Tag: demographics

Gen Y and the need for building new businesses

As baby boomers struggle to maintain their living standards, the burden will fall on younger generations to build future businesses.

The retirement of the baby boomers has been an demographic inevitability, but it’s interesting how policy makers and the population in general have ignored the ramifications of this despite the first boomers now aged beyond 65.

One of the consequences of this is we may see an entire generation being forced to become self employed entrepreneurs.

Illustrating this point are two stories from the US over the last few days; John Mauldin’s dissection of where US jobs are going and Zero Hedge’s 35 facts that should scare American baby boomers.

The 35 facts really boil down to one thing, that an affluent, middle class retirement at 65 when average life expectancy is 78 is an illusion for most people – neither their bank accounts or the state treasury can support that sort of spending.

Which is the point of John Mauldin’s column, that over 50s are taking most of the available US jobs as they can’t afford to retire.

For those over 50 who’ve fallen out of the workforce due to unemployment or illness, getting back into the workforce is proving to be tough and for many of those folk their later years are going to be a struggle.

Equally, as Mauldin points out, the younger generation is being locked out of the jobs being hogged by the over 50s.

Another aspect to that is those employed Gen-X’s and Y’s hoping to get a crack at a seniors manager’s job or their name on the partner’s list are going to find a longer wait as the boomers hold on for as long as they can.

Those young ‘uns need those high salary jobs too, a Westpac report on US student debt posits that crippling education costs are making it harder for graduates to participate in the workforce and affects their spending power when they do find a job.

What’s clear is existing government, corporate and social structures are beginning to struggle with the realities of the changing workforce and its demographic composition.

On a personal level, those Gen Xs, Ys and boomers who are locked out of the workforce have to find a new way to participate in the economy. It’s probably those locked out of today’s workplaces who will build the businesses of the future.

Similar posts:

The myth of the baby boomer

Are we making a mistake when we talk about the demographics of baby boomers?

Yesterday I was at the release of Deloitte’s State of Media Democracy report when something that’s been bugging me for a while became clear – have we got our definitions of baby boomers wrong?

In the report’s demographic breakup  was the usual breakdown of age groups with the interesting twist of separating ‘leading Millennials’ and ‘trailing Millennials’.

Such separation makes sense, how a sixteen year old uses the media is very different from that of a 26 year old, however there’s a good argument breaking up the baby boomer group the same way.

deloitte-demographic-breakdown

While there’s no denying the post World War II baby boom in most Western countries that lasted roughly from 1945 to 1965, lumping the entire group into one demographic bubble with the same economic characteristics seems mistaken.

If nothing else, the baby boomers should be broken into two groups – those born before 1955 and those afterwards.

Those born between 1945 and 55 had the benefit of being born into the a world rebuilding from the second world war and the massive improvement in living standards that accompanied the reconstruction.

For those born after 1955 their work experience was very different; the 1973 oil shock marked the end of the post war economic certainties and also saw the beginning of increased casualisation of the workforce through the deregulations that accelerated under the Reagan, Thatcher and other Western governments in the 1970s and 80s.

In many ways, the 1955-65 cohort of baby boomers have more in common with the generation who followed them – the Generation Xers, the term coined by the author Douglas Coupland who was born in 1961.

Equally, the earlier half of the baby boomers have much more in common with those born between 1935 and 45, the ‘war babies’ were too young to fight in World War II and they benefited greatest of all from the post war economic boom.

So perhaps we should be talking of the ‘Lucky Generation’ – those born between 1935 and 55 – and redefining ‘Generation X’ as those born 1955 and 80.

While it’s easy to say “who cares”, there’s an important aspect to this. Much of our discussion about the aging population revolves around the boomers retiring and the load this puts on the community.

Not to mention the foibles, beliefs and voting patterns of the boomers which again differ markedly between the ‘early boomers’ and ‘late boomers’.

If we accept that the tipping point wasn’t in 2010 when the first baby boomers reached retirement, but in 2000 when the ‘lucky generation’ started retiring then this discussion about how we service a growing – and demanding – group of retirees becomes even more pressing.

As in many things, life is a lot more complex than the lazy assumptions of demographers and economists would have us believe.

The myth that the baby boomers are one big fat group with equal demands, needs and assets is something may turn out to fool many of our business and political leaders.

Similar posts:

A business lesson from the Catholic Church

The election of Pope Francis shows why the Catholic church is such a successful business. Many of us could learn from them.

The Catholic church may be a two thousand year old institution with medieval beliefs and beset with scandal, but the clerics know how to handle business succession well.

Pope Benedict’s resignation was not only unexpected but also almost unprecedented with it being six hundred years since a pontiff quit before dying on the job.

In many organisations such an unexpected and rare event – dare one use the ‘black swan’ line – would create havoc, or at least paralysis. Instead the clerics handled the process smoothly.

This contrasts with the succession planning in many companies. In larger business even when the CEOs handover is planned, there’s a period of write downs and blood letting as the new leader stamps their authority.

Sometimes it gets very ugly indeed, particularly if the former CEO has been kicked upstairs onto the board.

In smaller businesses, there’s no succession planning at all. Many businesses die when the owner retires if there’s no buyer for the operation.

That shortage of buyers is a major problem for smaller business owners. Many baby boomers have planned their retirements around getting a good sale price for their businesses.

If they can’t get the sale price, the boomer small business owners work until they drop.

Which is what popes usually do.

It’s often said the Catholic Church is the biggest corporation on the planet. Given how smoothly their bureaucracy deals with succession planning, that’s not surprising.

Similar posts:

Graphs, damn lies and the middle class

Graphs can give us a misleading picture of our society, particularly when we’re looking at the middle classes

Graphs are great for illustrating a story, and also excellent at misleading people.

A good example of where a graph can give an incorrect impression is the Sydney Morning Herald’s story Whatever Happened to the Middle Class.

The story is a very good explanation of the predicament Australia’s political classes have put themselves into – exacerbated by their 1950s view of dividing the workforce into poorly paid ‘blue collar’ workers and affluent ‘white collar’ office staff – but it suffers from the selective use of headline graphs.

Viewing the big picture

The first graph shows how Australians are identifying themselves as middle class and the trend looks staggering,

Graph of How Australians see themselves as middle class

Now if we add those who identify themselves as working class, the picture looks even more dramatic with some pretty volatile swings,

A graph showing How Australians see themselves as middle or working class

However if we now add in those who identify themselves as rich, or upper class, we get a better perspective as the entire range is now shown,

Graph showing How Australians see themselves as upper middle or working class

Selective choosing the Y, or vertical, axis will always give an exaggerated view of a trend or proportion. Once we take the full range in we see the real extent of things. It also has the benefit of showing the trends aren’t as volatile as first appear.

Middle class perceptions

When we look at the graph showing the full picture there’s a number of interesting trends and characteristics about Australian society that come out of it which are worthy of some future blog posts.

Most notably is the identification of Australians being middle class as their property values increased.

On this point, it’s worthwhile contrasting the Australian experience with the US, here’s a Gallup poll from last year on how Americans see themselves,

A graph showing how Americans see themselves as upper middle or working class

While the definitions are different – that Americans differentiate ‘working class’ and ‘lower class’ is interesting in itself – it’s clear that the same trend happened in the US with more people identifying themselves as being members of middle class when their property values were increasing.

In 2008 and 9 there’s suddenly a sharp increase in Americans identifying themselves as working class as the property downturn bites. The steady increase in those claiming to be ‘lower class’ from 2006 onwards is worth closer examination.

What this means for Australia

The implications of the US trends is that any Australian politician intending to dismantle John Howard’s middle class welfare state will have to wait until the property market falls before trying to win any popular support.

For this year’s Australian election though, what’s clear is that any attempt to stoke the fires of class warfare is going to fail dismally in the outer suburban marginal seats so coveted by both parties.

We’re going to see a lot more selective graphs during the course of this year, it’s worthwhile taking time to look at them closely. The stories may be different, and a lot more nuanced, than the headlines tell us.

Similar posts:

Managing unemployment perceptions

Why did we accept one in twenty workers being unemployed as a good thing?

Stephen Koukoulas has a look at the changing composition of the Australian economy in Business Spectator today where he looks at how things have evolved over the last 50 years.

One of the notable things is unemployment and how our perception of what an acceptable level is;

Australia’s unemployment rate is 5.4 per cent at present, it was 0.9 per cent in August 1970 while in August 1951 it was a staggering 0.3 per cent.

In the 1961 Federal election the Menzies government hung on by one seat, having been punished for allowing the unemployment rate to reach the dizzying heights of 3.5 per cent.

Through the Twentieth Century, Australia’s unemployment rate averaged around 5% as shown in this Treasury graph.

Australia's unemployment through the twentieth century

What’s notable in that graph is how high unemployment became the norm in the last quarter of the century. When it became obvious politicians and economists couldn’t move the needle below 5%, the process of convincing us that five percent was ‘good’ began.

One wonders what the acceptable level of unemployment will be for the next generation. Will they consider us the failures that our grandparents would?

Image of unemployed carpenters in 1935 courtesy of the NSW State Library via Flickr

Similar posts:

Why you won’t retire

Can we afford to retire at 65 when life expectancy is over 80 and could be 150 in a generation?

Outliving Our Super is the headline of an Australian Financial Review story on the problems of an aging population.

Jacqui Hayes cites a billboard in San Francisco declaring that life expectancy will soon be 150 and we have to plan for longer retirements.

The flaw in this discussion is the idea of retiring in our 60s. When the age pension was introduced in 1910, a new-born boy could expect to live 55 years and a girl, 59 years. The odds were against the average person every receiving the pension which was an effective, if ruthless, way of ensuring the solvency of social security programs.

A hundred years later, a new born can expect to live well into their eighties. Meaning the average person will spend two decades in retirement.

Making matters worse is the nature of that Millennial’s work pattern – when great, great grandpa entered the workforce in the 1920s,  he was almost certainly in his early teens and worked a solid fifty years paying his taxes before prospect of retirement arrived.

Today, that child won’t enter the workforce until at least their late teens and more likely until their early twenties. A modern child is also going to have a much more fragmented work career and will likely have periods of unemployment or low earnings as a casual or contract worker.

For today’s child to retire at 65 it would mean he or she will have had to saved enough over a forty year working life to sustain them for fifteen years of retirement, those numbers are tough and to achieve it most won’t be living the millionaire lifestyle during their golden years.

With a life expectancy of 150, the early twentieth century model of retiring at 60 or 65 means today’s child would spend less than 30% of their lives in the workforce. Put simply, the numbers don’t add up.

The reality is most of us won’t be retiring at 65, the baby boomers reaching retirement age now are learning this and it’s a lesson that’s going to get harder for the Gen X’s and Y’s following them.

As a society, or an electorate, we can pretend there’s no problem and policy makers and politicians will pander to our refusal to face the truth by keeping structures that reflect early Twentieth Century aspirations rather than Twenty-First Century realities.

We have to face the reality that the retiring at 65 is unaffordable dream for most of us. Once we accept this, we can get on with building longer lasting careers.

Picture of pensioners courtesy of andreyutzu on SXC.HU

Similar posts:

Desperate Ken and market realities

Adam Smith’s invisible hand of the market is giving some people a nasty slap over the head.

Ken Slamet has a problem, his in-laws are trying to sell the family house and no-one will give them the price they want.

The house at 228 Warrimoo Ave has been on the market through an agent for more than 100 days, pulling in ridiculously low offers, Mr Slamet said.

Depending on the deposit, Mr Slamet is seeking between $1.5 million and $1.6 million for the house his wife grew up in.

One would argue that those “ridiculously low offers” are actually Mr Market giving Ken and his in-laws a slap of reality. They are simply asking for too much money.

St Ives, a suburb on Sydney’s Upper North Shore, is going through demographic change. In 1960s and 70s St Ives was the suburb for successful stock brokers and bankers, however in the 1980s and 90s that demographic decided they wanted to live closer to the city and Harbour and suburbs like Mosman and Clontarf became their areas of choice.

For Ken’s in-laws and their neighbours, this is bad news as few other people can afford 1970s mansions on large blocks within 30km of Sydney. Those who do manage to sell often find the buyers are developers who sub-divide to build townhouses or apartment blocks, madness in a congested, car-dependent suburb with poor public transport links.

Adam Smith’s invisible hand of the market is giving those holding properties that were attractive to stockbrokers in 1972 a nasty slap over the head in 2012.

Ken though has a solution for his problem – he’s offering a rent to buy scheme at a mere snip of $2297 per week. An amount 70% higher than the average Sydneysider’s gross income and a whopping four and half times the city’s average rent of $500.

Good luck with that.

The real problem is that Ken’s in-laws are stuck with expectations higher than the market reality. Like many of us in the Western world, they believe their assets are worth more than they really are.

As the global economy deleverages there will be many more people like Ken’s family. For many the transition to a less wealthy lifestyle is going to be tough.

Similar posts: