This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/09/generational-warfare-is-this-what-young-australians-have-to-look-forward-to

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Generational warfare: is it what young Australians have to look forward to? Generational warfare: is it what young Australians have to look forward to?
(4 months later)
In a recent speech entitled A Case for Change, treasurer Joe Hockey highlighted one of the themes of this year budget: intergenerational inequity. The budget, he argued, would ensure that:In a recent speech entitled A Case for Change, treasurer Joe Hockey highlighted one of the themes of this year budget: intergenerational inequity. The budget, he argued, would ensure that:
Future generations do not pay for a standard of living for today’s generation that they themselves will never enjoy ... we owe it to our children not to leave them with a mortgage that paid for our lifestyle.Future generations do not pay for a standard of living for today’s generation that they themselves will never enjoy ... we owe it to our children not to leave them with a mortgage that paid for our lifestyle.
The government, he argued, would also have to “repair the budget” to avoid the high levels of youth unemployment that have plagued countries like Greece and Spain, which have “squandered their children’s future”. Despite calls made last night by former prime minister Paul Keating to impose a “longevity levy” to insure future generations against the welfare bill of an ageing population, Hockey’s budget will end up punishing the very people he is trying to protect.The government, he argued, would also have to “repair the budget” to avoid the high levels of youth unemployment that have plagued countries like Greece and Spain, which have “squandered their children’s future”. Despite calls made last night by former prime minister Paul Keating to impose a “longevity levy” to insure future generations against the welfare bill of an ageing population, Hockey’s budget will end up punishing the very people he is trying to protect.
The changes to Newstart and Youth Allowance, which The changes to Newstart and Youth Allowance, which will force young unemployed adults to either “earn or learn”, will not prevent Australia from becoming the next Greece or Spain. In restricting the age eligibility of Newstart and forcing those under the age of 25 on to the lesser-paying Youth Allowance, the budget will risk exacerbating the difficult experiences of unemployment to an even larger group of young people in order to improve the budget.
will force young unemployed adults to either “earn or learn”, will not prevent Australia has already a high youth unemployment rate; more than one in three unemployed Australian is between the age of 15 and 24. As the former secretary to the treasury Ken Henry remarked this month, “for those who are young, unemployment can have a permanent impact by impeding the development of their talents and potential”. Moreover, the continued threat of poverty, as well as the challenge of maintaining “employability” (appearance, transport) on a low income that many on Newstart experience will only become greater under the lesser-paying Youth Allowance.
Australia from becoming the next Greece or Spain. In restricting the age The government is set to also punish students by demanding they contribute a greater share to their degree costs at a higher interest rate, as recommended by Commission of Audit. This will not make university study any more attractive to potential students, and will expose this generation to greater risk of high student debt.
eligibility of Newstart and forcing those under the age of 25 on to the The education minister Christopher Pyne has justified these changes on the basis that graduates “are likely to have [an] unemployment rate below 1% and they will earn, over a lifetime, 75% more than a person without a university degree.” This is, however, far from the experience of recent graduates as evidenced by Graduate Career Australia, which notes that the labour market for recent graduates has been stagnant since the global financial crisis, with some signs that it has deteriorated over the last year. Further, the government is proposing students repay their student debt earlier by lowering the income threshold at which students begin repaying their debt, a decision which directly which target Generations X and Y graduates.
lesser-paying Youth Allowance, the budget will risk exacerbating the difficult For all his rhetoric about the need to ensure the prosperity of future generations, the treasurer’s first budget will not seriously redress the issues of intergenerational inequity. In reality, the budget is an exercise in intergenerational warfare that protects older generations at the expense of younger generations. The budget is making cuts that directly affect these younger generations at the most important time of their lives: as they make the transition from education to employment. It will make this transition harder, and risks this generations’ future.
experiences of unemployment to an even larger group of young people in order to The labour market is not the same as it was when the baby boomers began their working lives, as the experience of young adults in very precarious and increasingly casualised work demonstrates. This younger generation needs unemployment benefits that won’t punish or impoverish and affordable education that will lead to, not prevent employment.
improve the budget. Should these proposed measures be confirmed on budget night, the government will certainly be guilty of squandering this generations’ future. And there is very little to stop them. Younger generations do not hold the same electoral clout as working families or pensioners. If generations X and Y want to make it to the pension age at 70 without suffering the burden of the baby boomers, they will need to develop a political voice, and quickly.
Australia has already a high youth unemployment rate; more than one in three unemployed Australian is between the age of 15 and 24. As the former secretary to the treasury Ken Henry remarked this month, “for those who are young, unemployment can
have a permanent impact by impeding the development of their talents and
potential”. Moreover, the continued threat of poverty, as well as the challenge
of maintaining “employability” (appearance, transport) on a low income
that many on Newstart experience will only become greater under the
lesser-paying Youth Allowance.
The government is set to also punish students by demanding
they contribute a greater share to their degree costs at a higher interest rate,
as recommended by Commission of Audit. This will not make
university study any more attractive to potential students, and will expose this
generation to greater risk of high student debt.
The education minister
Christopher Pyne has justified these changes on the basis that graduates “are
likely to have [an] unemployment rate below 1% and they will earn, over
a lifetime, 75% more than a person without a university degree.” This
is, however, far from the experience of recent graduates as evidenced by Graduate Career Australia, which notes that the labour
market for recent graduates has been stagnant since the global financial crisis,
with some signs that it has deteriorated over the last year. Further, the
government is proposing students repay their student debt earlier by lowering
the income threshold at which students begin repaying their debt, a decision which directly which target
Generations X and Y graduates.
For all his rhetoric about the need to ensure the
prosperity of future generations, the treasurer’s first budget will not
seriously redress the issues of intergenerational inequity. In reality, the
budget is an exercise in intergenerational warfare that protects older
generations at the expense of younger generations. The budget is making cuts
that directly affect these younger generations at the most important time of
their lives: as they make the transition from education to employment. It will make this transition harder, and risks this generations’ future.
The
labour market is not the same as it was when the baby boomers began their
working lives, as the experience of young adults in very precarious and
increasingly casualised work demonstrates. This younger generation needs
unemployment benefits that won’t punish or impoverish and affordable education
that will lead to, not prevent employment.
Should these proposed measures be confirmed on budget
night, the government will certainly be guilty of squandering this generations’
future. And there is very little to stop them. Younger generations do not hold
the same electoral clout as working families or pensioners. If generations X and Y want to make it to the pension age at 70 without suffering the burden of the baby boomers, they will need to develop a political voice, and
quickly.