.
jib
May 1st 2004, 2:46 pm
#10
AWOL
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Victor Harbor, SA
Posts: 1,256
Originally posted by jib
No!
jib
No!
jib
May 1st 2004, 2:53 pm
#11
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: I'm right here
Posts: 380
Originally posted by Kentish Man
Care to elaborate?!
Care to elaborate?!
jib
May 1st 2004, 2:55 pm
#12
AWOL
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Victor Harbor, SA
Posts: 1,256
Originally posted by jib
Ask any Aussie in oz what a alcopop is, they will not know what hell you are on about.
jib
Ask any Aussie in oz what a alcopop is, they will not know what hell you are on about.
jib
May 1st 2004, 2:58 pm
#13
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from canned Oz
Posts: 1,833
Originally posted by jib
Ask any Aussie in oz what a alcopop is, they will not know what hell you are on about.
jib
Ask any Aussie in oz what a alcopop is, they will not know what hell you are on about.
jib
"...Patritti Winery in Clacton Road, Dover Gardens is the only remaining major winery in metropolitan Adelaide. It's a busy multi-faceted winery employing up to 18 people during vintage, which is all the more reason it is worth a look.
The first batch of Two Dogs lemonade, now known around the world, was made there in 1995..."
Oh, I forgot to mention the title of the article in the Australian Financial Review:
"Alcopop producers keep their spirits up"
- looks like the genie/spirit's out of the bottle then.
Last edited by MikeStanton; May 1st 2004 at 3:01 pm.
May 1st 2004, 3:48 pm
#14
Just Joined
Joined: Apr 2004
Location: Sydney, Oz
Posts: 15
hi mikestanton
i've followed a lot of your posts, both while you were in oz on the moving back to the UK and now your back in this forum.
I don't agree with alot of the abuse you get for your comments ... i believe most of them are based on the truth and just excentuated by your own experience ... but you were there for 12 years, surly you have valuable advice for people like me who've only been here 18 months or people who are yet to leave the uk ... why don't you share it?
i've followed a lot of your posts, both while you were in oz on the moving back to the UK and now your back in this forum.
I don't agree with alot of the abuse you get for your comments ... i believe most of them are based on the truth and just excentuated by your own experience ... but you were there for 12 years, surly you have valuable advice for people like me who've only been here 18 months or people who are yet to leave the uk ... why don't you share it?
May 1st 2004, 7:09 pm
#15
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from canned Oz
Posts: 1,833
Originally posted by creed
hi mikestanton
i've followed a lot of your posts, both while you were in oz on the moving back to the UK and now your back in this forum.
I don't agree with alot of the abuse you get for your comments ... i believe most of them are based on the truth and just excentuated by your own experience ... but you were there for 12 years, surly you have valuable advice for people like me who've only been here 18 months or people who are yet to leave the uk ... why don't you share it?
hi mikestanton
i've followed a lot of your posts, both while you were in oz on the moving back to the UK and now your back in this forum.
I don't agree with alot of the abuse you get for your comments ... i believe most of them are based on the truth and just excentuated by your own experience ... but you were there for 12 years, surly you have valuable advice for people like me who've only been here 18 months or people who are yet to leave the uk ... why don't you share it?