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
More RIGHT ON THE MARK comments.......
I'm done for the night - sleep well all.
Years ago when I was a teen, someone made the above point to me, and it's one I just can't argue with. It made sense then and it makes sense now.
The real solution is to dismantle the welfare state and programs and lower the tax rate.
Exactly.
And now I am truly calling it a night.
you know why divorce is so expensive??? because its worth it!
I didn't assume anything--she says above that she didn't accept free schooling and in practically the same sentence admitted she did. 'Welfare queen' I may be, but at least I don't preach about how I am not accepting government largesse, especially so vituperately, to another poster merely pointing out that generally, single taxpayers subsidize family taxpayers in the US. You don't like me pointing out hypocrites, tell her not to be such a public one.
To quote from my freeper home page: "I don't represent the LP, or stand for the LP. My freepername is about giving a perspective on who I am and where I was at the time I stopped lurking. That's it." I don't represent libertarians or Libertarians, and never have claimed to. And your labeling my posts 'bad behavior' is certainly your perspective--if I'm addressing a hypocrite who's attacked the personage of a rational poster, especially a post and a poster that I support in message and tone, it's appropriate to toss flames right back at `em. And there is nothing bad about that in my view.
My 'asinine' comments are such that you couldn't respond to them if you wanted to, since I'm sure a rock could beat you in a game of checkers. I'll miss your company like Clark Clifford's. See ya.
I suggest you try gabbing to someone who cares.
---I'm a poster on this board who had cause to correct another Freeper whose comments were less than responsive and sidestepped the issue raised by another Freeper by being insulting.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you said you worked in another country.....If I am wrong I will offer my apologies, I expect you will be doing so just as quickly.
---And so I did say I worked in another country, but there is no connection between that and 'who am I to speak to you.' I don't recall hearing about you ever granting a royal audience, chuckles. Whatever my presence in another country today or tomorrow, I have every right to point out the hypocrisy of another poster, especially one who seems hellbent on denying their own involvement in the ubergovernment of the U.S. Your evident alliance with and personal knowledge of 'Ruthy' notwithstanding, she was wrong in calling out GS's comments, which are 100% dead on, and telling GS, "So you place your condescending commentary where the sun don't shine, doll." Who the heck do you think you are to defend that? It's perfectly obvious--an obsequious omadhawn who thinks manners are only appropriate for people who ain't you or your pals. So I have one more thing to say to you in this post, and it ends with 'and the horse you rode on in on!'
Physician, heal thyself.
And the horse you rode in on.
Oh, Corin, you're as original as ever, and almost as bereft of value to the reader...except, of course, you use my words, which decreases the futility of your own a smidge.
I am a Boomer and I haven't made any demands
This comment is ageism
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.