Hard News: A few (more) words on The Hobbit
1304 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 42 43 44 45 46 … 53 Newer→ Last
-
Islander, in reply to
Sacha - true. Especially the language barrier/s. Which is why people are recruited from places where English isnt the dominant language. (It is v. interesting to look at who owns resthomes in ANZ. At one stage, & to a more limited extent now, TRONT was an investor.)
For myself - although it would definitely impact on my small assets- capital gains tax is the first step on the road to making this archipelago thrive. Apprenticeships was another: it hasnt been supported nearly enough. I'll be interested to see how the Ngai Tahu 'clean dairying' initative goes: it includes, I understand, training for young interested people in animal health(including pyschology of cattle), bioethics, environmental caretaking, and restoration of damaged areas (including my pet,
wetlands...) -
I don’t understand how this is ‘scapegoating’ on Kyle’s part, unless I missed a post of his where he said ‘it’s all your fault, you dirty boomers!’ I think he’s discussing it as just… something that happened.
Thanks Danielle.
If Kyle had made it plain that his beef was with the selfishly affluent, rather than an entire generation, I’d have no problem. It’s disingenuous to claim that you’re simply discussing ideas and talking in generalisations when the supposed “facts” that you present unfairly caricature entire generations as possessing certain shortcomings or qualities.
My point really wasn't to do with the selfishly affluent at all. It's about how government policy changes benefit one generation over another, in general. Again, please point out where I caricatured baby boomers as greedy, not caring about others, or indeed being opposed to paying taxes. I don't think anywhere I made any generalisations about what they wanted, just what happened - large tax cuts tied to an increase in user pays.
A sweeping generalisation: “baby boomers” – not just some, but all, no qualification – habitually drive their elders to penury, and deny them life-saving medical care to fund their own selfish lifestyles.
Here is the labour govt reversing the previously harsh asset test policy, which among other things, discriminated against the elderly: http://www.beehive.govt.nz/node/16395. I won't bother to respond of your characterisation of my argument, as it doesn't really relate to what or how I wrote.
Nicely said Sacha, but the claim of widespread incidents of older dependents of callous “boomers” needing to sell their homes in order to pay for life-saving medical treatment is unsubstantiated, and in the context of the argument it’s been invoked to support, downright risible.
Again, feel free to quote what I actually said. Not 'dependents' (ie, my parents) but 'elders' - ie, the whole generation older than them.
I’d be delighted to engage in a constructive discussion about this, but disinformation, deliberately provocative or otherwise, is the last thing we need.
I'm surprised you don't remember the many media stories about the asset testing that we had through the 1990s - introduced in the mother of all budgets in 1991. There was a sequence of elderly people who were having to sell homes that they'd lived in all their life over several years. It was a major election promise of Winston Peters in 1996 and part of the coalition agreement that year, but one that never got resolved properly under that government.
-
Sacha, in reply to
It is v. interesting to look at who owns resthomes in ANZ
And why. Property returns over time are a motivation for the larger corporations at least. Fixing our distorted capital investment landscape will also help shift the balance to more support services delivered in people's own homes rather than expensive bricks and mortar on prime real estate.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
Again, please point out where I caricatured baby boomers as greedy, not caring about others, or indeed being opposed to paying taxes.
Kyle, I'm driven to state the obvious here, but we live in a democracy. As "baby boomers" represent a substantial voting block they presumably endorse the government policy that brought about the changes you mention. If you want to believe that it's all due to some kind of process independent of the political will then you've rather lost me. "Breaking the social contract" implies endorsing narrow and selfish policies to benefit the majority at the expense of the vulnerable. In some cases this has happened, and the changes remain. In others, namely health and aged care, they've been reversed.
Again, feel free to quote what I actually said. Not ‘dependents’ (ie, my parents) but ‘elders’ – ie, the whole generation older than them.
I’ve already done so upthread. The implication you made was plain that these people were going without because of the selfishness of their offspring. Feel free to split hairs, I’ll pass.
There was a sequence of elderly people who were having to sell homes that they’d lived in all their life over several years. It was a major election promise of Winston Peters in 1996 and part of the coalition agreement that year, but one that never got resolved properly under that government.
Like most of the historical running down of the health system that was reversed during the Clark years this isn’t even remotely a current issue. It was an underhanded political trick that was roundly rejected by the electorate. Hardly evidence for some kind of generational shaming. Of course National may well try it again in their second term, but right now, like much of Clark’s legacy, they don’t dare touch it.
-
@Ian- yes, Laurel is me sis. I was a few years behind her at school. Small town, Chch, eh?!
-
If Samuel Flynn Scott is in the neighbourhood, The Word magazine (UK) 'Something for the Weekend' for Jan 13 features The Phoenix Foundation with a link to Youtube and their 'Now Hear This' CD.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
We don't even have the balls to implement a capital gains tax to make crystal clear to everyone that speculative property gambling and bigger and flasher houses are not productive investments for this country's future.
The sad fact is, turkeys don't vote for their own thanksgiving. And it's had the side effect of cartellising the housing market. Speaking of property, the way things are going, razor wire installers and bodyguards could well become the new plumbers and sparkies.
We have no shortage of know-how, but a lot of it goes overseas or otherwise struggles, for the simple fact that there's a shortage of relevant capital for it. The Sam Morgans and Richard Taylors of this world have shown the way forward, but they're oases in a desert of commercial mediocrity.
And I've said it before, but a very, very good first step to restoring investor confidence is to invoke counter-terrorism law on a certain pair of fiscal fugitives in Switzerland.
-
First off special mention to Deep Red
If Kyle had made it plain that his beef was with the selfishly affluent, rather than an entire generation, I’d have no problem.
Specifically the ones who became what they rebelled against in the first place.
Yes living , it seems, turns out to have many ironies.
But having long hair in your youth does not make the man.We don’t even have the balls to implement a capital gains tax to make crystal clear to everyone that speculative property gambling and bigger and flasher houses are not productive investments for this country’s future.
While law changes go some way to righting wrongs. There is a whole lot more we could do but I fear the time has passed, many in a generation slunk pathetically back into the beliefs of their parents and childhood. But thats not a punishable offence, it was just a hope now pushed out to another time.
The national conversation about this needs to help everyone think about our grandparents and our grandchildren; about the sustainable wellbeing and wealth of this country’s future residents and environment, not just what’s easy or comfortably familiar for us right now.
I would say again I like to broaden things out. Its not about our anything. The "conversation" needs to virtually be global now. All cultural views need revised updated to our rapidly changing understanding of the globe.
I would say get rid of the straight boring turncoat boomers and bring back the alternate boomers. -
Joe Wylie, in reply to
R.I.P. Keith MoonI would say get rid of the straight boring turncoat boomers and bring back the alternate boomers.
C’mom andin, just having survived this long is selling out. Even with substance-induced brain damage.
-
Jacqui Dunn, in reply to
Around half of the carers these days seem to be from somewhere other than NZ.
Not about aged care, Joe, but in my recent stay at Auckland Hospital, I noticed the same thing. Regardless of where the staff came from, the care I got was absolutely marvellous.
-
Erm....A few more words on the Hobbit? Or, a few more words by the Hobbit? (Because, occasionally, I feel I resemble one). But the discussion seems to be a long way from where it started - not that there's anything wrong, if you've been following. But if you haven't......?
-
@Jacqui; I agree--this thread is a bit all over the shop. The problem is where to put stuff (such as my aside re the Phoenix Foundation). A bit like finding a space for useless ornaments. Perhaps we need a higher authority to come in for a dusting and tidy-up.
-
Jacqui Dunn, in reply to
Lol.
ETA: Well, more of a smrchh, really. -
I didn't intend a rag session on baby boomers when I said they might have liked some films I didn't, way back when Once Were Warriors came out. I guess some rags just have to come out. There's only been like 5 threads in 3 weeks....rags will find the flimsiest excuse.
But that's part of the charm of PAS, it's conversational. Strictly on-topic threads get pretty stale pretty fast.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I would say get rid of the straight boring turncoat boomers and bring back the alternate boomers.
The Herald has been listening - an article about boomers defining cultural trends (and where to draw the membership age if you don't feel like part of the pack).
For a while, of course - and stop me if you've heard this one before, kids - punk rode to our rescue, seemingly freeing us from the sixties' grimy clutches. In the blink of an eye we went from listening to the same Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin as the guy in the candy-stripes to speaking Mockney and railing against boring old hippies.
Heady days, but sadly a mere blip in the boomers' relentless march of world domination. The sheer weight of their numbers continues to shape the world we all have to share. That's why Leonard Cohen seems to have some kind of residency at the Vector Arena, why faded stars sell out concerts in vineyards and why old men are falling off Harley Davidsons in unprecedented numbers.
Following in the boomers' wake means inheriting an unstoppable tide of pre-used culture, built or adapted specifically to meet every desire of that famous population bulge.
And it means hearing people of a certain age banging on compulsively about certain popular activities and topics. People took cycling holidays before the boomers arrived - but they didn't saturate the atmosphere with accounts of their thrilling adventures.
-
5 threads in 3 weeks
It does rather seem Russell is holding the fort. I can fully understand in one or two cases, and there's that holiday season thing, but the two threads going have become sparodically derailed. Need some new tram lines to keep us on the straight and narrow.
-
Sacha, in reply to
sparodically derailed
bird pisstake train?
-
BenWilson, in reply to
And it means hearing people of a certain age banging on compulsively about certain popular activities and topics.
That's definitely not unique to boomers. I just happen to come from the generation below, so have had to put up with a lot of it from them, but they copped it from their parents, and my kids are definitely going to hear about my interests.
-
Sometimes it *may* mean " hearing people of a certain age banging on compulsively about certain popular activities and topics."
However, frequently not.
I reccommend the article on the news page of the BBC where a person destroys the 'boomer'myth. (15.01.11)Sorry, have not yet scraped together enough funds to learn how to paste info - no, I'm not joking!
-
That BBC article by Michael Goldfarb seems shallow and poorly-argued compared with say Gladwell. It's focused on an individualised explanation of the world and a notion that only some generations count. If anything, the tone says more about boomer stereotypes than the content does.
The idea that people have something in common because they are born in the same approximate time period is akin to newspaper theories of astrology.
...
For an American, there is something quite dangerous in lumping everyone born between 1946 and 1960 together - and it is not just evidenced by the maniacal, anonymous postings on newspaper comment threads.
The boomer obsession takes away from accurate historical knowledge of a remarkably turbulent period in American history, one that is not focused on a single clarifying event, such as World War II, the great Depression or the Civil War.
...
I'm sorry, I cannot see what our lives and world views have in common beside coincidence of birth year.
And coincidence is all those of us born after the war have in common.
-
andin, in reply to
C’mom andin, just having survived this long is selling out.
I guess street cred is everything. I wondering which street tho'?
I think time has been called, and the real world gets back tomorrow.
Hobbitses 'n all. -
Kyle, I’m driven to state the obvious here, but we live in a democracy. As “baby boomers” represent a substantial voting block they presumably endorse the government policy that brought about the changes you mention. If you want to believe that it’s all due to some kind of process independent of the political will then you’ve rather lost me.
Given that I stated at least once that some of that generation supported the changes, and some didn't, clearly I wasn't scapegoating that generation for using their voting power to bring in the change.
You could have a similar (indeed, a lot more direct) discussion about tax cuts and high income earners. Many high income earners might vote against income tax cuts. But they're clearly the ones that will benefit the most. A similar social contract (of the rich paying more for the less fortunate) argument.
Like most of the historical running down of the health system that was reversed during the Clark years this isn’t even remotely a current issue.
The thing that got this all started was the claim that the baby boomer generation supported their older generation in ways that the generation before them hadn't. In terms of paying taxes and providing residential health care, that often didn't happen for 14 years. Hence me including it.
I've never made an argument for generational shaming, and indeed have umpteen times denied making it. If you could stop painting me with that brush and use the things that I actually say...
-
Islander, in reply to
Sacha, I think your interpretation of the Goldfarb article is strangely skewed.
It's a bit like Kyle Matthews' interpretations - we're starting to talk past one another, because a lot of the word-loadings are changing.I read Kyle M as making quite aggressive statements about people born within a certain generation. I cannot agree, despite his disclaimers, with what he argues above. I *read* what he wrote as an attack on a whole disparate generation - and all his later special pleading doesnt ameliorate that for me. Heoi.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Sacha, I think your interpretation of the Goldfarb article is strangely skewed.
Please do explain how - I was quite specific and provided quotes to support my reading of it, including that a generation only counted as such if it experienced a single large event like a war or Depression. His reasoning didn't impress me and I've heard enough individualistic "there is no society" tosh to have little patience for it.
-
I've onsent, as best I can, the actual article. I invite you to read it again.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.