Talking About My Generalisation

Generalising Generations

I was on the phone to Pleiades today and he sort of laughed and said I was a bit heavy on the Baby Boomers yesterday, and being one of them he wanted to appeal to me that not all Baby Boomers were bad. Which, of course they're not; and most certainly not even half of Gen-X is particularly good. They're really rough demographic handles to talk about a large chunk of the population, and any generalising is bound to contain gross, boundless, indefensible inaccuracies.

Still, my problem is that years ago when I started blogging, I put up the stupid line "Gen-X View of The Universe" like it mattered and have been somewhat bound by that less-than-stellar choice. Had I hoisted "Dissenting Voice In The Universe", I might have had some more leeway to be just as general (and generalising), but without putting myself in one corner of the universe all the time.

Yes, Justin Trudeau is a Gen-Xer, as is David Cameron, but they have hardly anything common with each other politics-wise, and as a commentator, I can assure you I have even less in common with both men. Waving around the banner phrase is simply a kind overstatement of something that is probably a lot more subtle and fleeting.

The moment the demographic question comes to the fore the most, at least in Australia is that policy-makers have drawn lines in the past and into the future whereby things like HECS and HELP have landed firmly on Generation X while the Baby Boomers hardly got touched by it, and even the extension of the retirement age out to 67 applies from Generation X. The different laws covering superannuation contributions and taxation are likewise demarcated on the line - and the only reason I could think of was that the people who have drawn the line there were not Generation X.

Thus, it's not about what we are like, or what they are like; it's that demographically speaking, different rules and regulations have applied to the different generations, and this has resulted in different outcomes for people in different demographics. As a long time observer, it has been clear that a lot of rules had to be rewritten for Generation X because the money that used to be there is somehow no longer there. And so compared to the Baby Boomer generation, higher education cost more for Gen X (and even more for Gen Y), public primary and secondary education was poorer for Gen X (and even poorer still for Gen-Y), and access to jobs and finance was harder and took longer for Gen-X (and is even worse for Gen-Y), and so on.

Is all this the Baby Boomers' fault? No. It's just the way things went, out of over-arching necessities. Yet I think the ramification of all this, is that when Generation X will hold high public offices, it will result in a realignment of the old social compact. This includes things like gay marriage and addressing climate change as the challenge it really is. Generation X won't be progressive because they were born progressive; on the contrary they're likely even more apolitical than previous generations but for the fact that they will be forced to be political on a bunch of issues, and the viable answers are going to lean towards progressive ones because the conservative ones sure haven't helped.

This is why there is a gulf of difference in understanding by the likes of say, Eric Abetz, who is fighting a furious rearguard action, and the future progressive government which will manifest itself at some point eventually. It may well be a sea change of the kind we haven't seen since Whitlam came to power the back of the Baby Boomer vote.

The Awfulness Of Pokies

Mrs. Pleiades put me on to this one. This is an honest-to-goodness scary doco about how Pokies work and what they do to you. It goes through the history of their development, and the behavioural science of rewards, running the gamut from Pavlov, to BF Skinner to the latest MRI scans the brain and how they respond to pleasurable stimulus and how dopamine is released in the brain to stimulate the pleasure centre. Really, it's all about the dopamine and the pleasure centre and conditioned reflex.

It's one thing to be a gambling addict. I could be accused of being one, seeing how much time I do spend poring over the equities market and its gyrations. I hate it, but I like it and as my accountant said, "it's not like you can stop, now that you've started". It's a bit embarrassing but it's true. Even when I sell up the losing dogs at the end of the financial year, I'm still somehow in the market. I must be in it because I like it. It is pretty much gambling in the sense that I like the days where my shares go up.

Yet there is a crucial difference with Pokies in that the Pokies offer endless stimulus and reinforcement to keep you playing until you lose all your money. I've never liked pokies because I can't even begin to calculate what the odds are, just from looking at the machine. This is totally against the spirit of proper gambling to begin with. Then, I can't stand the endless music cues and sound effects because they're not truly musical if we're being specific about music - they're more like walls of sound to fill the air. I hate the nonsensical graphics that purport to tell a story when of course the only story going on is you sticking money into the machine and losing it chunk by chunk. I say, if you're going to a casino, play a real game with the real croupiers - but that's just me being a minority-report sort of guy. The majority of gamblers in Australia go to the local club and start inserting money into these terrifying things.

The doco tells you just exactly how much they tune these machines to fleece you of your money. They call it "gambling to extinction". They're fine tuned to get you hooked in, and suck you dry.

Peter Garrett makes an appearance to explain his little story about the gambling lobby and how powerful it has become and how it stopped the Gillard Government dead in its tracks from regulating the most vicious machines. We know the story, and how it went down with Andrew Wilkie wanting the regulations and pretty much holding the government hostage, only for everybody in government to back down in the face of intense lobbying from the gaming industry and clubs. With a hung Parliament, there simply wren't the numbers to do the right thing. It's a shame, but the real shame is that these horrible machines are still out there, chewing through the vulnerable wallets.

Just as a side observation, Peter Garrett makes a small mention of how the pokies came in and displaced bands in pubs. As one of the musicians that found pokies displacing bands in the late 80s, I can tell you Peter Garrett's nonchalant commentary was annoying as all hell. He got the good bit where pubs were venues, and his band got to play them. My generation got shafted and turfed out by Pokies. So, you know, tell me about it..

Trudeau Wins In Canada

Canada's Generation Jump

And just like that Canada elected Justin Trudeau as their new Prime Minister, ousting longtime Conservative Stephen Harper. One does not want to comment too much about the people other people's nations elect but if there is one thing to be said about Stephen Harper is that his brand of conservatism enabled the likes of Tony Abbott to continue being a climate change denier head of government. Harper's Canada and Abbott's Australia were substantial holdouts in making any meaningful commitments towards curbing emissions or moving away from mining fossil fuels as the mainstay of exports in their respective countries.

Interestingly enough, Australia's Liberal Party ousted Tony Abbott to get some credibility back, and in so doing the right wing climate-change-denying end of politics in Australia has had to beat a retreat from the controls. It's probably not coincidence that Stephen Harper simply ran out of time, options and good grace as a new leader took control and won the election. There is something of Kevin Rudd who came to power after a long Howard Government, in Justin Trudeau's victory. Given that Canada has a Westminster system just like we do, whether we will see ructions developing as they have over here in Australia. It is quite possible that the long Harper Government has kept a handbrake on change for a long time, but now things are about to go into flux.

It's certainly hard to read the lay of the land in Canadian politics because there are 3 parties to the left of the Liberals including something called the New Democratic Party; they also have a Green Party; and they have a Québécois Party that caters to francophones; but only the Conservatives to the right. In the 2011 election the Liberals were decimated but now they've taken a solid chunk out of the middle ground, so much so they have a majority in their own right.

The even more notable thing is that Mr. Trudeau is a strapping 43 years old. Yes, he is Generation X, which doesn't mean anything about his potential competence as ahead of government; but it is remarkable in that Canada got there second in the anglophone nations (David Cameron was born in 1966, he is the first). You wouldn't have thought it was possible even 6 months ago. Just as the youth vote swung hard behind Kevin Rudd in 2007, one imagines the youth vote made a meaningful impact in installing a young leader.

It's doubly remarkable because it appears the Baby Boomers aren't going away in the upcoming US election - none of the Republican Gen-X candidates have a shred of appeal or credibility so far, leaving the leaders as Clinton, Sanders on the left and Donald Trump on the right; All 3 a bunch of old Baby Boomers. It's going to be a while yet before a Gen-X-er sits as President in the White House. Australia too has had a choppy few years of Prime Ministerial change but it appears to have been a musical chairs audition amongst Baby Boomers in Rudd, Gillard, Abbott and now Turnbull. As I've said before, if Turnbull is successful and stays a while, a Gen-X PM is going to have to wait in the wings indefinitely.

The point is, Trudeau has possibly arrived at his political destination a little early in history. Stephen Harper is roughly a contemporary of Barack Obama and Julia Gillard. 12 years younger, Justin Trudeau is a contemporary of Winona Ryder, Ricky Martin and Sacha Baron Cohen. It's a big jump. How can Canada's Baby Boomers handle this sudden jump? Or are they less conservative than their counterparts in America and Australia and the UK? It's hard to imagine, but it might even be the case.

So it is with that in view I'm going to make a fearless prediction and say Canada's polity will necessarily be infected by the Australian disease and start chopping and changing leaders as polls go south. Trudeau will be fine for a while until he is forced to break one of his big promises. His poll will sink, his backbench will get restless, and voila! Chop-and-Change time will manifest itself. Some Baby Boomer is going to try and reclaim their moment in history.

Really, it's not just about the hair.

Generation Change

The ALP's Gen-X Crew

The Herald was making the point today that the ALP have gone Gen-X with their choice of frontbench. When you think about it, Bill Shorten is 46 going on 47 so that puts him at the older range of Gen-X, and Tanya Plibersek at 44, it's true that the ALP have indeed gone Gen-X. I have a late Boomer friend who tells me that all this demographic stuff is just a construct not worthy of analysis, except I've been writing here under the banner of 'Gen-X View Of The Universe' for a good 5 years now. It obviously means something.

What could it mean?

The Generation X politician in Australia would have arrived at Tertiary education after the AUS was disintegrated by the likes of Peter Costello and Tony Abbott in 1983, Interestingly enough, Julia Gillard was the last President of the AUS when it collapsed in 1983. If you anted a model to the fractious politics of the Julia Gillard Prime Mininster-ship, you would have found it in the demise of the Australian Union of Students, with the same cast of late Baby Boomers thrashing and trashing institutions to make their political mark. What's scary is that they're still around aplenty in the Liberal and National party ranks, and they probably still don't think much of indulging in that sort of ratbag behaviour. This explains the histrionic opposition style Tony Abbott chose to work with - because it is the method he used in his youth to destroy the AUS , headed up by Julia Gillard. Worse still, it worked again, so that may be why he's so convinced he has some kind of mandate.

The demise of the AUS and the years where there was no student lobby until the NUS got up in the late 1980s allowed HECS to be brought in. Unlike the Baby Boomers, most of the Gen-X politician would have had to pay HECS. When they say education and the opportunities it affords are important, they know what they are saying. All these things are intimately entwined.

If there is one thing that I do think is encouraging about the Gen X ALP politicos is that they are of the generation that had to put back together the NUS and have the experience of rebuilding institutions. If the ALP under Rudd-Gillard looked positively fractured, then I think the current group might be able to start from scratch and build a proper agenda that suits the time. As I wrote the other day, I'm feeling fairly optimistic about the Shorten-Plibersek team, much more so than I felt about the Rudd-Gillard team when they first rose to the level of Opposition leader and deputy back in 2006. They're not perfect human beings and they will make their mistakes. I just don't think they're as fractious and crazy as the generation of politicians who were forged in the dying days of the AUS.

Right now, the Coalition are the party of the Baby Boomers much more than Gen-X or Gen-Y by dint of the ageing population and makeup of the Liberal and National Party demographic. The fissure hasn't been more stark than any other time since Mark Latham as late Baby Boomer was taking on John Howard who was born before the Boomers. That fissure sort of leaves the current ALP firmly in the Gen-X camp with the hope of picking up a big portion of support from Gen-Y.  The question then is whether Gen-X+Gen-Y interest is a big enough voting constituency to overcome the Baby Boomers' interests in their twilight years.

Demographically speaking, Gen-X is small and shorter than either the Boomers before or the Gen-Y that follows. That being the case the duo may never make it. And if they did, they may be seen off by a Gen-Y politician. Consider the American experience. Bill Clinton was the first Boomer President, who was followed by George W. Bush who was followed by Barack Obama, all of whom are Boomers. All three Presidents won two terms, so the Baby Boomer reign will last 24years. If a Gen-X candidate won 2 terms after Obama, the next election after that will likely see a pair of Gen-Y candidates. It's entirely possible there will never be a Gen X President of the United States.

Similarly, I don't see any Gen-Xers knocking on the door in the Coalition ranks. If Abbott is replaced for some reason, it's possible the leadership reverts to Malcolm Turnbull or goes to Joe Hockey - both of whom are Boomers. The longer the Coalition stay in power, the less chance there will be of a government of Gen-Xers in Australia.

So when you look at it through the demographic filter, that's what we have with Bill Shorten and Tanya Plibersek: The one and only shot at Gen-X forming Government in Australia.

Mailbag Stuff

These pickies came in to show how yesterday's IR rallies went.
I'm not really a class warrior. I haven't got what it takes to be a class warrior. I guess that's why I'm an 'artist'.

It's Hard Being In The Lost Generation Version 2.0

Today's mailbag is from Walk-off HBP.
This is the link.

No words about Freudenberg's career can ignore Arthur Calwell's speech, on May 4, 1965, in opposing the Menzies government's decision to commit combat troops to Vietnam to please Washington. I've quoted it many times. It was, to me, the finest speech Freudenberg ever wrote.

This was his "drum beat" speech, where Calwell concludes, in part: "And I address this message to my colleagues and that vast band of Labor men and women outside; the course we have agreed to take today is fraught with difficulty. I cannot promise you that easy popularity can be bought in times like these. Nor are we looking for it. When the drums beat and the trumpets sound, the voice of reason and right can be heard in the land only with difficulty … But I offer you the sure and certain knowledge we will be vindicated, that generations to come will record with gratitude that when a reckless government wilfully endangered the security of this country, the voice of the Labor Party was heard, strong and clear."

Forty years later we have another "reckless government" that has "wilfully endangered" Australia's security in bending the knee to Washington. And what does "the voice of the Labor Party" say?

Not a bloody thing.

As much as it may surprise people I'm not a Labor Party man. It's hard for me to even sort of try and identify with these people, their passion, their sense of their cause. In some ways I'm a lot more economically liberal and free-trade-sympathetic. This will buy a few words of rebuke from my close friends but it's true. I think free trade is okay if it's genuinely going to be a free trade. My gripes with the FTA with the USA is that it in no way resemble 'free'. Not that some tariffs are coming down. Indeed, the problem is that none of their tariffs are coming down.

Having said that I'm actually deeply uncomfortable with the prejudices of the present Prime Minister John Howard. After all, this is the man who famously said there were too many Asians in 1987; didn't go to censure and clip the wings of Pauline Hanson and has pretty much dismantled any sense in which Australia is multi-cultural. You know, the 1980s are far away, but at least one didn't feel uncomfortable living in this country. These days I'm seriously thinking of leaving in disgust. After all, the people did resoundingly vote back in this poisonous little leprechaun with a majority in the Senate. What kind of country is this?

Now, I've been living here for many years but I have to say the last 10 years have been the most regressive, retrograde, inward looking, small-minded, mean-spirited, and downright nasty that I've seen Australia. It's true, I cringe at our international posturings. It's embarrassing, it's infuriating, it's scorn-worthy and all because the Prime Minister curries favour to the worst instincts of white Australia. Fear, cultural prejudice, racism, and downright petty-mindedness.

That aside, here are some thoughts I've had in addition to the above, and it involves generation conflict. Now I'm not a generational warrior any more than I'm a class warrior, but I have noticed a few things about the passage of the Baby Boomers into retirement age. after all, they are the largest market segment out there. Some of my readers are Baby Boomers and they might be a little miffed by me writing this, but this isn't personal, this is just the numbers, and politics is a numbers game like most anything else.

On the whole these things are fact:

1. It's still the Baby Boomers' playing field.
John Howard versus Kim Beasley is still the showdown between Baby Boomers. John Howard lives in denial that the 1960s ever took place, while Kim Beazley is a net beneficiary of the 1960s, just as are all the old Whitlamites who recently came forth with their 30th anniversary of the Dismissal stuff. And as the Baby Boomers edge closer to the grave, the sheer weight of their numbers ensure politics is going to continue being a Baby Boomer-centred conflict.

Mark Latahm's biggest sin as far as I could tell was that he was Gen-X. When you sit through and figure out that Health and Education didn't make a dent in the election, then you know it's because the electorate weren't interested in Health and Education - because they already 'had some'. That could ony point to one thing; the aging Baby Boomers simply didn't think they were such big issues. Those people were more afraid of *gasp* Al Qaeda and the possibility of other assorted towel-heads coming to our shores *illegally* (as in, 'refugees').

2. If things continue as they are Gen-X will get stiffed even more.
You might not believe it, but it' true: The Baby Boomers got 'free education', comprehensive medicare, and a full pension. The Gen-Xers are having to pay for their tertiary education, less protected jobs, and pay for their own health care, but also having to pay for the system that paid for the Baby Boomer health. Trust me, it stinks.
Less known is this fact: The average age of US senators and congressmen has been creeping up steadily for sometime.
It's a 'First World' trend. In Canada for example, it looks like this.

In Canada, one in five people are between the ages of 20 and 34. By contrast, of the 169 Liberal MPs, none are between those same ages.

There are almost four times the total number of MPs in their 60s (68) as there are in their 30s (18). Only about six per cent of all MPs are younger then 39, while in Australia, that number is almost tripled at 17 per cent.

The average age in Parliament is 54 years old, which is relatively young compared with the average age of Cabinet of almost 56. In comparison, the average age of the Australian Ministry is 50 years old, which is coincidently the same average age as Brian Mulroney's first Cabinet in 1984.

These statistics contribute to the declining participation of young people in politics. It is no wonder many of today's younger generation are disconnected and alienated from Parliament, which is highlighted on Election Day.

For instance, the lowest recorded turnout in a Canadian federal general election as a percentage occurred during the 2000 campaign. These low numbers were repeated in the recent Ontario elections.

Here's one on the UK

Where at Westminster, the average age of an MP is 53 years old, in both the new Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly the average age of an MSP and an MA is five years lower at 48. In Scotland two MSPs were elected for the first time under the age of 30, where in Wales, the Conservative Laura Jones became the youngest MA at the age of just 24.

That's good for Scotland and Wales, but the UK seems to be creeping up at 53.

I'm not kidding. If Paul Keating and Bill Clinton seemed like a vanguard of something, it was actually the stranglehold that Baby Boomers will have over policy for years to come. This means, for good or bad, better or worse, Labor or Liberal, you probably won't see a Gen-X Prime Minister of Australia or President of the USA. If Mark Latham's resounding defeat has anything to show, it's that the electorate are not interested in a younger voice, but an older, more patrician voice.
Expect to hear experience and time-served to be a criterion for EVERYTHING in the future, more and more.

3. Unable to defeat death, they'll punish us for it.
Nobody lives forever. However if there's anybody living in denial of death on the whole, it's the Baby Boomers. And if history of the Baby Boom generation has anything to so show, as death approaches, these people are really going to think "I have nothing to lose, so let's really fuck it up on the way out". The thing is, they will be the longest lived of any generation in history so they're projected to be around for a long time to torment us and then fuck it all up. :)

This stuff isn't personal; it's just the numbers. I have Bbaby Boomer friends, just like anybody else. Or LOL, "Some of my best friends are Baby Boomers". Jokes aside, remember: Kurt Cobain is already dead, but the Rolling Stones continue to tour. That's sort of related to why Mark Latham is gone but Kim Bloody Beazley is the Leader of the Opposition again. Now where is my jar of sleeping pills again?