Interrupted educations. Vanished jobs. Lost social lives. No sport or travel. Young people are bearing the brunt of the virus shutdown and its economic impacts, to an extent that most people over 30 are unlikely to understand.
For those of us with established careers and financial resources, the luxury of being able to work from home, who are partnered up, who are too old for sport and busy social lives, for whom a lost six months is a tiny fraction of life, the lockdown is an inconvenience (or, if you’re an introvert and already work from home, business as usual).
For younger people, and especially 18-21 year olds, it’s far worse. It’s a delayed year of uni or an uncertain HSC year or a late graduation. It’s a missed job opportunity, a lost chance to begin a career, which will have to be restarted amid an economy recovering from deep contraction. It’s no income, it’s being forced to rely on parents when independence was beckoning. It’s no socialising, potential partners never met, travel plans deferred for who knows how long. It’s a pause in life at a time when you live it the most.
Unlike traditional recessions, the lockdown recession is hurting young people first, because we’ve shut down the industries where they disproportionately work — hospitality, retail, tourism — while severely limiting education, the other primary component of the lives of the young.
That’s only the start of decades of life affected by the consequences of the virus. As the taxpayers of the 2020s, 2030s and 2040s, young people will bear the burden of paying the hundreds of billions of dollars of debt we are now incurring, through higher taxes and less government spending.
It’s true that they are also the primary beneficiaries of that spending, since it is designed to keep them employed or at least keep them going through the months of likely unemployment to come. But it’s all in aid of a massive public health measure to protect older generations from the potentially lethal impacts of the virus, which on average has little impact on the young.
As Crikey has noted repeatedly, Australia has engaged in an extended war on its young people.
Our refusal to take action on climate change or try to lead the world on the issue means our children and future generations face a significantly worse economy and less stability.
Our refusal to address tax rorts that favour wealthy older voters has shifted more of the tax burden on to younger, productive workers.
Our tax system that subsidises property investment has locked hundreds of thousands of young people and low-income earners out of the housing market, to the benefit of older property owners and investors. The private health insurance system is a scam to transfer funds from the young and healthy to the old and sickly.
Now the young are being asked to put their lives on hold, face significant economic disruption and pay the bill for decades to come to help out older Australians — something they’re willing to do, despite the ludicrous finger-wagging engaged in by the media and politicians toward them, and despite the low priority that policymakers have accorded their interests in recent years.
There’s a basic societal contract here. We’re already asking young people to make enormous economic sacrifices for the wellbeing of older Australians. Now we’re asking for more. There has to be a recognition of that sacrifice.
Last week, The Australian’s Adam Creighton urged that the debt we’re racking up be paid for by targeting the tax breaks and other benefits that wealthy seniors enjoy — like superannuation, franking credits and the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card — on the basis that “the young and poor have little say in society but they are incurring the bulk of the costs from the shutdown”. Brave stuff for a newspaper primarily read by wealthy seniors.
That won’t be enough. Part of the contractual price we need to pay is to take demands for climate action seriously. A return to the absurdities of “meeting Paris targets in a canter” and donation-wielding fossil fuel companies dictating climate policy is unacceptable. The government must embrace genuine emissions abatement targets — not the joke ones currently official policy — and meaningful policies to achieve them, and use that as the basis for real international leadership on climate.
Taxpayer subsidisation of investors to compete against young and low-income people needs to be ended, along with a reliance on rising house prices as a de facto arm of economic policy, which both the Reserve Bank and Josh Frydenberg were using prior to the crisis to address wage stagnation. And there needs to be a significant reduction in the level of debt young people are being forced to accumulate in order to obtain the kind of education that a 21st century economy demands — debt that constrains their spending and ability to save to enter the property market.
That all of these happen to be sensible policy no matter which perspective you examine them from merely reinforces the case for action.
For too long Australian policymakers have treated young people as second-class citizens, with interests that can safely be ignored in favour of more influential, wealthier older people. Now we’re again demanding they make sacrifices. There’s a price that must be paid for our constant demands of them.
as young people like to say … Shots fired.
great summary there BK – but maybe single our Mathias Cormann for some fical bashing, rather than your usual habit of saying nice things Cormann. He’s the man in charge of the fiscal ledger and the need to fund it with taxes. Appealing to Morrison’s better self is a waste of time – it’s up to Cormann to bring his party to heal on these keys issues of intergenerational fiscal fairness.
Otherwise a great article on a critical issue.
I’m 67 and I totally agree with all you say.
First thing that needs to happen is abolish negative gearing and restore capital gains tax to bring housing prices down to what they should be.
To all young voters I say vote this government out.
I’d add death duties, but we know that will never happen.
A house is no longer a place to live: it’s an investment (and then part of inheritance) and superannuation is no longer about funding a decent retirement: it’s also about inheritance. So, in this case, good and desirable policy would also have the effect of reducing inherited wealth and makingsociety less unequal. That is very threatening to the side of politics which has dominated federal governments in Australia since 1901.
I’d add death duties, but we know that will never happen.
A house is no longer a place to live: it’s an investment (and then part of inheritance) and superannuation is no longer about funding a decent retirement: it’s also about inheritance. So, in this case, good and desirable policy would also have the effect of reducing inherited wealth and makingsociety less unequal. That is very threatening to the side of politics which has dominated federal governments in Australia since 1901.
You said it twice Curmudgeon – accidentally I realise – but I’ll say it too: death duties. And a wealth tax. Cos they are the most inescapable ways of shifting wealth from the haves to the have-nots.
Me FOUR. End negative gearing, introduce CGT, death duties and reintroduce progressive taxation. (I speak as an owner of several properties, virtually gifted to me by ludicrous policies.)
I suppose that it’s too much to expect taxing megacorps turnover – bugger deductions – but think of the mass unemployment of all those ever so deserving tax lawyers and accountants.
Well, it is quite true that the younger generation will pay a disproportionate price. And it was ever thus. In my generation it was the Vietnam War which still extracts a terrible price. My parents’ generation paid the price of a terrible depression and a World War.
I think the article is trying to compound the effects of a crisis for young people with the already current issues they are facing. House prices, education costs and a less progressive tax system were not something faced by the older generations.
Not to say staying at home is like fighting in the jungles of Vietnam! But Australia’s commitment to Vietnam was very small compared to the amount engaged in WWII.
Am 67. Agree with Keane and with Bill. I think the statement “an extended war on its young people” is slightly strong. That may be the EFFECT (on younger generations) of liberal policies, but the strategic intention of the Liberal right is not to wage war on the young… but to prop up the interests of the elites to the exclusion of all else. In one fell swoop might we make a huge societal difference… apply a REAL land tax and abolish most of the others with which we’re so familiar. The top end of town should really only be able to enjoy their wealth–the fruits of the many faces of graft and corruption–to the extent that society remains fair for everyone else. At the moment (Covid-19 aside), it is not.
Welcome to others reality folks. I trust out of this storm we are weathering some empathy will remain when it goes for those whose lands are blighted by warfare and conflict. Whose futures have been wiped out because someone bigger than them decided they would and they could. Whose livelihoods have been put on hold for years just to stay alive. Who cannot shelter at home because it’s either gone, or about to be bombed, shelled or occupied. For those who decided the best option was to flee and seek safety elsewhere. Yes, this is tough, Australia, but it’s a walk in the park on a sunny day for those in Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Mali, Libya and areas of Myanmar, for example.
Hear hear! I always count my blessings that I live in a country where I don’t have to worry about whether I’ll be bombed that day. Perspective please!
There always is, and always will be countries worse off. people in socialist countries, countries with a religion based ruling class, etc. Our benefits have come at a cost and it is a mistake to think that there are no problems here. Perspective revolves around where you live, anything else may as well be on the moon. Just because someone, somewhere is worse off, does not negate the opinions of others who are not from there, or who will never go there, or who, indeed don’t give a toss about that remote place.
There always is, and always will be countries worse off. people in socialist countries, countries with a religion based ruling class, etc. Our benefits have come at a cost and it is a mistake to think that there are no problems here. Perspective revolves around where you live, anything else may as well be on the moon. Just because someone, somewhere is worse off, does not negate the opinions of others who are not from there, or who will never go there, or who, indeed don’t give a toss about that remote place.
Too true. Thank you Richard
Well said, Richard; thank you.
To do this requires the utter destruction of neoliberalism, indeed most of the west’s economic thinking. I do not see this as happening, though it is well past due for it to do so. My kids are not quite millennials just older enough to have permanent jobs, but there are many that I taught who fit this category and I’d cheerfully strangle the neoliberal scum who have ruined their prospects and that goes for the CEOs who have funded them as well. I have never minded paying tax. MY dad always said you make make money, you have to pay tax, he didn’t mind as long as he was making money. But now, you make big money you pay less tax. That is wrong and all the old proper Liberals knew that.
Tax has become optional for some sections of our society.