Downtrodden youth must mobilise against intergenerational unfairness

By Leith van Onselen

Earlier this month, The Grattan Institute published a report outlining in all its hideous glory how older Australians have gotten wealthy while the young have been left behind:

Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) shows that older Australians are capturing an increasing share of the nation’s wealth, and the house-price boom is a major cause of the growing divide between the generations.

As you can see in the following chart, households headed by 65-74-year-olds were on average A$480,000 wealthier in 2015-16 than households in the same age group 12 years ago. And that’s after taking inflation into account and despite the damage caused by the global financial crisis. Households headed by 45-54-year-olds are A$400,000 richer.

In contrast, households headed by 35-44-year-olds are on average only A$120,000 wealthier – and for 25-34-year-olds the figure is just A$40,000.

Property is a key factor for wealth disparity…

The next chart shows that for households headed by someone aged 75 or over, greater property wealth contributed about three-quarters of the increase in their total net wealth. For households headed by 65-74-year-olds and 55-64-year-olds, property contributed about half of the total increase in wealth.

But for younger Australians, again it is a different story.

Bigger mortgages largely offset the increase in property wealth for households headed by 25-34-year-olds and 35-44-year-olds. Baby Boomers have also used the superannuation system to build their wealth.

…home ownership rates among households headed by 25-34-year-olds fell between 1981 and 2016, from more than 60% to 45%. For households headed by 35-44-year-olds the fall was from 75% to around 62%. Home ownership rates are also falling for households headed by 45-54-year-olds…

Australia is becoming wealthier, but much of the increase is concentrated in the hands of older generations. The trend is unmistakable: unless something changes, the young will fall further behind and inequality will get worse.

Late last week, the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis published a report revealing that older Americans too have made out like bandits while younger Americans have been left behind:

Key measures such as health insurance, poverty, wealth and income show that senior citizens are benefiting more than other age groups from improved living standards…

Median Household Wealth

The household wealth of a typical older American family is much greater today than the wealth of its counterpart of the same age a quarter-century ago. The median inflation-adjusted net worth of a family headed by someone aged 62 or older was 52 percent greater in 2016 than in 1989.

Meanwhile, among younger families, the typical family today has lower wealth than its counterpart a quarter-century ago:

  • The median family headed by someone aged 40-61 in 2016 was about 17 percent less wealthy than its counterpart in 1989.
  • The median wealth of a family headed by someone under 40 was about 19 percent lower in 2016 than its counterpart in 1989…

Median Household Income

…the exceptional nature of household income growth among older Americans extends far back in time. Beginning in 1967 (with the advent of the current Census Bureau data series), the median real income among households headed by someone 65 years old or older has increased much more than among any other age group.

As seen in the table below, it’s not only the oldest age group that has benefited, though the older the age group, the greater the long-term gain in real median household income since 1967.

This time four years ago, legendary baby boomer investor and founder of Duquesne Capital, Stanley Drukenmiller, gave speaking tours to crowds of students at Berkeley, Stanford, Brown, U.S.C., Bowdoin, Notre Dame and NYU, urging them to take action against intergenerational unfairness:

“My generation — we brought down the president in the ’60s because we didn’t want to go into the war against Vietnam,” Druckenmiller told an overflow crowd at Notre Dame last week. “People say young people don’t vote; young people don’t care. I’m hoping after tonight, you will care. There is a clear danger to you and your children”…

With graph after graph, [Drukenmiller] show[s] how government spending, investments, entitlements and poverty alleviation have overwhelmingly benefited the elderly since the 1960s and how the situation will only get worse as our over-65 population soars 100 percent between now and 2050, while the working population that will have to support them — ages 18 to 64 — will grow by 17 percent. This imbalance will lead to a huge burden on the young and, without greater growth, necessitate cutting the very government investments in infrastructure, Head Start, and medical and technology research that help the poorest and also create the jobs of the future…

It seems deeply offensive to me that we will be asking these poor children from Harlem to subsidize a generation that is, by and large, more well-off than they are, and then leave them deeply indebted in an America that had eaten the seed corn of the next generation.”

Among the measures recommended by Drukenmiller included: increasing taxes on capital gains, dividends and carried interest – which currently overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy and retired – so that they more closely match taxes on wage and salary earnings; and means testing health care and social security so that they are needs-based not aged-based.

Sadly, it seems nobody listened in the proceeding four years, with the incomes and wealth of older Americans soaring. And the situation is set to worsen with President Trump’s tax cut agenda.

Of course, it’s the very same story in the UK, as well other developed nations like New Zealand.

Just last month, The Guardian posted a depressing report on how UK Millennials are spending three times more of their incomes on housing than their grandparents and often living in worse accommodation:

The generation currently aged 18-36 are typically spending over a third of their post-tax income on rent or about 12% on mortgages, compared with 5%-10% of income spent by their grandparents in the 1960s and 1970s. Despite spending more, young people today are more likely to live in overcrowded and smaller spaces, and face longer journeys to work – commuting for the equivalent of three days a year more than their parents.

The research by Willetts’ intergenerational commission at the Resolution Foundation thinktank also reveals that today’s 30-year-olds are only half as likely to own their own home as their baby boomer parents. They are four times as likely to rent privately than two generations ago, a sector which has the worst record for housing quality, the report claims…

A young family today has to save for 19 years on average to afford a typical deposit compared with three years for the previous generation, the report states…

Parliaments world-wide desperately need to be occupied by a dedicated youth political party to apply a lightning rod and to educate and mobilise their ravaged young.

It’s time for a global Millennial revolt.

[email protected]

Comments

  1. ResearchtimeMEMBER

    I cannot believe it!!! Why aren’t we having millionaire babies????

    Talk about stating the obvious… The Grattan Institute strikes again! Oh beware, for their wit is fearfully strong!

    I suppose not having a massive share market rally for the past seven years, and a bubble in real estate makes no impact either?

    • Get a load of this joker! You may dismiss the Grattan Institute’s unwelcome message, but for millennials, some of whom are in their 30’s now, it is vindication of the fact that they cant afford a simple bloody home for their family, all because of the greedy mongrels that came before them.

      Your stinking attitude (shared by many) is only salt in an already aggravated wound.

      • As a late Gen X I share your viewpoint but with a caveat. The pattern clearly shows that the current system of taxation is not capturing rents from capital (which have continued growing unabated) whereas income from labour is barely growing above inflation or going backwards. Herein lies the problem and the solution but painting whole generations in one colour is not the way to go.

  2. millenials are too committed to the open borders project to ever revolt against it. they are lost to the labor and greens parties.

    • The millennials probably think like this Aussie couple who choose live in a Delhi slum:

      They have no running water, no TV and no fridge – and they share a squat toilet with their neighbours. But For an expat Australian family, living in Delhi’s slums has been a deeply enriching experience.

      http://www.smh.com.au/world/australians-who-live-on-slumdog-millionaires-row–and-love-it-20090227-8k84.html

      http://www.smh.com.au/national/a-real-riches-to-rags-story-20090227-8kd9.html

    • You do understand that policy-wise Labor is far closer to the Liberals than the Greens, right ? That the “open borders” have been almost entirely driven by the neoliberalism of the two major parties ?

      • drsmithy, the federal Greens vote peaked in 2010. You know why? They had Gillard over a barrel and did nothing but put in a massive carbon tax ($23/ton when it was $10/ton in Europe).

        Did they put in a national drink can recycling scheme? No. Did they put a tax on plastic bags? No. Did they curb negative gearing? No. Did they put a massive tax on each 457 visa? No. Did they set up a free animal euthanasia service? No. Did they build high speed rail? No. Did they build cycleways? No.

      • the greens are WORSE than the liberals or the labor party on immigration, they have the worst immigration policy of all. they want to massively increase the refugee intake on top of our current intake. I know youre predictably going to show us some quote somewhere from their webpage that proves they actually favour curtailing immigration ala the sustainabile Australia party, but we know they and you are full of it. they have done nothing but impede a rational debate about population in this country.

        stop astroturfing. anybody with a room temperature IQ who has been exposed to the average greens supporter knows exactly what they and their party are about.

      • NO ONE is worse than the LNP on immigration.

        They are in government ffs, overseeing the program as we speak. Funny that it is a Labor government that is fighting back in WA, but oooooh no, the LNP are our immigration saviors. SMH.

        Who is the main beneficiary of mass immigration? Big business (aka LNP).

      • Jacob, the carbon tax was killed by the Murdoch media and the LNP with the Mad Monk at the helm. The only number they would have accepted is 0.

    • they absolutely have resigned themselves to living like spartan helots and are content with it, as it is the only world they have ever known. so many of them are packed bumper to bumper in sharehouses in ‘trendy’ suburbs of melbourne and sydney, hey, that’s living right. it beats supporting icky ooey racist stuff like immigration reduction.

      i have no sympathy. i have tried to warn them and have actually been physically threatened for it, banned from numerous sub-reddits, etc. let ’em bleed. i will remain patiently enshrined in my dubbo fortress.

    • As a millennial with an acute awareness of these issues and a frequent reader of MB, I can’t count the amount of berating’s I receive every time I try to articulate the population ponzi and the decline in living standards amongst my peers.. even simply pointing out that getting on a regularly scheduled bus to work is impossible due to the fact that they are too packed. The evidence is in front of their eyes, but it seems that champagne socialism is just too cool &/or the iPhone screen too addictive to honestly care. There is only so many times one can be labelled a racist / pessimist before simply resigning to internal brooding.

      I guess my only solace is knowing that the majority of the Newtown-esque greeny / socialist types are never going to end up with a job paying over $30/hour and will be resigned to renting a dog-box for the rest of their life as they strive to make the world a better place (sans their own home country). For myself, a move back to greener pastures (or at least a pastures with a backyard & a porch) up north (Brisbane) is probably the only option when it comes to home ownership. But considering the dog-shit living standards experienced over the last couple of years being an inner-city Sydneysider I think I’ll be okay with that.

      I really do think that there has been a manufactured shift (largely by our politician / media) that has lobotomised our youth into believing that this is simply the way life is and accepting that the “normal” age to grow up i.e. ascertain independence from the tit of parents, move out, find a stable job, quit the euro contiki tour find yourself bullshit etc.. is much later in life, or until your parents die and you inherit the family home.

      Either that, or they have to give up the $25 dukkah, avocado and eggs brunch on a Saturday morning.. which won’t ever happen – because, like, how would you keep your instagram followers interested?

      • Jack, your post about your peers made me laugh! Thanks for your insight into your stupid peers.

        “never going to end up with a job paying over $30/hour and will be resigned to renting a dog-box for the rest of their life as they strive to make the world a better place (sans their own home country).”

        So true.

    • Know IdeaMEMBER

      It seems there are far more important things to be thinking about.

      Why rally for change when you can indulge your petty whims while simply waiting for the olds to die. That way can can enjoy your inane life and get the money.

      For the younger cohort to disrupt the system would only endanger the inheritance. No way is that going to happen, and certainly not when it is the only way out given how much debt you are in.

    • mrjones0101MEMBER

      Really? Because we are going to spend our time engaging in the cesspit that is politics in this country instead of working the long hours (or multiple jobs) that we do to afford to live in Sydney/Melbourne?

  3. Riots in the streets? Because people who worked for 40 to 50 years are ‘wealthier’ than those who have worked for 5 to 10 years? Take a chill pill.

    • CharlieChaplinMEMBER

      You’ve taken the blue pill my friend. Houses have become ridiculously unaffordable to the benefit of
      The old and at the expense of the young. You don raise a valid point though. What would be the projection of wealth for
      Certain age groups so comparing like with like.

      • Blue pill..if you think that there is an oldsters’ conspiracy to fleece the young then we can discuss the colour of the pill you should consider taking. It’s clearly class warfare in action (negative gearing, FHBG, CGT reduction) using housing as a way to keep the punters in debt and therefore obedient/scared. Flailing at straw men (even old ones) is not going to solve the housing crisis for younger people. The perennial question is: who benefits. The banking sector comes to mind.. Besides, older people have kids and apart from a small percentage of psychopaths (same % in any age group) they suffer when their children suffer.

    • You didn’t read the article, did you, truepink the freeloader? It specifically calls out that the current generation are doing substantially worse than the boomers were when the same age.

      • ”It specifically calls out that the current generation are doing substantially worse than the boomers were when the same age.”

        Yes, Kim, but the current generation also have a lot of drooling simpletons who are too busy demanding we increase our refugee intake (unskilled labour) and virtue signalling to realise they’re frantically pumping rounds into their own feet. Starting to lose sympathy for them to be honest.

      • kiwikarynMEMBER

        Baby boomers went to work when they were 15 or 16. Today’s young adults dont start work until they are 22 or older. Big difference.

    • “Riots in the streets? Because people who worked for 40 to 50 years are ‘wealthier’ than those who have worked for 5 to 10 years?”

      While there is some truth to this, it is too simplistic and ignores other factors. It may be true that people who have worked and saved for longer have often legitimately earned more wealth than others. Yet the wealth disparity between older generations and younger generations has been artificially inflated by unproductive rent-seeking that has benefited older generations – this includes government policies that push up property prices, monetary stimulus that has inflated share prices and the like, and changes to government policies and social transfers over time that have disproportionately benefited older generations.

      A portion of the wealth gap between older and younger generations is legitimately based on merit. Yet a good portion of it is unearned wealth and privilege that younger generations have reason to resent. Older generations have nearly always had more wealth than younger generations in the past, but the gap has become proportionately much larger. (It is typical of the kind of simplistic, binary thinking that tends to prevail nowadays that people either believe all inequality is based on merit or else it is all illegitimate and we should hang anybody that gets ahead).

  4. Tassie TomMEMBER

    Something is a bit lost in the statistics here: that older people without property wealth are just as f****d up as young people without property wealth. It’s just that most older people who have/ had a white-collar job or better were able to afford property decades ago.

    This isn’t really about the rise of the old over the young – this is about the rise of capital over income.

    If you’re born with wealth, you’re fine. If you’re not born with wealth, don’t even worry about getting a “good job that pays good money”, you’re never going to afford a median Sydney house.

    Why is money collected by not doing anything (capital gains, superannuation earnings) taxed concessionally compared with money collected by actually doing something (income)? It should be the other way around.

    • +1
      This is really about capital vs. labor. The age issue is really just a correlate. Old people tend to have a lot more capital.

      • Know IdeaMEMBER

        Yes, it seems that money is, at least at this time, more important than people. That sounds like a long term vision for sustaining a society. What does history have to tell us about social systems where money becomes the dominant force?

      • To say that it is simply an issue of capital v. labour ignores the increased level of social transfers and government policy that disproportionately favours the old. It is true that it is partly an issue of capital v. labour. If the power of capital increases relative to labour, this tends to disproportionately favour older generations over the young as the old tend to have more capital and less labour. But there is also simply a widespread and entrenched belief that the old are more deserving than the young.

        The problem with seeing these issues solely in ideological or systemic terms such as free markets v. government regulation, capital v. labour etc., is that it inevitably obscures the role of group interests and conflicts between different group interests and demographics. Groups that promote their own interests will gladly switch sides between promoting different types of policies depending on what suits their interests at the time. For example, old people gladly support more socialism and welfare statism if it disproportionately benefits them (such as more money for pensions, health care and concessions for the old), but they will oppose government support for other groups. The old will support lower taxes if it means more tax breaks for the old relative to the working age. They will happily justify wealth disparities if they favour older generations over the young etc. It is all about ‘privatise your gains, socialise your losses’.

      • To say it is simply an issue of capital v. labour ignores the increased level of social transfers and government policy that disproportionately favours the old. It is true that it is partly an issue of capital v. labour. If the power of capital increases relative to labour, this tends to disproportionately favour older generations over the young as the old tend to have more capital and less labour. But there is also simply a widespread and entrenched belief that the old are more deserving than the young.

        The problem with seeing these issues solely in ideological or systemic terms such as free markets v. government regulation, capital v. labour etc., is that it inevitably obscures the role of group interests and conflicts between different group interests and demographics. Groups that promote their own interests will gladly switch sides between promoting different types of policies depending on what suits their interests at the time. For example, old people gladly support more socialism and welfare statism if it disproportionately benefits them (such as more money for pensions, health care and concessions for the old), but they will oppose government support for other groups. The old will support lower taxes if it means more tax breaks for the old relative to the working age. They will happily justify wealth disparities if they favour older generations over the young etc. It is all about ‘privatise your gains, socialise your losses’.

    • Thank you TT
      Capital over Income! Consumption and Debt over production! Profligacy over Prudence! Globalist idiocy over National Cautiuon Pride and Welfare! I guess there are a lot of labels would fit the bill. I probably favour Multi-decade Long Moronic Economic Stupidity over Common Sense !
      Unfortunately MOST of the policies that are proffered to ‘fix’ the issue are just extensions of the current idiocy and will make the situation worse.

    • As a millenial its refreshing to read your comment that adds further to the discussion and doesn’t just apply stereotypes to people of different ages. While I am currently renting at age 33 I’ve benefited greatly from the wealth of my parents and inlaws and could theoretically buy a (over-valued) house. My similar aged friends that haven’t had the same early support look to be absolutely screwed in the long term if things don’t change.

      Why don’t I stand up and do something about it? I’m busy working to support my own family. That’s probably selfish of me but I find it a bit rude to say I am to blame when there are people employed to take care of the nation and everyone in it.

      • Yes Jeff In a nutshell!!!! We’re driven to look after family above all else.
        Re those paid – well I’m on record as to what I think ought be done to all surviving PM’s, Treasurers, Heads of Treasury, RBA Governors, and all Bank executives! They are ALL guilty of treachery. My recommendations are a bit extreme for reprinting these days!

    • Spot on, TT

      Young people see oldies living in a McMansion or owning an investment property and think that they are somehow typical. The investment properties, McMansions, and other trappings of affluence belong to the top 20% of the population. Only 19% of baby boomers own an investment property, as opposed to 20% for Gen X and 22% for Gen Y. Most just own a crummy little house that they bought back when they were going for 3-4 times the annual median wage. According to ASFA (in 2015), the median superannuation balance for men entering retirement was $100,000 and $28,000 for women. That, plus a car and the usual assortment of household goods is it for most of them.

      In Sydney or Melbourne, the land under that crummy little house might be worth a lot of money, but there is no way that the owner can realise that wealth without selling up and moving away from his/her family and friends, and from the services that elderly people are likely to need. Reverse mortgages exist, but they charge interest rates worthy of your friendly neighbourhood loan shark, with debt doubling times of 11 or 12 years, It is 13.2 years for Leith’s favoured Pensions Loan Scheme (at 5.25%). People don’t know how long they are going to live or whether they will be among the unlucky 20% or so who will need extensive aged care. The real beneficiaries of that house will be their children, the government (if the house is included in the aged pension means test), or their nursing home proprietor.

      You can’t very well blame the oldies for voting for the major parties (who are ultimately responsible for young people’s problems) when Gen X and younger are already in the majority, both in the electorate and in Parliament.

      In order to fix a problem, you need to understand the real cause. Simply blaming it all on the oldies means alienating a lot of people who would be on your side and giving a free pass to many others who are guilty as hell.

  5. reusachtigeMEMBER

    I agree that the youths need to get more motivated, that is, once they’ve finished Minecraft, watched the latest squirt movie, and pulled a few cones. Then right to it!

    • Older people are bloodsuckers, young ones are lazy..! As long as we go at each other at this intellectual level not much is going to change for the average Joe/Sheila

  6. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) shows that older Australians are capturing an increasing share of the nation’s wealth,

    This should be fixed:
    Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) shows that older Australians are capturing an increasing share of the nation’s paper wealth, as well as much larger share of nation’s real debt.

    We all know how is this going to end once prices half and income drops by a quarter.

  7. This demographic is a pushover as it has been on the government teat and borrowed for cars with Maccas jobs and phone debt to boot. Add to that education debt and you have what I would say 28 year old ‘children’.

    We will hear nothing from this cohort, ever !

    • Know IdeaMEMBER

      Good point. Debt, of any kind, does that … up to a point. But I suspect we are quite some way of “a point”. So for the time being I say “Continue with the whippings until the morale improves.”

      • KI when you hear people making their financial plans that include the death of parents and in-laws that will provide better lifestyle opportunities you know there are no troublemakers around. We are deeply screwed society, I don’t think we understand just how damaged our society is.

  8. kiwikarynMEMBER

    What’s the point? This generation is all in favour of global open borders, so they are simply redistributing the wealth from themselves to poor immigrants from developing nations by accepting lower wages and a lower standard of living. That’s more important than buying houses right?
    Oh, and they’re far more busy fighting for transgender bathrooms to worry about future children, who may or may not be transgender, cis, intersex, or one of the other 60 something types of gender there now are.

  9. Hmmm Is the solution an Intergenerationsl war OR a plain vanilla Generational war?
    I suspect the real underlying problem is our global excess production capacity. War’s are marvelous things, they create massive demand for things we never knew we needed, furthermore these items must be produced locally for reasons of National security and produced NOW. The real economic kicker is that all parties to the war are busy destroying each others Productive capacity while at the same time making each others fixed assets (aka housing) decidedly less valuable.
    Maybe we what we really need is just a new world order that’s a little less orderly.
    Think about it : who profits from chaos? is it the elderly with their set ways or the young still fleet of foot with nimble and active minds?

    • Relevant StakeholderMEMBER

      A complete reset favors those with the most valuable commodity of all. time.

      …unless there is global nuclear war.

  10. Part of this change in wealth accumulation at the bottom end is increasing education and the increased costs of post school education. High school retention rates have soared. University education rates have soared.
    30 years ago many apprentices were qualified and experienced enough to start their own own business and had been earning (a pittance early on) for 5 years.
    At 23 guys would be married, 21 or 22 for girls and both would be working to buy a house.So at 30 the guys (28 or 29 for the girls) had 5 years of house appreciation in their wealth.
    These days probably only 20% of the proportion of 30 years ago would be in the same position. Instead they have HECS/HELP debt, or didn’t start work till 18, don’t marry till 29/27 and many have have had a few relatively expensive holidays.
    So the bottom couple bands are totally distorted from 30 years ago by these changes and it will flow through most of their lives, or at least until there is a huge real estate crash, which I think is years away for most people (some regions and suburbs and property types excepted).
    Having said that there is no doubt that asset owners have done very well over the last few years and most people’s maximum assets is within a few years around retirement so I am not surprised at the outcomes shown in the chart.
    The result is largely driven by a reliance on monetary policy rather than fiscal policy in trying to drive the economy. The reduction in interest rates leads to higher borrowing capacity which feeds into house prices, it leads to PE ratios increasing for all income producing assets as the search for yield intensifies. This results in much greater increases in asset prices than increasing the spending power of the otherwise un/underemployedemployed or lowest waged people as the latter strategy does not change the PE rations or loan demand in the same manner.
    I would also say that I am constantly amazed at many young people’s lifestyles. While I am buying house brands and eating bolognese at home in spite of significant assets, young people without investments are drinking craft beer, having overseas holidays and eating at gourmet restaurants.
    The young who have quite comfortably off parents will mostly one day get a pleasant kick along through inheritance without any loss to taxation (death duties/inheritance taxes).
    The young whose parents are renting in retirement or without investments above a median house will likely see almost nothing as their potential inheritance is eaten up by longevity of one parent and the nursing and medical expenses of both. They are the real losers.
    Choose your parents wisely. It gives you genetic, educational, social and network advantages almost beyond measure!

    • “I would also say that I am constantly amazed at many young people’s lifestyles.”
      Yeah! And i’m bloody amazed at the older people’s lifestyle!!! Strewth! if they aren’t off on a caravan holiday they are going on a cruise!!! The messiah wept! This is mostly while they are drawing part of a bloody pension.
      ALL the generations have been driven bats..t crazy by whatever they are putting in our water!!!

      Just info…for the new around here…I’m a 68 year old Boomer!!

    • I would also say that I am constantly amazed at many young people’s lifestyles. While I am buying house brands and eating bolognese at home in spite of significant assets, young people without investments are drinking craft beer, having overseas holidays and eating at gourmet restaurants.

      Hangon, if you’re sitting at home with the lights out eating leftovers and counting your money, how do you know the irresponsible yoof are all out drinking $20 schooners and flying bidness class to a five star hotel in the Maldives ? 🙂

      • I’ve got kids. My kids have friends. I’ve got friends who have kids. I’ve got neighbours who have kids. I used to work with heaps of young people. Yes it’s anecdotal, but quite well founded anecdotal across a wide range of young people, of diverse employment and social background.

  11. It’s not an intergenerational war, it’s more of a class war fought on two fronts. Those with wealth against those who haven’t, and rentseekers against their victims. The funny thing is that you can have a person with the security of a paid off home who is at the mercy of the rentseekers that consume all of their savings and income.

    The younger folk just happen to be at the fag end of a ciggiebar that was rolled with the tossed out buts collected from the ground outside the smoking cage of the local pokies lounge. Unless they fell out of the right lady, as all the best people do.

  12. It’s not the refugee intake that is the problem, it’s the skilled migration programs and the 457 visa programs.

    I would fight for everything that is said in this blog, but my generation doesn’t get it. I would be the first to get out in the streets to riot.

    As a kid from a low social economic background, I’ve had bosses snear at me and I realise that I’m doomed.

  13. SupernovaMEMBER

    Turnbull & co pride themselves on creating generational change in the LNP then why are they not listening to the younger generation they are promoting? Government supported entitlements to the “Silent Generation” and Boomers, are producing medium living standards whilst Generation x and millennials facing increasing taxation and housing payments to pay for theses previous generations over generous lifestyles.; across the western world this inequality is increasing and any political demonstration by the losers (gen x/millenials) is proving hopeless which is why the younger generations are turning away from main political parties and I don’t blame them!
    The bureaucrats (academics and politicians) answer is to endorse the current status quo with higher levels of immigration without thinking of the consequences of congestion, over-crowding, decline in the losers standard of living via competition etc, loss of culture and higher taxation (esp on income)….more can-kicking to avoid tackling the real issue which is the continued decline of the West via lower productivity which is spearheading the inevitable change in global political balance.
    Yes Turnbull (like most Western leaders) backs the status quo (do nothing Malcolm) leaving the situation to continue to worsen and since the GFC diverting/covered-up the decline with considerable levels of debt which is only compounding the loser situation of Gen x/millennials whilst benefiting the silent and boomer generation (who are not our future).
    The fact is we need radical directional change in financial, economic, social and political policy if we are to slow the wests’s decline…..the current policy & decision makers are more interested in keeping their jobs than facing the truth to turn the wests ship around.

  14. ceteris paribusMEMBER

    There inevitably comes a time in life to stop talking (endlessly) about policy and to organise, organise, organise. My message to younger citizens of Australia is this: “You have this wonderful thing called the Internet; get organised, get political. Playing your own solitary game is ineffectual. Embrace your peers”.

  15. The thing is that the younger folks can’t really win whatever they do. If younger people are more successful they tend to be branded as a bunch of spoilt little upstarts, while if older generations are not doing as well it is assumed that we should feel sorry for them. Yet when the shoe is on the other foot, and older generations are clearly doing much better than younger generations, well it must be because older generations deserve it so much more while younger generations are a bunch of useless no-hopers that deserve nothing! You can’t win either way. Older people will always rag on the younger generation, it is just how things are. (Not that long ago, people used to talk disparagingly about yuppies as a term for young, upwardly mobile people. People don’t talk about yuppies anymore as there is not enough upward mobility among the young).

    Older people are effectively a PC protected class in a way that younger people aren’t. One of the hallmarks of PC is that PC protected groups can never be held responsible for any failings or poor outcomes they suffer, yet they can take full credit for any success or good outcomes they achieve. We can’t blame older people for their problems, such as suggesting that maybe they should have made better choices during their lives. But it is okay to blame the young entirely for their problems, such as commentators claiming the young are to blame for not being able to afford a home.

    The rules of PC dictate that you cannot fight back when attacked by a PC protected class. So older generations can tell younger generations what a bunch of worthless no-hopers that deserve nothing they are. But younger people are not allowed to fight back, because you are not allowed to hit back when attacked by a PC protected class. You just have to stand there and take it.