Insights into how we work, live and play since the financial crisis

One of the lasting impacts of the global financial crisis has been flat real household income growth for nearly a decade.

On the face of it, it sounds a bit dry: the 14th annual statistical report of the Household Income and ­Labour Dynamics of Australia survey. But contained in the report are some very interesting and important insights into how Australians live and work and how this has changed over time.

Recall that HILDA is a longitudinal survey — it follows the same group of people year after year.

There are 17,000 people in the survey. It enables researchers to consider what happens to people and households over time rather than just presenting a snapshot.

From a policy point of view, this is very important. Take the debate about the adequacy of Newstart.

If it can be demonstrated that most people receive the Newstart allowance for relatively short periods of time before moving to higher ­income alternatives, that’s one thing.

But if people on Newstart remain on the benefit year in year out, that’s another thing. The longitudinal outcomes matter a great deal.

The theme of this year’s HILDA statistical report can best be summed up as some good, some bad in terms of outcomes for individuals and households. There ­appears to be a clear break in the data associated with the global ­financial crisis (after 2008-09).

While Australia may have ­escaped the full economic ravages of the GFC relative to other developed countries, one of the lasting impacts has been flat real household income growth for nearly a decade.

From 2009 to 2017, the mean household income grew by 3.5 per cent or $3200, while the median income actually dropped by $540 over the same period.

The HILDA survey underscores the sheer diversity in terms of types of households that exist in Australia.

There has been a sharp rise in the number of dual-earner couples, with some increase in what can be described as “female breadwinners”.

Sadly, female breadwinners appear to earn significantly less than male breadwinners and female breadwinners stay in the role for much less time than their male counterparts.

And just in case you think the phenomenon of adult children living at home is fake news, the figures suggest that in 2017, 56 per cent of men between 18 and 29 were living at home and 54 per cent of women in that age bracket were doing the same thing. These figures compare with 47 per cent and 37 per cent recorded in 2001.

One of the reasons behind these lengthier periods of living at home with mum and dad relates to the rising rate of educational participation among young people.

For women aged between 20 and 25, for instance, nearly one-quarter were studying in 2017 compared with only 14 per cent in 2001.

In addition to the flat household income growth that has been apparent since 2007, it’s clear that many households have faced ­additional pressures.

The time spent commuting to and from work has increased dramatically, particularly for male workers.

In 2002, workers averaged 3.7 hours a week commuting but this had risen to 4.5 hours by 2017.

Those with the longest commute times also demonstrate dissatisfaction with their jobs, find it hard to balance work and family commitments and are likely to leave their jobs in the next 12 months.

There is a message for politicians here about the major public policy problem associated with urban congestion and longer commuting times.

The HILDA survey continues to demonstrate its usefulness each year, including in relation to welfare dependence, the persistence of poverty — most people do not remain poor — and measuring inequality.

Its principal weakness is the failure to include newly arrived migrants in its sample after 2011, which should be remedied both to improve the representativeness of the sample and to answer questions in relation to the outcomes of recently arrived migrants.