Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Community

Sponsored by Ray White Tuggeranong - fresh, fun & professional approach to real estate

The uphill path for Generation Y

By Emily Morris - 21 May 2014 59

On Monday night’s Q&A I watched as a fairly gutsy young graduate from Tasmania questioned Mr Hockey on the new rules around unemployment benefits for those under 30.  I was pretty impressed.  Obviously a well-educated fellow, although the Treasurer came back more than once with ‘Under 30s will earn or learn’, this man pressed, citing figures of (something like) 18,000 job seekers to approximately 500 job ads (in Tasmania).  This guy wants to work, but understands the reality that finding a job in the current market is tough.  So, under these new rules he asked how he would survive.  The previous answer was repeated, with explanation that if he couldn’t find a job the Government would assist him in enrolling in a TAFE course or diploma.  By the look on this guy’s face, I imagine he probably had a fairly detailed and lengthy degree behind him.  Does he really need to learn any more at this point in time?  Another young woman said she was currently in a public sector role and likely to lose it.  If she was denied benefits (although Joe did mention a sliding scale of the 6 month wait, losing 1 month for every year worked which was the first I had heard on this), how would she pay her mortgage?  The Treasurer seemed surprised that someone under 30 would have a mortgage. 

My point is less about the budget and more about the impressive face I saw of Generation Y (those born in the 80s and 90s). 

Myself, I’m a Generation X-er.  We’re a whole different kettle of fish.  I have however come across work places that have really battled to take on Generation Y employees with any great success.  It has felt a bit like trying to put a round peg in a square hole.  I have wondered if maybe it’s the hole that needs some level of change and adaption rather than putting the entire onus on the peg.

The ABS puts the ACT’s unemployment rate for 15-24 year-olds at 10.4 per cent.  As benefits shift, along with increasing university fees – I can’t help but wonder if this generation will be made to carry a heavier load than most during this transition period.

I was happy to hear about a Forum run in Canberra today, working with employers on how to better manage their Gen Y workforce.  Was anyone part of it who would care to share their experience?

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
59 Responses to
The uphill path for Generation Y
16
dtc 5:24 pm
21 May 14
#

What I dont understand is why people get so upset about ‘dole bludgers’.

If you think people are getting something for nothing, feel free to join them. You too can get something for nothing.

Whats that? You dont want to – surely you can survive happily on the dole like all those people you think do it volunarily. Its such a luxury lifestyle.

You want a house and car and children and being able to eat out and all of that? Well, guess what, thats your lifestyle choice and you can suck up the consequences.

If you see someone getting something and you feel offended, but you can easily achieve the same result yourself – go and do it and stop feeling offended.

(and, FWIW, I’m a gen X and have been employed continously since the day after I finished my uni degree)

The no dole for 6 months is the most odious of the budget changes. Its premised entirely on the belief amongst liberals that a bit of ‘get up and go’ is all that young people need and that, without it, people will luxuriate in a tax payer funded holiday and rip off all those rich people by requiring higher taxes. Its crap, very very few people on the dole want to be on it; and those that do chose it are unlikely to be great workers anyway.

Report this comment

17
Tetranitrate 6:27 pm
21 May 14
#

dtc said :

The no dole for 6 months is the most odious of the budget changes. Its premised entirely on the belief amongst liberals that a bit of ‘get up and go’ is all that young people need and that, without it, people will luxuriate in a tax payer funded holiday and rip off all those rich people by requiring higher taxes. Its crap, very very few people on the dole want to be on it; and those that do chose it are unlikely to be great workers anyway.

I would hazard a guess that the number of people on Newstart itself who want to be on it is essentially zero because anybody who truly wants to bludge their life away would have long since weaseled their way onto the disability pension.

Report this comment

18
chewy14 7:53 pm
21 May 14
#

dtc said :

What I dont understand is why people get so upset about ‘dole bludgers’.

If you think people are getting something for nothing, feel free to join them. You too can get something for nothing.

Whats that? You dont want to – surely you can survive happily on the dole like all those people you think do it volunarily. Its such a luxury lifestyle.

You want a house and car and children and being able to eat out and all of that? Well, guess what, thats your lifestyle choice and you can suck up the consequences.

If you see someone getting something and you feel offended, but you can easily achieve the same result yourself – go and do it and stop feeling offended.

(and, FWIW, I’m a gen X and have been employed continously since the day after I finished my uni degree)

The no dole for 6 months is the most odious of the budget changes. Its premised entirely on the belief amongst liberals that a bit of ‘get up and go’ is all that young people need and that, without it, people will luxuriate in a tax payer funded holiday and rip off all those rich people by requiring higher taxes. Its crap, very very few people on the dole want to be on it; and those that do chose it are unlikely to be great workers anyway.

I don’t agree with the proposed changes to the dole but the idea that someone doesn’t have the right to be offended by people bludging off welfare (of whatever kind, including corporate) is absurd.

No one envies their lifestyle, its simply the fact that we’re paying more tax than we should to fund it and id prefer that the money I earn remains mine as much as possible. If you don’t agree, id be more than happy to take a percentage of your wage. Come on, you won’t miss it and it doesn’t really matter right?

Report this comment

19
milkman 8:31 pm
21 May 14
#

Whenever someone receives without working, someone has worked without receiving.

Report this comment

20
Codders111 1:00 am
22 May 14
#

Since when has this website been overrun by radical conservatives? A full 100% employment rate is not possible (outside the USSR at least), nor even desirable. No matter how ‘hard’ people work THERE WILL BE PEOPLE UNEMPLOYED!!!!! Newstart is just recognition of the reality that they need food to eat and somewhere modest to live. Australia is a wealthy country and there’s simply no reason why people here should be starving or homeless. Very few dole recipients are unemployed by choice.

Since some of you seem only to care about yourselves I’d like to emphasise that at least a minimal safety net is in everyone’s interests. It improves group cohesiveness and and social mobility (both are economically beneficial in the long run), keeps crime low, and eventually gets spent on goods and services helping to create jobs and wealth for all!

Report this comment

21
Walker 1:28 am
22 May 14
#

milkman said :

Whenever someone receives without working, someone has worked without receiving.

Which is why now is a good time to call it straight on things like negative gearing.

Report this comment

22
bigfeet 6:41 am
22 May 14
#

gospeedygo said :

Newstart/YA isn’t a holiday; it’s a utilitarian safety net to prevent the vulnerable falling even lower and suffer the dire consequences and outcomes caused by easily avoidable poverty which, surprise, surprise has consequences for everyone.

And in this initiative the government has got it completely back-to-front.

Instead of not receiving Newstart or YA for the first 6 months, it should be the other way around.

People should be entitled to benefits for 6 months only. After that they must get a job. A job…any job. Not the job they want or think they are entitled to…but whatever job is available.

Failing to take an offered job after six months should mean immediate suspension of all benifits.

Report this comment

23
milkman 7:06 am
22 May 14
#

Walker said :

milkman said :

Whenever someone receives without working, someone has worked without receiving.

Which is why now is a good time to call it straight on things like negative gearing.

The strategy of negative gearing generates vastly more revenue for the government than the cost of the concession. It also reduces the amount of housing the government has to provide.

Report this comment

24
milkman 7:07 am
22 May 14
#

milkman said :

Whenever someone receives without working, someone has worked without receiving.

To each according to his contribution, aye comrade?

Ha! Just stirring the pot…

Report this comment

25
justin heywood 7:52 am
22 May 14
#

Codders111 said :

Since when has this website been overrun by radical conservatives? ……Australia is a wealthy country and there’s simply no reason why people here should be starving or homeless.

Damn straight Walker! Sometimes I’ve seen up to three posts in a row where no-one has called for Abbott’s crucifixion!

Seriously though, I doubt that political debate has ever reached such a low ebb as it is now. You cannot try and make a counterpoint without people immediately questioning your morality.

– Believe that maybe the current welfare set-up encourages inter-generational unemployment? You’re a HEARTLESS B*”TARD!

– Believe that Abbott may not be the anti-christ, or at least no worse than Rudd? You’re a pathetic neo-con, a mindless drone of the EVIL MURDOCH and probably YOU ARE ANDREW BOLT!

– Believe that perhaps not having hundreds of asylum seekers drowning at sea might be a good thing? You XENOPHOBIC RACIST! And what about that bloke who died on Manus!

And so on. I’m sure that the other side of politics could make an equal complaint against the conservatives, but really, has Australian politics ever been as polarised as it is now?

Report this comment

26
Mysteryman 8:43 am
22 May 14
#

Fairly gutsy? Well-educated? The kid was a twit. He hadn’t actually looked into the details of what he was complaining about. He was trying to push a moot point and the Treasurer shut it down. If he is the face of Gen Y, then God help them.

It was symbolic of nearly all the questions on that episode of Q & A. I’ve never seen a more poorly informed audience, or more ridiculous questions. “I’m 30 and I can’t work forever. What’s the government’s plan to help me retire?”. Um, it’s called superannuation. Rather than blowing all your money on traveling and cars and clothes, start contributing to it. It was pathetic.

Report this comment

27
arescarti42 10:27 am
22 May 14
#

milkman said :

The strategy of negative gearing generates vastly more revenue for the government than the cost of the concession. It also reduces the amount of housing the government has to provide.

Oh really?

I challenge you to find one, just one, reputable source that supports your point of view.

To name just a couple on the other side of the argument, we’ve got preeminent Australian economists such as Saul Eslake and former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry pointing out that it costs the government many billions of dollars per year in foregone revenue, and does next to nothing to increase the supply of housing or reduce rents.

Report this comment

28
VYBerlinaV8_is_back 11:58 am
22 May 14
#

arescarti42 said :

milkman said :

The strategy of negative gearing generates vastly more revenue for the government than the cost of the concession. It also reduces the amount of housing the government has to provide.

Oh really?

I challenge you to find one, just one, reputable source that supports your point of view.

To name just a couple on the other side of the argument, we’ve got preeminent Australian economists such as Saul Eslake and former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry pointing out that it costs the government many billions of dollars per year in foregone revenue, and does next to nothing to increase the supply of housing or reduce rents.

At the risk of getting into someone else’s argument, what about the sources of revenue the government has thanks to residential property investment? Rates, CGT, GST on new builds, stamp duty, developer fees, etc? Obviously these are all taxes levied for a variety of reasons, but I would have to wonder whether the government could collect so much CGT if people weren’t NG’ing. As I understand it CGT collected significantly exceeds NG concessions.

Of course, many would argue that CGT shouldn’t have a 50% discount, but that could be removed if inflation based indexing was reintroduced.

Report this comment

29
arescarti42 12:42 pm
22 May 14
#

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

At the risk of getting into someone else’s argument, what about the sources of revenue the government has thanks to residential property investment? Rates, CGT, GST on new builds, stamp duty, developer fees, etc? Obviously these are all taxes levied for a variety of reasons, but I would have to wonder whether the government could collect so much CGT if people weren’t NG’ing. As I understand it CGT collected significantly exceeds NG concessions.

Of course, many would argue that CGT shouldn’t have a 50% discount, but that could be removed if inflation based indexing was reintroduced.

Agreed that residential property investment generates a lot of revenue for Governments, the key question is does the negative concession generate offsetting revenue elsewhere, that otherwise would not have occurred.

While the tax benefits offered by negative gearing are an additional incentive for people to invest, surveys typically indicate that they’re only a secondary consideration, with prospects for capital growth usually the deciding factor.

So you’d expect that changes to CGT revenue would be fairly muted without negative gearing, as the majority of negatively geared investors would still make the investment decision to invest without the concession (and this makes sense, the majority of negatively geared investors don’t have high incomes or marginal tax rates, so don’t derive much tax benefit anyway).

If you were to limit the concession to new builds only (as many commentators are suggesting), you could potentially raise a lot more revenue, because a much larger proportion of investors would be paying GST (currently 95% of newly negatively geared investors buy existing properties, which aren’t subject to GST).

Report this comment

30
chewy14 12:47 pm
22 May 14
#

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

arescarti42 said :

milkman said :

The strategy of negative gearing generates vastly more revenue for the government than the cost of the concession. It also reduces the amount of housing the government has to provide.

Oh really?

I challenge you to find one, just one, reputable source that supports your point of view.

To name just a couple on the other side of the argument, we’ve got preeminent Australian economists such as Saul Eslake and former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry pointing out that it costs the government many billions of dollars per year in foregone revenue, and does next to nothing to increase the supply of housing or reduce rents.

At the risk of getting into someone else’s argument, what about the sources of revenue the government has thanks to residential property investment? Rates, CGT, GST on new builds, stamp duty, developer fees, etc? Obviously these are all taxes levied for a variety of reasons, but I would have to wonder whether the government could collect so much CGT if people weren’t NG’ing. As I understand it CGT collected significantly exceeds NG concessions.

Of course, many would argue that CGT shouldn’t have a 50% discount, but that could be removed if inflation based indexing was reintroduced.

Seeing as over 90% of NG occurs on existing properties and not newly built ones I don’t think it would come close to the revenue foregone.
Although if someone wanted to do a detailed economic analysis of the effects of NG on the economy, what is the overall cost to the economy of artificially increasing prices through investors speculating on non productive assets instead of putting that capital to better use? What’s the opportunity cost of the policy?

Report this comment

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site