Let's see how things would fare for the baby boomers under these scenarios.
Halt immigration - labour costs would rise and house prices would fall. The wealth gaps between the older and the younger would close in; that is currently not allowed! Bankers would see less profit - that is not allowed!. Companies would make less profit due to lower public spending, and due to higher labour costs - that is not allowed. Less taxes available for pensions and healthcare - that is political suicide if allowed to run its natural course.
Don't give first home buyers government grants - house prices would fall, and the gaps between the older and the young would close in - that is not allowed. House production activity would slow down, which would push down labourers earnings and also the cost of materials - that is not allowed.
Raise interest rates to what the baby boomers were paying - house prices would fall, and savings accounts would be an attractive alternative against going into big debt. That is not allowed because raising interest rates to the 'real inflation' levels would cause retail spending to crumble, and the economy would correct itself, bridging the wealth gaps between the old and the young - that is not allowed!
The longer this wealth gap continues to grow, the bigger the debt requirements for new generations to 'live their' dream. And the bigger the debt absorption, the bigger the risk of financial instability and financial shock should we ever see a repeat of the GFC.
The signs are there - believe me. Retail is dying a slow and agonising death in this country, but most are incapable of witnessing a change until it's obvious. There is a shift in consumer behaviour - it's called "buying online". If you do not know what that is, get your 25 year olds to show you how. After all, it is the younger generation who will benefit from the savings made. And the losers of this? Corporate Australia, the politicians tax for spending and the wealthy. That is when you'll see the gaps between the rich and the young close considerably.
And during times of really bad distress, who do you think will hurt the most? Someone with an expensive house and a lot of debt? Or someone with no real assets, but no debt? Tell me, who will hurt the most in this instance? Who has benefited the most by bank bailouts and government guarantees? Is it the young who have 'yet' to buy a home? Or is it the baby boomer generation who have overindulged in house consumption? If you still cannot accept the truth that the greed from the older generation has virtually destroyed any chances of our young to live the same lifestyles as older generations, then you're not worthy of being looked after. So when you soil your pants in your nursing home and look up into eyes of your x generation caretaker, you better pray that this person is not real ticked off before they wipe your backside.
Baby boomers deliberately kept their family sizes small so that they could have a 'better' lifestyle. At the time, it probably looked good in theory. What has happened since? Oh that's right - they didn't have enough kids to pay for their pensions. And they also forgot to save for that retirement - oops, how silly! No worries, let's bring in migrants - that'll keep our investment properties expensive, and that'll pay for our pensions. And everyone is happy, unless, of course, you're just starting out in life.
But keep your one sentence/one paragraph counter arguments coming. At least I won't need to go to the humour section for a laugh.
