Intergenerational theft

Written By: - Date published: 10:23 am, March 10th, 2016 - 86 comments
Categories: class war, Ethics, Globalisation, International, jobs, poverty - Tags: , , , , ,

Earlier in the week The Guardian published this very interesting piece:

Revealed: the 30-year economic betrayal dragging down Generation Y’s income

Exclusive new data shows how debt, unemployment and property prices have combined to stop millennials taking their share of western wealth

We all know this already, but the piece is very frank about the extent of the problem:

The full scale of the financial rout facing millennials is revealed today in exclusive new data that points to a perfect storm of factors besetting an entire generation of young adults around the world.

Hello from NZ.

A combination of debt, joblessness, globalisation, demographics and rising house prices is depressing the incomes and prospects of millions of young people across the developed world, resulting in unprecedented inequality between generations.

Interesting that globalisation is included – recall that the TPP is going to cost NZ jobs.

A Guardian investigation into the prospects of millennials – those born between 1980 and the mid-90s, and often otherwise known as Generation Y – has found they are increasingly being cut out of the wealth generated in western societies.

Where 30 years ago young adults used to earn more than national averages, now in many countries they have slumped to earning as much as 20% below their average compatriot. Pensioners by comparison have seen income soar.

And so on – read the full piece at The Guardian for plenty more.

Experts are warning that this unfair settlement will have grave implications for everything from social cohesion to family formation.

Exactly.

Here in NZ Bernard Hickey worked all this out years ago, see his challenging open letter: Dear Generations X and Y: leave ASAP. What The Guardian piece is telling us is that there is nowhere much in the western world to run to.

86 comments on “Intergenerational theft ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. saveNZ 1
    10 March 2016 at 11:16 am

    Great post. I think the main culprits are neoliberalism & globalisation. from wiki

    “Neoliberalism[1] is a term which has been used by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences[2] and critics[3] primarily in reference to the resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism beginning in the 1970s and 1980s.[4] Its advocates support extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Neoliberalism is famously associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States.[6] The transition of consensus towards neoliberal policies and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s are seen by some academics as the root of financialization, with the financial crisis of 2007–08 one of the ultimate results.[12][13][14][15][16]”

    Neoliberalism bought us student loans putting massive debt on the next generations and along with few jobs, and little security drove off many Kiwis and stopped the process of others.

    The other big factor leading to inequality is globalism – principally migration – the love child of John Key – sell off the country and assets – drive down wages – drive up demand for consumer goods.

    Which has meant not only that NZ youth compete for jobs against more experienced migrants as well as places in tertiary who can pay more than locals but also the neoliberalism agenda has also lowered wages by using migrants to compete as well as the idea of money as the principal tenant of business rather than social good and national good.

    Increasingly businesses and economic theorists are encouraging less to workers, stop unions, import cheaper workers with poorer conditions, export jobs & manufacturing to cheaper countries, and crucially taken away measures to look at the big picture in their calculations. So important factors like pollution is not factored in. Loss of air and water quality, climate change, loss of jobs for local youth, more unemployment etc etc.

    Migrants are often older, putting more privileged people into NZ who can then vote for their own interests and age group. You can then apply to get you parents over so again the population dynamics are increasing to the older age group.

    With housing we see that migration is not even mentioned as a factor driving up prices. It is actively discouraged, statistics are not kept. Migrants are not refugees and that connotation they have no where else to go is used selectively by MSM.

    For example people who I would consider refugees (people fleeing Syria for example) are now being renamed migrants in Europe. They should be taken in but are not!

    In NZ, it is the opposite, MSM are sympathetic to migrants as though they are refugees. There is this idea they have no other country to go to. Personally I think we should be having more refugees as our duty (and I’m pretty sure they will not be voting the Nats), tighten migrant criteria like it was formally.

    I don’t agree with blaming one generation or migration, but there is a wider picture of how neoliberalism and globalism are panning out. And it is not for social good and harmony and a sustainable long term environment. It is pitting people against each other in some sort of western dog eat dog scenario.

    • Chooky 1.1
      10 March 2016 at 1:16 pm

      +100

    • The Chairman 1.2
      10 March 2016 at 3:31 pm

      “I don’t agree with blaming one generation or migration, but there is a wider picture of how neoliberalism and globalism are panning out.”

      Indeed.

      A number of pensioners don’t have any other form of income apart from their pension. Coupled with the rising price of necessities, have seen their disposable income decline.

      It’s the old distract (attention away from the one percent pushing neo liberal globalization) while dividing the masses.

      • Richard McGrath 1.2.1
        11 March 2016 at 12:11 am

        And what inflates the price of those necessities? Keynesian expansion of money and credit.

        • The Chairman 1.2.1.1
          11 March 2016 at 10:28 am

          The money supply is largely expanded by bank lending.

          • Richard McGrath 1.2.1.1.1
            11 March 2016 at 2:49 pm

            Yes – and banks should not be bailed out when their bad loans to deadbeats go belly up. They should be allowed to go under as a warning to all. Banks that hold sufficient reserves to match depositor funds should advertise this fact.

            • The Chairman 1.2.1.1.1.1
              12 March 2016 at 12:05 pm

              Privatizing gains while socializing losses is not something a number in the left support.

  2. Colonial Viper 2
    10 March 2016 at 11:32 am

    Interesting that globalisation is included – recall that the TPP is going to cost NZ jobs.

    I would say that it is more than interesting: globalisation has been fundamental to fucking over today’s western youth.

    In Ireland and the UK, an influx of cheap labour from former central European countries thanks to the EU, and the exporting of manufacturing to countries like Poland and Romania, have all helped to screw Gen Y.

    • saveNZ 2.1
      10 March 2016 at 11:55 am

      Yep, I remember the debate at the time. Most of the EU tried to put in protection for their own workers and social welfare systems anticipating the rush of labour out of Eastern Europe.

      The UK government did nothing and said no worries, we need the cheap labour to care for our elderly etc (similar examples said here) but then the new EU migrants came, flooded the UK with people about 8 times as many as expected, they could apply for social welfare but there were no well paid jobs. surprise surprise. Big problem. Now causing a problem again as the UK too late now puts in draconian measures against migration and trying to stop former colonies like Kiwis from getting in.

      I don’t blame people migrating, it was a problem that was completely expected and the British government F-0ver their own people with their incompetence and many migrants hate living in Britain anyway, they just want the job and to leave to go back home when they have enough money.

      Neoliberalism is forcing migration as people scrabble around the world trying to make enough money to get back home to retire in their country of origin or start anew. Under neoliberalism there are less jobs, they are less well paid and they are not in the language, location or even country of choice of workers.

      Technology could solve some of this.

    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 2.2
      10 March 2016 at 1:09 pm

      Unless you are Gen Y in Poland or Romania.

      • Colonial Viper 2.2.1
        10 March 2016 at 1:56 pm

        But why would UK and Irish leaders screw over their own country’s youth to advantage the youth of Poland or Romania?

        Oh yeah, for bigger shareholder profits.

    • Richard McGrath 2.3
      11 March 2016 at 12:12 am

      TPP may very well open markets and jobs to Kiwis too.

  3. Ad 3
    10 March 2016 at 11:43 am

    Good post Anthony.

    Great to see that Hickey piece again.
    He was on fire.

    • r0b 3.1
      10 March 2016 at 11:51 am

      It’s a classic piece of writing.

    • saveNZ 3.2
      10 March 2016 at 12:08 pm

      I guess if you ignore what Hickey does like migration and globalism and international neoliberalism you might think Auckland property would crash in the last 10 years like Hickey told a lot of youth who never bought their own homes as a result and now can’t afford to.

      Also migration internationally is tightening up. Kiwis are not welcome in the UK or OZ as much as they used to be.. So they might not have many options to migrate to… no jobs here for Gen Y, no migration options for Gen Y too. Also less voting power too them as older generations imported in.

      Lucky Max Key is doing ok.

      • aerobubble 3.2.1
        10 March 2016 at 2:05 pm

        Migration is good, given how poor the press is here how else are we to get world news? Through a arab fun global news ch? Also its a national security issue that we keep up with the growing world pop. least we become a target of not carry our share. This will only increase with climate change so get used to it. Globalisation, liberalisation, deregultion all have merits as opposed to their opposites, nationalism, givt oppression and over regulation. The children of Thatcher are not stupid, they are lazy, they never asked how their wealth was being acrued and just chimed in like Perot rabbits noddying their in consent how they are geniuses because look no Adam Smith hands in the market (as each of us is just as worthy as any corp or govt, and leaving to the market was like not voting). Simply put while economical wisdom went to sleep the financial sector grew out of all proportion to the real market, instead of rapidly expanding the third world to prosperity they grew debt pass paper between each other. Boomers are lazy not stupid. They took the easy option by backing Thatcher.

  4. Olwyn 4
    10 March 2016 at 12:08 pm

    I do not like the “inter-generational theft” framing here. It reminds me of the claim that “Italian workers are paying themselves too much” when the neo-liberals upped the ante in Italy, and “the Greeks have allowed themselves to have it too easy,” etc. What we are looking at is the war of international capital against all, not older people as a set willfully ripping off younger people. Yes, there are older people who are up to their ears in the neolib game, but there are others who have lost out completely, and still others who are desperately guarding whatever wealth the family has – scared to directly help their kids in case everything is lost to the whole family in the process. The only reason that some older people are better of is that they bought houses at a time when they still could, and it is a little bit harder to wrest what they have off them than it is to stop the next generation from gaining anything.

    We have spent 30 years now hearing about how some x or other has it far too good, with the implication that if this x gets pulled down to size, those getting egged on will somehow be better off. Well that is not going to happen until we identify the actual enemy and unite against it.

    • The Chairman 4.1
      10 March 2016 at 5:58 pm

      Dead right, Olwyn.

      Moreover, boomers generally leave what wealth they’ve attained to the next generation.

      • Colonial Viper 4.1.1
        10 March 2016 at 10:55 pm

        Oh its better than that, well off Boomer Parents are the ones helping their lucky kids into $800K Auckland houses that kids of other families don’t have a hope in hell of ever affording in their lifetimes.

        Same kind of argument could be used to say that Royalty believes in intergenerational equity.

        After all, they are good enough to leave their wealth to the next generation of the aristocracy.

        • The Chairman 4.1.1.1
          11 March 2016 at 10:29 am

          Helping out the younger generation is common practice. But as you pointed out, it’s generally the wealthy that can assist the most.

          Nevertheless, helping out the young ones is basically the opposite of stealing from them.

  5. vto 5
    10 March 2016 at 12:14 pm

    Well one possible solution …..

    change tax from being charged against income to being charged against capital.

    This would encourage investment and efforts into generating income, and leave capital values floundering.

    Switch the situation so income is tax-free and capital is tax-charged. This would also have the effect of ensuring that capital that produces no income is redirected to producing income.

    High capital values help nobody.

    High income rates help everybody.

    I appreciate that the opposite has been claimed for the last lordy-knows-how-long, but that is now well out of date. Think people think.

    Encourage income
    Discourage capital

      • saveNZ 5.1.1
        10 March 2016 at 2:00 pm

        More on that

        “Bernie Sanders wants to raise a lot of money from Wall Street.

        Mr. Sanders’s plan isn’t to ask Wall Street for money. It’s to demand it in the form of a financial-transaction tax.

        Proponents claim the tax would collect tens of billions of dollars, discourage speculative and high-frequency trading, and make markets safer and less volatile. Its opponents say the revenue estimates are overstated and the tax will actually make markets more volatile.

        Mr. Sanders wants to use funds raised by this tax to pay for his college-education agenda, which includes making public colleges free, cutting interest rates on student loans and increasing financial aid. The costs of these proposals–$75 billion per year by Mr. Sanders’s count–could be fully paid by the tax, according to Mr. Sanders.

        Under a bill Mr. Sanders introduced last May, investors would be required to pay an excise tax on any transfer of a stock, bond, partnership interest or derivative. Stock trades would incur a 0.5% tax rate, or $5 for every $1000 of stocks traded. Bond trading gets a 0.10% tax rate. Derivatives a 0.005% tax rate.

        Although those tax rates seem quite small, in theory they could raise quite a lot of revenue for the government because of the size of U.S. financial markets. The total dollar value of U.S. stocks is around $25 trillion and more than $300 billion in shares is traded on a typical day. The bond market is even bigger, with nearly $730 billion trading on an average day last year.

        The idea of taxing financial transactions didn’t originate with Mr. Sanders. It is often called a “Robin Hood Tax” or a “TobinTax,” after Nobel laureate James Tobin, who proposed a tax on currency trading back in the 1970s. Unlike Mr. Sanders’s proposal, Mr. Tobin’s tax wasn’t primarily aimed at raising revenue. Rather, the point was to discourage speculation that Mr. Tobin said was destabilizing foreign-exchange markets.”

        https://secure.marketwatch.com/story/what-would-bernie-sanders-wall-st-tax-look-like-2016-02-14

        • saveNZ 5.1.1.1
          10 March 2016 at 2:02 pm

          If you had a micro transaction tax and a micro stamp duty on property you would slow the volatile of both markets and raise huge revenues which would be hard to evade.

          • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1.1
            10 March 2016 at 2:17 pm

            given that Wall St has received many trillions in assistance from the Fed over the last 7-8 years, you would think that they would be accommodating towards a very mild (say 0.05%) financial transaction tax.

            Of course, being sociopathic oligarchs who believe that they should be able to tax society all they want but not the other way around, they will fight such measures tooth and nail.

            • saveNZ 5.1.1.1.1.1
              10 March 2016 at 2:37 pm

              John Key would not be happy either.

              Increasingly it is legal or quasi legal not to even pay taxes once you get enough money (i.e. past 50m) and you can afford to pay someone to work it all out for you so you pay nothing.

              Governments need not just to think about taxes, but how, where and when to collect them, in an increasingly complex, morally bereft and troubled global society.

              Governments need to take their share at the point of origin of transaction of wealth otherwise the money just will disappear or be negated by something else.

          • David 5.1.1.1.2
            10 March 2016 at 6:18 pm

            How can a ‘micro’ tax raise huge tax revenue?

    • Colonial Viper 5.2
      10 March 2016 at 1:59 pm

      Radical! Of course it wasn’t that long ago that personal income tax was either extremely low or non-existent…

    • Liberal Realist 5.3
      10 March 2016 at 7:39 pm

      +1

      Also an FTT to curb speculation.

    • Richard McGrath 5.4
      11 March 2016 at 12:18 am

      You are correct in saying that income tax discourages the earning of higher levels of income. That applies especially to ‘progressive’ income tax rates. However capital is generally reinvested in businesses. Capital accumulation and saving is what makes it possible to expand businesses and employ more people.

      Discouraging capital accumulation is discouraging employment. IMO the lesser of all tax evils is a GST or VAT, discouraging consumption and encouraging savings and investment.

      • The Chairman 5.4.1
        11 March 2016 at 10:32 am

        It’s consumer demand that grows businesses, thus requires them to employ more.

        In turn, growing business returns and income that allow people and businesses to save and invest more going forward.

        Therefore, discouraging consumption reduces consumer demand, hence the potential for businesses to grow and employ more.

        • Richard McGrath 5.4.1.1
          11 March 2016 at 2:41 pm

          I did say a VAT was the lesser of the evils – ideally there would be no taxation – funding of services would be by voluntary donation or user-pays.

          • Anno1701 5.4.1.1.1
            11 March 2016 at 3:36 pm

            ” ideally there would be no taxation – funding of services would be by voluntary donation or user-pays.”

            i thought i could smell a libertarian …

          • The Chairman 5.4.1.1.2
            12 March 2016 at 12:31 pm

            User pays is not practical for all services.

            For example, someone working for twenty years suddenly becomes seriously ill, preventing them from ever working again. Thus, preventing them paying for their ongoing benefit and medical requirements. Private insurance, like taxation, would result in other users having to carry them.

            Voluntary donations may not be anywhere near sufficient to cover costs and services required.

  6. saveNZ 6
    10 March 2016 at 1:09 pm

    And don’t forget how politically a voice to help youth got locked out of parliament.

    ACT New Zealand 16,689 0.69
    United Future 5,286 0.22
    Māori Party 31,849 1.32
    Internet MANA 34,094 1.42

    (source http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2014/partystatus.html

    Internet Mana got over 30% MORE party votes than BOTH ACT and UF combined and MORE votes than the Maori party but locked out of parliament, just as much if not more to do with the left attitude than National.

    • Chooky 6.1
      10 March 2016 at 1:13 pm

      yes my vote for InternetMANA was one of them!…

    • alwyn 6.2
      10 March 2016 at 1:58 pm

      And of course we must remember that the Conservative Party got 95,598 votes.
      That is nearly three times as many as the Mana vote.
      Locked out of Parliament. I see that everyone commenting on this site is complaining bitterly. I am sure you think that is more deplorable than Mana missing out?
      Or perhaps you don’t.

      • saveNZ 6.2.1
        10 March 2016 at 2:07 pm

        Nope think they should have both got in. More so than UF, ACT and Maori party.

        • alwyn 6.2.1.1
          10 March 2016 at 2:27 pm

          Good on you.
          The only real way to do it, of course, would be to have no minimum percentage to qualify and to abolish all the electoral seats. That would mean the Maori seats would have to go as well as the General ones. It is of course winning an electorate that got ACT, UF and the Maori party in.
          So, are you willing to abolish all the electorates? All the Maori seats?

          It would mean that any party getting approximately 0.41% would get a seat. About 1.24% would get 2 and so on.
          ACT and Maori would keep their seats, Mana would have got 2. The Conservatives would have 5 and the Legalise Cannabis lot would have got a seat.
          Peter Dunne would be gone. However a number of the National, Labour, NZF and Greens would be gone as well, including, I think, Andrew Little.

          • Colonial Viper 6.2.1.1.1
            10 March 2016 at 2:37 pm

            As a solid step I suggest halving the MMP threshold to 2.5%, meaning that a party which got enough party votes to gain 3 MPs would be in.

            There’s no advantage in representation gained by binning electorate seats.

            • alwyn 6.2.1.1.1.1
              10 March 2016 at 2:48 pm

              I put that in to satisfy the statement that
              “Nope think they should have both got in. More so than UF, ACT and Maori party” made by saveNZ.
              Unless you abolish electorates you have to accept that Dunne, Seymour and Flavell must be there, and ahead of Mana. With your 2.5% cut-off Hone still wouldn’t make it and they would.
              I’m not actually trying to debate the merits of the system. I am just pointing out the implications of saveNZ’s comments.

              • Colonial Viper …
                10 March 2016 at 3:25 pm

                Indeed. As a note I’m fine with Dunne, Seymour and Flavell being in there as they were who voters wanted in.

          • aerobubble 6.2.1.1.2
            10 March 2016 at 2:38 pm

            A youth party would just need to contest 2 Maori seats, one spare in case. I mean Greens got in off Coromandal right? Once in they would likely attract votes.

            • alwyn 6.2.1.1.2.1
              10 March 2016 at 2:54 pm

              Why on earth do you think that Maori electorate voters would vote for a “Youth party” candidate? The impression I have is that they would be no more likely to vote that way than any other electorate.
              Hone Harawira hardly qualifies of course. At 61 he isn’t really in the first blush of youth. He is dead centre in the baby boomer’s generation isn’t he? Certainly not in Generation X or Y.

              • aerobubble …
                10 March 2016 at 4:33 pm

                why would maori help any fledgely youth rights movement.

                • alwyn …
                  10 March 2016 at 4:45 pm

                  I have no idea but it is something YOU appear to view as likely.
                  After all it was you who said “A youth party would just need to contest 2 Maori seats”. Presumably you had a reason to nominate Maori seats.

                  • aerobubble …
                    11 March 2016 at 11:15 am

                    Maori youth, there’s more of them, they are more hard done by, so yeah i agree, you clearly couldn’t imagine a Maori community having the Mana to select a young candidate and give them the freedom to proceed as liberally as possible. And just failing in the attempt would have introduced young Maori to voting, or worse exposed a need to engage youth in voting, as this might reflect why they are so hard done by. Disengaged, with leaders to completely out of control of events around them. Be in it to win.

          • DoublePlusGood 6.2.1.1.3
            10 March 2016 at 3:55 pm

            You can remove the threshold (or put it at a round number for easy grokking by the public that is much lower than the current threshold, say 0.5% or 1%) while still keeping electoral seats. That would still allow for both proportional and local representation.

      • Stuart Munro 6.2.2
        10 March 2016 at 11:58 pm

        Actually I’d’ve liked to see him there – the threat to a dishonest right is from an honest right. Which is why Key wouldn’t have a bar of him.

  7. saveNZ 7
    10 March 2016 at 2:51 pm

    Im not advocating changing the electoral system. I just think InternetMana was cheated by smears and the left fell for it and Labour lost votes and trust by going hard against them. Likewise the Greens who although did not go hard against InternetMana appeared to dislike them a lot. Just was not a harmonious left offering. One million missing votes to be exact.

    Likewise mighty co incidence Colin Craigs supporters were told by his own press secretary he was ‘manipulative’ days before the election. Just like the coincidence that Palino was taking about opening a Chinese restaurant in a car park at 11pm with Beven Chuang who revealed the Len Brown affair shortly after and was dating one of his team.

    • alwyn 7.1
      10 March 2016 at 4:52 pm

      OK. I simply thought about what would be required to get Mana into parliament without an electorate seat and with a higher priority than ACT or UF. I guess I just made a stronger interpretation of your last paragraph than you meant and paid rather less to the point about most of the left parties looking as if they were out to nobble them.

  8. Smilin 8
    10 March 2016 at 5:26 pm

    The only migrants Key wants are the ones with money and politics that support national
    He doesn’t want liabilities because his party has created enough to put this country back 50 yrs when his tory shyte caused the reason for the promotion of the banks and accounting and legal corporations to fraud a system that was honest as it ever was goin to get until the deletion of the gold standard
    The future from that has been as most of us have experienced The Age of Uncertainty and corruption by our political leaders of which they are all guilty in some way or another
    This present govt has been in power for one purpose ultimately to steer us headlong into TPPA
    All that has happened since the inception of it back in Labour’s naive consideration of the greatest of all frauds on our nation’s sovereignty
    We could get rid of every multinational corporation and international political handshake tomorrow and the only ones screaming would be those who have got themselves so far in the noose that they cant live without the crap
    Imagine if we all went back the horse n cart days and only a radio to listen to, and guess what it could happen, only problem is people like Hosking would still have a job
    Its all about buying and paying for security from the western ruling elite nothing to do with what the people of this nation want –

    Thanks Key for a really shit job in leading this country, you want to resign now ? It would help

  10. feijoa 10
    10 March 2016 at 6:00 pm

    Yep it’s all the old people’s fault
    NOT the 1%

    Just wait, this is the build up to the attack on pensions

    • Glenn 10.1
      10 March 2016 at 8:05 pm

      Intergenerational theft? A term I find divisive.

      Wife and I have 4 months to go until NZ Super (Hallelujah) and by the time we get it we will be on the bones of our arse. I wish we could commit generational theft LOL but never had the capital to do it.

      I didn’t expect years of ill health and 2 major operations from a genetic cancer that has also hit my daughter (one big op so far).
      I didn’t expect 2 box stores selling the same goods as the business I owned opening just down the road from mine. The problem there was I should have closed but instead tried to compete against bigger, better, cheaper and my business became a money pit.

      When we closed we went to WINZ and got such a nasty welcome from a rottweiller of a woman that we came home worked out a budget and sold the land the business was on. A provincial town so we didn’t get Auckland prices.
      That gave us enough to survive without darkening WINZ’s door until we could get The Super.
      Especially with interest the way it was. …Then the interest dropped.

      Still we have just about got there….with out WINZ
      I’m quite proud of that.
      But I’m not a thief.

      The 84 year old I know who has a magnificient garden and still has a mortgage isn’t a thief.
      The lady living in a flat across the road who carries an oxygen tank around with her isn’t a thief.
      My 93 year old mother who has always placed her money in the TSB and is getting 3.5% on her savings isn’t a thief.

      Getting into intergenerational mud slinging is a bad way to go.

      • Grindlebottom 10.1.1
        10 March 2016 at 9:20 pm

        +1

        • Sans Cle 10.1.1.1
          10 March 2016 at 9:32 pm

          +1
          It’s easier to create an enemy, get someone to blame rather than collectively changing a broken system. I’m happy to contribute to your Super, just as you have contributed to many others’.

      • Olwyn 10.1.2
        10 March 2016 at 10:05 pm

        Well said Glenn. I do not like the tone of this piece one bit. It says to me, what else can we squeeze dry while claiming to do some good for someone or other? I know, let’s trumpet about old buggers rolling in luxury, and then put the squeeze on the ones who aren’t. We know the drill, we’ve seen it all before.

        • Colonial Viper 10.1.2.1
          10 March 2016 at 10:50 pm

          I’ll tell you something that old buggers get which the young do not, and that’s $375 pw.

          Old buggers also got a chance to buy their own house at 3x the median wage and receive a university education debt free, as well as to build up savings during decades of near 100% employment.

          Bottom line: unless the political system listens a hell of a lot harder, and unless older more politically inclined types listen a hell of a lot harder, this kind of anger and this style of divisive language will continue to grow.

          How do I know this?

          Because it’s happening everywhere around the world.

          • The Chairman 10.1.2.1.1
            10 March 2016 at 11:41 pm

            Wow, $375 per week. The one percent would attain more than that in a second. So tell me, who is taking all the wealth?

            • Colonial Viper 10.1.2.1.1.1
              10 March 2016 at 11:51 pm

              You’re speaking in rational terms and I understand your reasoning.

              You also know however that rationality is not the basis of the political future that nations choose.

              In terms of detail:

              In NZ you enter the 1% with an income of approx $200K pa (before tax). That’s $23/hr before tax, 38c per minute, counting 24/7 of course.

              However they’re just the 1%.

              Those in NZ who are 65 and over are 12%.

              • Olwyn …
                11 March 2016 at 12:18 am

                Those in NZ who are 65 and over are 12%

                That claim surely presupposes a degree of background wealth, which is not there in all cases.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  11 March 2016 at 12:26 am

                  No, its not there in all cases. Like in all demographic or political analysis, some generalisations and some assumptions have to be made.

                  How many 30-40 year olds own their own house outright. The number ain’t zero, certainly.

                  How many 60-70 year olds own their own house outright. The number ain’t 100%, certainly.

                  But there’s a mighty big and growing gap there which is worth discussing.

              • The Chairman …
                11 March 2016 at 10:26 am

                Entry level is just that, which is far from what a number of New Zealand’s 1% are actually earning.

                Therefore, you need to recalculate your figures.

                Moreover, at mere entry level alone ($200K pa) the top one percent earn almost as much as the annual pension payout of the whole 12% combined.

                Additionally, and more significantly, with globalization we’re not dealing in just NZ terms.

                Wealth heading offshore largely robs our economy of the fiscal headroom to afford free varsity education. Some of our most lucrative sectors are foreign owned. And the neo liberal removal of capital controls allowed this capital flight.

                Consuming the best out of the world leaving a future of pollution and depletion for the next generation has resulted in vastly boosting the wealth of the one percent. But it’s much easier to look the other way and blame the boomers.

                So again, who is consolidating the wealth?

                You say the ultimate blame rests with the establishment power elite. Therefore, surely you concede the concept of intergenerational theft has little merit. But it is an emotive one that can be worked up and played upon.

                The concept of intergenerational theft is generalizing far too much. Not all who make up the one percent are over 65.

                Politicians are extremely responsive to the opinions and desires of their large political donors. Or the wishes of their international golfing buddies.

                Were Labour (the so-called party of the workers) swayed by the over 50 when they wanted to increase the age of pension eligibility? Or the elite that prefer a larger labour pool, helping to suppress wages?

                Speaking rationally is largely the basis of Bernie’s growing support. And it seems to be resonating with a number here. Thus, perhaps the time for speaking rationally has come.

          • The Chairman 10.1.2.1.2
            10 March 2016 at 11:58 pm

            “This kind of anger and this style of divisive language will continue to grow”

            It’s the old distract (attention away from the one percent pushing neo liberal globalization) while dividing the masses.

            I wonder who would be pushing that?

            • Colonial Viper 10.1.2.1.2.1
              11 March 2016 at 12:10 am

              Dunno, young 0.01%’ers?

              The claim of intergenerational theft is not without merit. An older cohort who got their university educations for free enforcing student loans on the young. An older cohort who has consumed the best out of the world leaving a future of pollution and depletion for the next generation.

              Etc.

              And sure, you are not personally responsible for leading this, but some of your classmates are.

              Politicians are extremely responsive to the opinions of the 50+ age group.

              And it doesn’t look to me like that age group has decided to push the political set for anything substantial to help the fucked over 20-30 year old age group who are their grandkids, nieces and nephews.

              Of course, the ultimate blame rests with the establishment power elite, but that’s rational talk once again.

              • KJT …
                13 March 2016 at 4:58 pm

                I also paid half my income in tax, CV, so a very few, compared to gen x could go to University cheap, not free. And I did not even go to Uni. Like most boomers. About 10% got the “free” University education.The rest of us just got the high taxes and interest rates. Boomers never had 3% loans. That was their parents.

          • Olwyn 10.1.2.1.3
            11 March 2016 at 12:03 am

            I do not disagree with you. But agreeing to attack every target that is put in front of us divides us and allows them to win – they have been doing it for years. Read Glenn’s post above: not everyone has prospered as you say.

            • Colonial Viper 10.1.2.1.3.1
              11 March 2016 at 12:14 am

              I’ll reframe this. Until the younger generation feel a real sense of solidarity in hardship coming from their elders, something which appears lacking at the moment at least in the political arena (unless you are a Bernie voter…) they’re not going to see it your way.

              • Olwyn …
                11 March 2016 at 12:48 am

                I utterly agree with you that things have to change. But it is one thing to have solidarity with young people to bring about change, and quite another to agree to be the latest neoliberal target, to appease the anger of the young without actually meeting their demands. Surely you can see there is a difference. Here’s a thought experiment, to illustrate what I mean. Let’s end superannuation and force the elderly who do own houses to sell them and live on the money. Hurrah! More houses for the roulette wheel! Ready to be snapped up by property developers, and sold on the international market at double or triple what they paid for them – far too expensive for low-paid kiwis. The only result is a population one step further down the gurgler. That is why we need to unite and put pressure on the system itself rather than each other.

                • The Chairman …
                  11 March 2016 at 2:14 pm

                  Indeed.

                  Raf posted a good link above.

                  • Olwyn …
                    11 March 2016 at 2:22 pm

                    Yes Owen Jones is very good – his books are worth reading as well. “Chavs – the Demonisation of the Working Class” and “The Establishment and how they get away with it.”

          • joe90 10.1.2.1.4
            11 March 2016 at 1:26 am

            How do I know this?

            Somehow I doubt a middle class business owner would know shit about the needs of the working folk who make up the Labour movement.

            But anyhoo, this old bugger didn’t receive a university education and the house he did buy at nearly 5x the median wage was a two bedroom humptie in dire need of re-piling, re-lining and a new roof .

            This old bugger lives in a nice home thanks to forethought, the will and wit to strap on a pinny, count pennies, buy material by the stick, and the backbone to work every hour sent to, and for the most part on his fucking lonesome, renovate his first whare, build a second and finally a nice one.

            This old bugger started work before he turned 16 and because of a youthful indiscretion struggled through years of poorly paying manual jobs finally landing a good job (thanks Muldoon) only to run headlong into the fourth Labour government.

            Since 1990 this old bugger has been made redundant not once but three times, the last time old bugger and Ms old bugger were made redundant in the same week, and, thanks again youthful indiscretion, has since endured years of precarious employment/self employment.

            Closing in on 50 years at work and this old bugger is close to knackered but the 300 notes a week will be nice.

            .

    • Kiwiri 10.2
      10 March 2016 at 9:43 pm

      Indeed, feijoa.
      Oh by the way, someone please quickly tell fine Labour Partyman David Parker that ‘intergenerational theft’ would be such a splendid meme to support his argument for increasing the qualifying age for superannuation. /sarc

  11. linda 11
    10 March 2016 at 6:13 pm

    30000 for tppa. mass protests about housing should get more lets pick one issue and ram it home

  12. peterlepaysan 12
    10 March 2016 at 8:09 pm

    Blaming a generation is stupidity. In NZ’s case the problem clearly sheets home to Roger Douglas, Richard Prebble and the “fish and chip brigade”.

    Once the shell shocked Nats realised what the nzlp had done they went for it. Richardson, Shipley, English, Key have been raping NZ ever since.

    We have an USA, Hawaiian domiciled Wall Street trader, who loves schmucking it with hollywood altruists as our leader. Funny how he wants his brand as our flag.

    No generation was/ is the cause of anything.

    Electors and devious politicians combine via media bullshit.

    Business NZ needs to wake up that they are shitting in their own nest following and actively supporting so called neo lib economic policies. Ideology solves nothing but does absolve one of rational thinking. Ask a Jihadist.

    Even Henry Ford realised that paying his employees more allowed them some freedom to buy his cars. Sigh. Tell that to Talleys or AFFCO.

    Blaming a generation is a way of avoiding analysis but gaining attention. Which is why media,and media practioners love it. It sells advertising.

    Media whores will say anything to sell advertising (and/ or promote funds from the wealthy).

    Intergenerational theft is a great headline and also complete bullshit

    • Stuart Munro 12.1
      11 March 2016 at 12:15 am

      And it will keep happening until the guilty are punished. Punish asset thieves by forfeiture of all property and the bastards will stop. I don’t think anything less will do it. The trolls here love to talk about capitalism – but asset theft is not an essential part of capitalism – it’s just theft.

  13. Gael 13
    10 March 2016 at 9:02 pm

    Wtf happened to being kind aye? Those in parliament serving protecting and nurturing all our population, the sharing of our common-wealth among all. Fair days pay for fair days work and a warm home to live safely in etc. What will be the generational final outcome of all this neoliberal globalisation really? What is its ultimate goal? Return to fuedal law and dark ages? Caligulas rome? Louis 14th with wifi? Can humanity ever progress and break the cycle of greed and revolution? Sigh…saveNz tis a bleak picture you paint for us, I hope you will stand for kindness when you can.

  14. Sans Cle 14
    10 March 2016 at 9:06 pm

    “Share of Western wealth”….. What about redistributing to non-Western youth?
    As New Zealanders we sit in a relatively privileged position, and at times people forget that. Fine to focus on inequalities, but let’s remember others in far away countries who fare much worse than us, in this economic “system”.

Links to post