Productivity, Inequality and Who Gets the Gains

Higher output does not automatically settle questions about wages, ownership, security or who benefits from new technology.

The paired portraits and credits appear on the series home. This is Martin’s independent commentary on Kohler’s published work. Alan Kohler has not reviewed or endorsed it.

Kohler’s documented work

What he has argued

Kohler has written about Australia’s weak productivity growth, inequality and the limits of expecting business alone to resolve these problems. In his 2026 argument, he connects the public debate about productivity with the distribution of gains and the political pressures that build when people feel the economy is not working for them. His coverage of AI adds a further question: even if technology raises output, it does not decide who receives the resulting income or bargaining power.

Martin’s response

Where I agree, and where I go further

I agree that a productivity number is not a moral outcome. More can be produced while some people lose income, control over work or a sense of security. My post-agentic question takes this one step further: if software agents and robots perform more of today’s tasks, what institutions distribute the gains and preserve people’s ability to choose how they live?

Open question

What I still want to understand

What would it mean for productivity growth to improve ordinary life? The answer should include the distribution of income, access to housing, time, bargaining power and the ability to participate—not only output per hour.

Research trail

Sources

Published 18 October 2026 · Commentary by Martin Davies-Roundhill · Contact End Up Here