Hard News: A few (more) words on The Hobbit
1304 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 40 41 42 43 44 … 53 Newer→ Last
-
andin, in reply to
Had my fill of that.
-
According to that rather deviously worded scenario, everyone entering the workforce, not just those selfish dotards born to the WW2 generation, would have “benefitted tremendously” from the ongoing fourty pieces of silver they’ve received for abdicating their part in maintaining the “social contract”.
This particular generation is unique in the period after the creation of the welfare state. Quite a few received a well funded education, graduated from university without student loans, and then when they hit peak earning capacity, the government reduced taxes on them tremendously and brought in user pays. As higher income earners, lower taxes and user-pays works out pretty well. It created tremendous wealth, a lot of which we've seen go into the property market and put first homes out of the reach of the next generation.
Their children had/have the same lower taxes, but carry student loans, and face a full adult life of user-pays in various facets of society.
To her credit Helen Clark undid much of the damage in the ensuing decade, which hardly fits with the convenient scapegoating of the “boomer” generation’s inexorable eroding of the social contract.
Please point out anywhere where I scapegoated baby boomers. The social contract was broken, and baby boomers benefitted tremendously as a generation from it. Some of them undoubtably were the pivotal in causing this, but many were opposed. As a generation they benefitted however, there's effectively been an accumulation of wealth gathered together from both ends of the age spectrum towards the middle.
I was talking about the years 1985-1988.
During which NZ did not have a 66% top tax rate.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
Quite a few received a well funded education
Sure they did. By their parents, or by scholaships. But not by the state. None of that has changed.
graduated from university without student loans
Is that right? The lucky ducks. What you’re ignorant of, willfully or otherwise, is that there was no student allowance prior to Goff’s introduction of user pays in the late 80s. Those without private means had to work part time and holidays to support themselves. The dropout rate was rather higher than today.
Please point out anywhere where I scapegoated baby boomers.
Are you being cute? Everything you’ve posted on this topic has been selectively presented as an intergenerational blame game. Until this:
The social contract was broken, and baby boomers benefitted tremendously as a generation from it. Some of them undoubtably were the pivotal in causing this, but many were opposed.
So maybe there are elements of a left-right issue, rather than selfish “boomers” versus the rest. Things do tend to focus that way once you step back from convenient self-serving generalisations.
As a generation they benefitted however, there’s effectively been an accumulation of wealth gathered together from both ends of the age spectrum towards the middle.
Accumulating wealth takes time, and the “boomers” have certainly had that. Given the obscene increases in top-end salaries and bonuses there’s every indication that those currently at their earning peak will eclipse the excesses of your “boomer” bogeymen.
-
andin, in reply to
I must say Kyle you have certainly worked yourself up into a tizzy about all this. But lets hone in on your target shall we.
First off broadly they are from the post WWII spurt of progeny. I wish birth control had been acceptable then, there were an awful lot of "bottle babies".
I dont want to dredge up the whole 1950's again so lets skip to the period you seem most interested in the 80's. When the BB's were hitting their stride financially and according to you where it all went bung.Quite a few received a well funded education, graduated from university without student loans,
Quite a few....quite a few, you say, point me in the direction of some figures please. Well funded education? As Joe said if you didnt have a scholarship you had to work part time jobs and holiday jobs. But who the fuck wanted to sit through uni there was a big wide world out there to explore. So at this point comes the first thinning of the herd. Those who didnt stay in university and those who left the country.
So there's me gone as well from your target. But lets move on.As higher income earners, lower taxes and user-pays works out pretty well. It created tremendous wealth, a lot of which we’ve seen go into the property market
So your target had to be in living in New Zealand, have benefited from a free education, be in the higher income brackets,( what 60,000+?) and looking to make a bit of cash on the side from property development.
Seems to be narrowing down pretty fast already. In fact I would say you could almost make a list of names from tax records etc and you would have your culprits. It would make it much easier for all concerned. Just scapegoat them, which is obviously what you want to do, except your pretending otherwise.And just for your info during the 80's I spent most of that time being ripped off as a roadie in Australia. The NZ band I went there with imploded, and I worked mainly for gigging bands around Sydney. One in particular who couldnt find their niche, but who released crap singles which failed. So much for us all being artists. Anyway they eventually found their audience(years later) in the 3-6 yr old market. But they had a crook for a manager, another kiwi - go figure - who groaned every time he parted with money. So the pay was crap and I was scamming the system. So fucking report me!
And what did I earn during all that time, I reached the dizzying heights of $26000 per annum in 1987, when I actually found a job.
So I know your not talking about me cause I dont fit your profile. If you want to go after those born in the same broad category as me go ahead. But dont use the term baby boomer, because that is not who you are targetting. It is the objects of your emnity, name names, so we can all know who fucked up. Its the least you can do.
A -
Quite a few received a well funded education, graduated from university without student loans
I have to own up to this. When I trained to be a teacher I was paid and had little or no fees to pay. This is the way it was for all teacher trainees up until sometime in the 80's. We had to teach for 2 years as part of the deal which for some was a small price to pay before heading off. There were 300 odd students in my year in one teachers college so multiply that around all teacher's colleges and it adds up. Not all lasted the distance though.
-
gigging bands around Sydney. One in particular who couldnt find their niche, but who released crap singles which failed. So much for us all being artists. Anyway they eventually found their audience(years later) in the 3-6 yr old market.
Just to check: am I right in thinking that this was The Cockroaches?
Because if so: awesome.
-
I can't speak for lots of people, but my parents went through university in the 60s and reported that it extremely easy. Not only were they able to buy a house during that period, because houses cost very little in central west Auckland, but they lived comfortably on Mum's bursary, and Dad working weekends in a bottle-shop, to the point that they were able to afford to pop out 2 children, and take a 6 month vacation all around Europe. Contrast that to when I went through university, I was faced with a $3,000 bill at the start of every year, for which I had to borrow money. My bursary was the same amount it had been for decades, about $100. I got a student allowance for exactly one month, being a November baby, the princely sum of $45. After that, means-testing was introduced, and my parents were too wealthy for me to get an allowance. So I worked weekends, and got paid $43.50 after tax, for 2 days work. That was about enough money to cover petrol and a little bit of food every week, no way I could possibly pay rent, or even board. So I was basically required to continue living at my parents' house for my entire degree. Buying property was totally out of the question, indeed despite being a high income earner since I left university, it took until my mid-30s to be able to afford it (by which time I'd also paid off my student loan). This comparative hardship meant that I and most of my peers borrowed the "living expenses" part included into student loans, which ended up accounting for more than half of it.
My parents could not understand any of this because it did not tally with their memory of how things had been in their day. This inter-generational misunderstanding was widespread, basically the parents of everyone I knew were unable to believe that inflation had made relative paupers of their children, whilst making them fabulously wealthy (most of my friends' parents are millionaires from property). So they did not act like millionaires, who will typically fully fund their children through tertiary education, giving them large allowances. Instead, everyone was expected to work, as they had to "pay their way". But, as I show above, unskilled work in the late 80s/early 90s was paid very little (there was no such thing as penal rates any more), it was barely worth the time spent, considering how much time it took away from studying, and that other useful thing that weekends are for, relaxing (let alone studying, which I was doing every night). I was extremely stressed out most of the years I was at university because I never stopped working. As soon as term was finished I'd get a full-time job, and over the 3 months would earn probably about $2000, which didn't quite cover student fees for the next year. But this period was at least a bit relaxing because on the weekends I got to do what most workers do, actually rest.
I don't really want to hassle "baby boomers" by any of this. I don't see them as selfish people. They just didn't know how things had changed for young people. When they went to university, it was quite a rare thing and a virtual guarantee of high income afterward. When I went, it was a norm, and unless you did a specialist degree that led straight to a career path, it meant very little. I realized this early and elected to double major, picking up computing, despite the fact that I didn't really want to study it at all. I'm still doing it today, because I need the money, not because I love it. When I left the country for work, again it was mostly for the money, at that time.
Ultimately I don't think you should blame a demographic for macroeconomics. Individuals are not responsible for the fact that NZ has become steadily less wealthy over the last 30 years, despite the steady increase in wealth of those who were working age before then. It's a phenomenon that covers most of the First World. I don't even claim to know exactly why it's happened, although I can speculate that WW2 caused a lot of it, in the way that it massively intensified industry, and forced government expenditure to that end. It's far easier to justify a command economy in war time than in peace. This possibly is behind the continued position of the US as the number one economy - essentially they've never stopped being at war.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
Thanks Ben, interesting stuff.
My parents could not understand any of this because it did not tally with their memory of how things had been in their day
Your parents are obviously educated and intelligent people. Bursaries, especially the kind that gave you a livable income, were far from universal, and were generally granted for academic achievement. But you do have to wonder about the quality of a tertiary education that fails to provide the means to understand a changing world.
BTW, while I'm probably old enough to be your dad, I don't know a single property millionaire. Not personally.
-
andin, in reply to
Yes
-
My parents' experience was similar to your's Ben. They were able to afford tertiary study and live comfortable lives off their bursaries, and what they could earn in summer holidays and part-time jobs. They still worked hard, but it just seemed easier.
It took my father a while to see the difference between when I went to University & when he did. I didn't help by being exceptionally lazy and not doing much additional work aside from the summers.
What he realised was the difference between us at the time of finishing tertiary study. He got married and bought a house pretty quickly and began starting a family around his mid 20s. If he hadn't decided to be a farmer he'd probably have lots of disposable income now too :-)
I'm still paying off my student loan which means the amount of money to put towards a house, marriage and kids is reduced - i'm hoping to have it sorted by the time i'm 35. Only who knows if the property market will bubble again in the next 5 years putting it out of reach again.
-
Islander, in reply to
Just to be specific, part of my income did attract the 66% income tax rate, and a lot attracted the 48% rate - the 33% rate didnt come in until the reforms of late 1986.
-
Your parents are obviously educated and intelligent people
Yes, and in my mother's case, from a wealthy background too. It was only after I realized that they had been lent the deposit for their first house by her father that I swallowed my pride and did the same thing. But it's funny to think that they were purchasing their first holiday home at my age, whereas I just refinanced so that I could afford to pay my provisional tax bill.
I'm technically (and actually) a very high income earner and have been for about 15 years. But somehow I don't seem to have any more money than they seemed to when I was young, I drive second (or more likely 10th) hand cars, live in a modest suburb, and have to think hard about any purchase over a few hundred dollars. I have often considered retraining, but simply couldn't afford it, now that I have 3 mouths to feed. My mum did her Masters at about the same time I was studying, at about my current age, something her workplace actively encouraged (she's a teacher/lecturer), and she was instantly rewarded with a much higher salary on completion. If I did any such thing I'd be taking a huge pay cut.
The great irony is that most of my friends who did not go to university are in a comparable position to me financially, or much richer. They also had kids a lot younger.
But you do have to wonder about the quality of a tertiary education that fails to provide the means to understand a changing world
Nah - that's unfair. Understanding a changing world is always hard work, and also something you have to keep at. If you get old and comfortable, you might let it slide - one of the best things about this site is that all ages are allowed, but you can't stay comfortable if you want to push your outdated misunderstandings. The demographic I miss is kids - are there any teenagers out there? Anyone early twenties? I want to hear what life's like for them now. Sounds like varsity is 100% swot now.
Bursaries, especially the kind that gave you a livable income, were far from universal, and were generally granted for academic achievement.
Yes, I was an "A" bursary myself. But it was, like, $100. I used it to buy a couple of text books.
I didn't help by being exceptionally lazy and not doing much additional work aside from the summers.
I see it as a sign of the times that opting not to work weekends would be considered "exceptionally lazy".
Only who knows if the property market will bubble again in the next 5 years putting it out of reach again.
If you're dead keen on property, and your Dad's pushing the idea too, get him to put his money where his mouth is. The least he could do is offer to guarantee your deposit, which would cost him nothing, so long as you don't default the loan. But I'm not offering any advice on whether property in NZ is a good thing to invest in at the moment. I'm not qualified for that, and I think financial advice is a dangerous thing to give people if you don't specialize in it. In fact, I think it's dangerous to trust anyone else with investments and the best thing you can do is learn up as much as you can about them. Maybe another class of investment would be better, and forget about property, just rent. I'd feel a heck of a lot more economically safe if I was renting, and had all of the equity I now have as cash in the bank instead. You can spend cash. Cash doesn't cost you money. Or there's stocks and any number of other assets which have higher liquidity and returns than property. But I do love my property. Old 5k00l, uc.
I'm still paying off my student loan which means the amount of money to put towards a house, marriage and kids is reduced - i'm hoping to have it sorted by the time i'm 35.
Word. Went through exactly the same thing, and it feels odd to look back and realize that these colossal life choices were economically dictated, that all the struggles that so many of my friends have gone through with having children due to the women being in their 30s, didn't come from the X-Generation's "failure to commit", but rather because the X-Generation didn't want to put their children through hardship that they didn't have to endure themselves, when their parents lived through times of 100% employment, great penal rates, low property prices, etc. Always it seemed that economic stability was just around the corner. I have no particular evidence, but I can't help but feel that the disabling birth accident that happened to my first son wasn't helped by my wife being mid-30s. This isn't something you usually appreciate in your 20s. My parents and their friends didn't have to consider any of this.
Andin, whilst I appreciate that the generalizations about baby boomers might not apply to an artist like yourself, it's worth comparing what the life of artists my age is like. My sister is a professional dancer (arty, not sleazy), and has been on the bones of her arse for ... ever. Her student loan passed the $100,000 mark years ago, now I don't even ask, I think my parents are paying the interest, and will subtract that from her inheritance. She's not lazy, quite the opposite, she's one of the most driven people I know. But the year you topped $26,000 is an unthinkable dream for her. There is just NO MONEY in the arts, unless you are lucky enough to crack the big-time, which does also seem to mean "selling out" as well. She's only able to do it because of support from Mum and Dad. The subculture she dwells in is very much an underclass, bearing all the hallmarks of lumpen proletarianism, lots of scamming, abuse, and a generally grasping attitude, as you'd expect from people drowning in poverty.
-
There was a 'universal student allowance', back in the day. Getting an A or B bursary added a little to it, but not much. You just had to be eligible and pass enough courses to keep it.
Individuals are not responsible for the fact that NZ has become steadily less wealthy over the last 30 years, despite the steady increase in wealth of those who were working age before then. It’s a phenomenon that covers most of the First World.
I don't think this is true, at all. What has happened is that in the last 30 years (since the Reagan, Roger, Thatcher, Friedmanite 'revolutions') the wealth inequality gap, which had been steady since WW2, extensively and fairly rapidly widened. GDP has grown albeit a little fitfully; median wages haven't.
And the gap between rich and poor (and between rich and 'average') is still widening. Easy to forget the post-war years did feature very high tax rates for the wealthy in most Western economies. (I seem to remember the Beatles paying about 98%!)
That's changed entirely. Lots of evidence/discussion of this... but noone much of anywhere (including the Clark govt here) seriously reversing the trend (working for families was a small move in that direction, but missed both beneficiaries and those without children).
One slight by-product of the almost complete hegemony of monetarism, trickle-down and user-pays in the political and public discourse, is a small but significant move towards looking at marxist/socialist ideas. Whatever one thinks of Marx' prescriptive politics, his analysis of the ways capital works is still often spot on. -
Ben W, not being picky but there is money in the arts - if you're a bureaucrat.
'crack(ing) the big time' can involve lots of things that a person is temperamentally unsuited to/for but if your sister can handle that kind of stuff, I sincerely wish her
that kind of success. -
I struggled for about 10 years, eking out a living from the arts. Then I moved into television.
I was one of the fortunate lucky last. Went to university from 1983 to 85, then Drama School 1987-88. In those five years of tertiary study I was paid a universal student allowance (as well as Bursary and Scholarship). This covered basic living plus fees and books. When I wanted to go flatting, I took on various part=time and holiday jobs to cover the additional living expenses. No student loan to contend with.
I find the downstream consequences of the student loan scheme appalling.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
There was a ‘universal student allowance’, back in the day. Getting an A or B bursary added a little to it, but not much.
I don't recall anything prior to 1970, must have come along later. That B bursary certainly didn't go far.
BTW, do you have any connection with a Bob Stowell? American, in Chch in the late 60s. While I never had the privilege of being one of his students I remember him as a thoroughly nice guy & a poet of no small ability.
-
but if your sister can handle that kind of stuff, I sincerely wish her
that kind of success.I'm not holding my breath. She's determined to do the art that she believes in, although she does grumble a lot about the poverty. Dancing's probably the worst remunerated art ever invented, not to mention physically grueling.
-
prior to 1970
Gosh. I though it went back to the 50s. My mistake. Certainly from 1970 through the late 80s. Not so much 'comfortable' (always less than the dole, for example) but certainly adequate.
I remember him as a thoroughly nice guy & a poet of no small ability
Dad would be chuffed :)
-
BenWilson, in reply to
I don't think this is true, at all.
I don't disagree with anything you said there, but it doesn't seem to point the finger at individuals, which is what you're reacting to there. Monetarism is a political ideology, and the baby boomers of my experience don't hold much truck with it, with a few exceptions. Most of them are socialists, at least in rhetoric.
So I repeat, it's not their fault that NZ's economy went the way it did. It's not even the fault of the collective baby boomers of the whole industrialized world. I think it's much more systemic than that - our declining wealth is a natural consequence of capitalism generally, which follows the means of production. When that was monopolized by Europeans and Americans, we got a flow on from that. Now it is not. So our relative wealth simply has to decline. Or we could up our production, somehow, don't ask me how. But it's always going to be a hard fight to get back to former glory if that former glory happened to be lucky access to a monopoly.
-
@Rob Stowell. Your dad taught me a course or two in American Lit. at UoC. I recall him taking a bunch of us to a Bicentenary concert led by Aaron Copland in Christchurch.
I also think he was also a Bay of Islands neighbour of a paramour of my old mum--a bounder and a cad named Max. Ring a bell? -
it doesn’t seem to point the finger at individuals, which is what you’re reacting to there.
Nah, not reacting to the finger-pointing at all. Just having a slow day at the desk, and a short outing for a couple of the hobby-horses :)
And yeah, our relative wealth has declined, but our absolute wealth since the 80's hasn't, its risen. I get your general point about the decline of western economies, and it's largely valid. But there's another factor at play: wealth distribution in NZ- and the UK and US- is now much less equitable.
There may be a generational element to this- Kyle makes some good points. (Certainly the housing market is nuts :))
But the difference between poor- boomer as much as any generation- and rich- is considerably wider. -
Rob Stowell, in reply to
@Geoff: you were a star of AMST :)
I will ask mum about any neighbouring Max's, just to make sure he came to a fitting end. -
But there's another factor at play: wealth distribution in NZ- and the UK and US- is now much less equitable.
Again, I don't lay that at the feet of the baby boomers, though. It's a flow on from declining incomes - baby boomers also earn proportionately less now than they used to, but they mostly have assets that have grown. Declining incomes affects the younger generations, that's just a fact of life. If everyone's earning heaps, then differences diminish. If everyone's not earning much, those who already have a stash will start to pull away. Inequity is at it's worst in poverty stricken countries.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
Dad would be chuffed :)
Ah. Mystery solved.
There was a hand-operated printing press in the room at the bottom of the tower with the observatory dome on top, in what's now the Arts Centre. Your Dad had a key, and was very helpful and trusting in letting us fool about with it.I'm grateful for that.
-
Ben W - agreed: dancing is an extraordinarily demanding art, physically costly - but it is also - along with music- the oldest of arts. I campaigned for a living wage for artists who had demonstrated their skills & committment way back in the 1980s, early 1990s, but it was a hiding to nothing: "O, you mean a dole for artists?"
No, I mean a living wage, so people can concentrate on their art without the distraction of worrying where breakfast tomorrow is coming from...I also suggested that, if/when artists became financially viable, the living wage ceased. The "demonstrated their skills and committment" bit would exclude wannabes or bludgers: people truly committed to their art have already generally sacrificed a great deal to get to that stage.
Kia kaha, your sister, kia manawanui - sometimes, the surprising good does happen-
Post your response…
This topic is closed.