Posted on 09/15/2005 9:28:57 AM PDT by qam1
THE Australian family is under attack: not from an evil outside force intent on destroying a wholesome way of life, but from a none-too-subtle shift in values between generations.
Whereas the boomers were great supporters of mum, dad and the kids, later generations of Xers and now Ys are clearly less enamoured with family life, at least in youth. If there is a place for the traditional nuclear family in modern Australia it has been relegated to the late 30s and early 40s wasteland.
In 1991, 41 per cent of all Australian households featured a traditional nuclear family. This proportion would have exceeded 50 per cent in the 1960s. In this early manifestation of the traditional family, "the kids" numbered four and upwards.
Not like today: families have slimmed to two kids at best; a single child is common.
There is now a whole generation of Ys, and increasingly of Zs, growing up as lone kids in suburban houses. There are no brothers, sisters, cousins, uncles or aunties. These kids are quite alone.
The role of the family changed dramatically in the 90s. By 2001 only 33 per cent of all Australian households contained a traditional-styled family. In one devastating decade the family yielded 8 percentage points of market share to other, flashier, trendier, sexier households such as singles and couples.
Gen Xers didn't want to be stuck with a permanent partner and kids. They wanted to flit from relationship to relationship, job to job, home to apartment and then back to home, or from Australia to London and back.
Xers wanted to "discover themselves"; doing the daggy family thing just didn't sit well with Xer's plans for their 20s. Xers are incredulous at the suggestion they should pair up, bunker down and reproduce by 25.
"This is a no-brainer, right? The choice is either the pursuit of a cosmopolitan and funky 20- something lifestyle or spending this time cleaning up after a two-year-old? And the upside of the second choice is what exactly?"
Well, my dear little Xers, the upside of having kids in your 20s is that you grow as a person; you discover a wonderful sense of fulfilment in caring for and raising a well adjusted child who depends on you for everything.
"Bernard, please stop it. I can't take it any more. My sides are hurting. Tell me the real reason why we should forgo earning an income and having a good time in our 20s to have children.
"You mean that's it? That was for real? Look, if previous generations were dumb enough to waste their youth doing the kid thing, so be it. But don't lay any guilt trip on us just because we are exercising options that others were too stupid to grasp. And if I wanted a wonderful sense of fulfilment, then I'd go shopping."
And so the family shrivels.
By 2011 the traditional nuclear family will make up barely 28 per cent of all Australian households.
Singles and couples will account for 28 per cent of households. By the end of this decade the traditional nuclear family will no longer be the dominant social arrangement within Australia.
This is a very different world to the childhood of boomers 40 years earlier. In that world the family ruled. The family was reflected positively on television rather than in dysfunctional parody.
A suburban three-bedroom lair was designed specifically for families. No-one questioned the logic or the sanctity of the 1960s family.
The family is projected to continue on its current downward trajectory to make up just 24 per cent of all households by 2031. Single person households at this time are expected to make up 31 per cent of households.
What will Australia look like in 2031 when almost one in three households contains a single person? And this is not the young, sexy 20-something single that blossomed in the 1990s. No, the burgeoning market for singles during the 2020s will comprise sad old lonely baby boomers whose partner has died.
If we accept that there was a cultural impact from the baby boom in the 1950s that shaped consumer demand for 50 years, then we must also accept the confronting fact that there will be a "baby bust" 70 years later in the 2020s. The former delivered and deified the family; the latter will deliver a fatal blow to a social institution wounded by the shifting values of Xers and Ys 30 years earlier.
No need for sporting fields in Australian suburbia in the 2020s, but there will be a need for social and religious clubs to stem isolation within the burbs. It is an odd fact that as Australians get older and closer to death they also get closer to God. The 2020s will see a rise in religious fervour.
The bottom line is that the family is in transition, downwards. It is little wonder that political institutions are rallying behind its demise. The stark and brutal assessment is that within half a century we will have shifted from a situation where traditional families accounted for one in two households to one in four.
There will never be another decade like the 1990s when families conceded 8 percentage points in market share. After all, if we did this in the 2020s, then by the end of that decade traditional families would make up barely 17 per cent of all households. And at that level, you would have to question the basis upon which we as a nation bring up our kids. I don't think the Australian nation would ever be happy to have the majority of our children brought up in a social institution that does not contain a mother and a father living in cohabitation.
If these are our values, then the attack on the family that started in earnest in the 1990s must slow down and grind to a halt in the 2020s. Such a shift will slow down the rate of household formation and, combined with the dying off of the baby boomers in this decade, will lead to a severe slowdown in the demand for residential property in the 2020s.
As a consequence, I reckon the property industry has one, perhaps two, boom periods to run before it hits the wall at some stage during the 2020s.
Bernard Salt is a partner with KPMG
bsalt@kpmg.com.au
My point is that people who are not, can't claim to be self-supporting.
Most of the U.S. data indicates that Gen-Xers are rejecting the Boomer "Me,Me,Me" navel-contemplating, and instead are planning on having traditional families (as well as rejecting abortion). And the Y-Gen just coming up, apparently, are in large numbers rejecting the no-holds-barred sexual promiscuity of the sixties as well.
So maybe the terminology sounds the same, but reflects very different trends in the U.S. and Australia.
When ancient Greeks were learning and researching geometry and astronomy, it didn't contribute to commerce either. Two thousand years later, it made it possible to navigate ships across the oceans and led to Kepler's and Newton's discoveries of laws of motion.
It is very frustrating that the general public (that includes our congressmen and senators) thinks the purpose of education is to teach people skills (as in vocational education) instead of teaching them how to think.
By the way, I recently had to install a round mirror in a narrow corner. To determine where I need to drill holes, I used trigonometry.
Marriage is not simply a pact between two people.
Rather it is a pact between two people and society.
The decline of marriage in the West has more to to with the unfaithfulness of society to marriage.
When one examines history, one sees that this decline of traditional values is always accompanied by the fall and/or conquest of that society.
Societies, like individuals, grow soft and weak without the exercise of struggle, and are soon replaced by struggling societies that are lean, hungry, tough, fit, and aggressive.
People and society are both destroyed by ease.
But I do agree with you, qam1, that the earth is overpopulated.
And that overpopulation means there is shortage in the world, which means somewhere people are struggling and becoming lean, hungry, tough, fit, and aggressive.
The current crop of would be choice-and-master-spirits of our age, hope by spreading prosperity to all nations to thereby enervate them, and so bring peace to mankind by making the world too fat for war.
Anyway, that's their scheme.
Lord help us. Lord have mercy.
I need every penny I can get, so I do claim my kids on my W4.
Did you take free schooling for them?
No. With the exception of public school, I've paid for day care and pre-K when I needed it without using any government program. And we do not participate in the free lunch program either.
Stop by the library with them recently?
Nope. I go to the second-hand bookstore to purchase books for my kids. And don't folks without kids go to the library too? What a stupid point.
Take them to the county pool?
Definitely not. And again, I see plenty of childless people in those pools. Which is why my kids don't use them.
Use those neighborhood parks or athletic fields?
My kids go to our private community park which is maintained through association fees since it is not county-owned. And once again, childless people use those parks too.
How about I just take it to the next level, and let you know you're obviously a pompous Pharisee who doesn't like being caught at it!?!?
How about I take it to the next level and tell you that you are a jerk who should have stayed in exile.
OH! By the way, how does it feel to support a party that never ever wins? Seems like it's made you a wee lil' bit bitter.
Walk a mile in my shoes before you start talking. You have proven yourself to be an ignorant fool.
Hey butthead, how 'bout I call you a pompous moron who needs a government program to get his shoes tied? Did you drive to work today on a public road you lowlife government sponge?
I've known Ruthy for three years. And I know a lot more about her personal story than you'll ever be privileged to know. She works her backside off to provide for her family. And she does it without government handouts.
If you knew how she has personally fought for the cause of freedom in this country you would bow in awe.
But don't you see...? Merely *having* a military and living under its protection from invaders makes us all dirty thieving socialists! ;-)
Yeesh. The Libertarians are proof that you can take a few interesting ideas and spin them into a totally unworkable system if you try hard enough. They keep getting mixed up with anarchism instead of conservatism.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Thank heaven for men like you who prove that chivalry and decency is alive and well.
Love ya.
No, your claim is basically that anyone using any government services is not self-supporting - whether it be public schools or public parks. However I see no where in your claims of non-self supporting taxpayers and comments about those that use public roads. I have numerous taxpaying friends who enjoy the local public parks, the public library, and the public roads - but have no children - do you consider them to be not self-supporting?
I am beyond speechless about the horrible things that have been said on this thread.
When those of us who have been screwed by the system in a total opposite manner they claim is the norm, they turn around and attack us for being leeches at the government teat because we may just choose to utilize something the taxes we pay permit the government to provide.
Convenient conservatives make me ill.
Children are clearly a liability to their parents. It's not clear that they're a liability to society in general; most will become taxpayers, and one may find a cure for cancer. Of course, some will become criminals or welfare parasites as well. I recall seeing a study a while back that tried to compute the total externalities of a newborn child, and it came out very close to zero.
I have often wondered what life will be like for so many when the when the situation becomes like the above. How very tragic.
BWWWWAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAA
My 7yo daughter, who's nearest blood relative lives 100 miles away, is the absolute darling of her teachers and everyone anywhere we go. We live in the middle of nowhere, our nearest neighbors are 150,000+ chickens.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
I fail to see how your response is in any way a logical reply to my post.
Actually, my response was far more logical than your claim of only children growing up without family is tragic.
My comment was in response to the above situation, When it exists en masse. I was not commenting on individual children who are currently in such a situation or were in the past. I am particuarly concerned about when the majority of adults are ONLY children and these generations reach old age and find themselves with no extended families, a deceased spouse and one or no children, a circumstance also discussed briefly, by the author.
I realize exactly what the article was discussing - however the discusion had drifted away from the article itself and that was the reasons for my comment.
BTW - I stopped using an "s" in my name when I was 13 - I'll be 45 next week ;)
I had a very late night last night and a long day today - I'm hitting the sack - not ignoring questions.
good night all
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.