A useful article that is somewhat spoilt by a rather paranoid attitude. I am very much on the other side of the baby boomers, being a old male. Delete 'old'. Insert 'very old'. However I totally agree that the monster problem is over population. That applies to Australia as it does to the world at large. I worry that the Fiona holds Hugo up as someone to take notice of. I earnestly suggest that the she look up the large expert paper that was produced by a crew led by Hugo for the population review that the government completed a few months ago. Bad stuff as in really bad from a sustainability point of view. However Hugos thing is not as dreadful as that chaired by Ridout. That can only be described as grossly ignorant about the realities of this land. Just for something more in keeping with the Fionas(correct) view on human numbers look at the submission by Johnstone Ecological Society.
By the way Fiona. As someone who has been involved with conservation/environmentalism for many decades I have to tell that being ignored, jeered at and treated as a fool is par for the course. Pity, but the reality is that the wins are almost non existent and the draws rare. The rest of the time you just have to cop it.
And no, I do not enjoy it!

Fiona, I'm not quite sure if these words are yours or Salts.... "Baby boomers lived through the good times and should by retirement have enough superannuation to live in dignity. No doubt, most of the ‘me generation’ will continue to cling to their jobs even after they pass age 65."

No matter who's words they are, there are indeed a lot of the younger generation who see the odd "grey nomad" driving a Winnebago across the country and draw the conclusion that all 'baby boomers' have enough superannuation to fund their retirement and are simply using it all up while they can before old age grounds them for good, but this is far from the truth!

For some fortunate people e.g. State Government employees, police, PMG workers etc, superannuation was forthcoming and yes, some of those people retired quite well off after decades of service, however most of the workforce were labourers and toiled in factories on minimal wages. There used to be lots of them around until Government policies and shifts to cheaper overseas labour forced closures in the 70's to early 90's. For them, there was little hope of "saving for the future" which younger people tend to forget. They struggled all their working lives, retired at 65 and lived a miserable existence if they didn't already own a modest dwelling. And...... there were millions of them!

I know the story well. I first started work in 1970 and soon became a seasoned labourer working menial tasks in factories which amounted to little better than "sweat-shops." At one place in 1982, I was receiving just $4.20 an hour which even in those times was considered very poor money, but it keep a roof over my head, clothes on my kid's backs and food on the table. There was no chance to put anything away for the future and no opportunity to re-skill in order to earn more.

Cont....

Compulsory superannuation was introduced in the 80's, but all it did was remove any chance of a pay rise so the boss could pay into the scheme without denting the bottom line. It wasn't until I reached my late forties that I was able to retrain in the health industry as a professional and now enjoy a reasonable wage, albeit little better than the current minimum wage. It's only the long night shifts that make it reasonable and with it the constant jet-lagged feeling caused by juggling between the times shifts from a daily routine to that of night shift throughout each week and the resultant loss of quality sleep. This position, even though professional, has only the default compulsory 9% super and has less than $50,000 in it. It won't have much more by the time I reach 66, the new pension age, especially if we have another GFC

Still, I consider myself very fortunate. I'm genetically predisposed to longevity and own a (very) modest home, but I hope those genes are strong as I cannot afford health cover, therefore nor can I afford to see a specialist should the need arise. Realising that I'll never be comfortable in retirement, I now only work half time. I leave a very small environmental footprint and have few vices. I simply can't afford to. Yet overall I'm very happy and content to take my chances. I have few financial burdens while I continue to work, but my future is far less certain. Definitely no Winnebago's for me in retirement!

So to all those of the younger generations, before you condemn all 'baby boomers' as wasteful, greedy and sucking off the teat of yours and future tax-payers, maybe you'll reflect on what I've written and realise that the percentage of rich 'grey nomads' is indeed a small, yet highly viable section of retirees. Superannuation wasn't always compulsory you know!

Another needed article by Fiona Heinrichs. Firstly let's deal with the matter of whether or not Bernard Salt is a demographer. You can hear his own voice modestly denying that he is a demographer on a Youtube which you can get to at http://tinyurl.com/3rbt8q9. He declares himself to be not a demographer but an historian specializing in Australian urban history. But it does seem that he may enjoy to bask in the mistaken reporting of journalists who “insist” on calling him a demographer. He is a partner in KPMG.

It is of more importance to dispel the idea that Australia needs to grow in order to have a tax base to look after the retiring baby boomers. Before making up your mind on this, have a read of the paper by Michele Levine, CEO of Roy Morgan Research, given March 31, 2011. Found at: http://www.roymorgan.com/resources/pdf/papers/20110401.pdf. Or better, watch the presentation: http://tinyurl.com/4yhou23, or download it at http://prog.streamcast.com.au/roymorgan/SON7Launch060411.flv (117 MB in size)

Fiona, you say you would be prepared to publically debate with (self-styled demographer) Bernard Salt on the issue of population growth. Good for you. I hope you have spoken to people at the ABC and other radio and TV stations. They often engage him when a population issue comes up, in the belief that he is some sort of expert, but the reality is that he is an advocate for the business lobby - as most pro-growth supporters are.

He is a constant advocate for population growth, and in today's article in The Australian he says he will be speaking at the annual congress of the Property Council on 25 July and will launch a scathing attack on those who argue against him and against property development. I wonder if the public interest will get a mention?

I agree with the first poster that your article is somewhat 'paranoid'. You appear to feel that there is a conspiracy of older people suppressing your work which you humbly describe as of 'monumental importance'. I doubt that it is. In fact, ideas about population restriction are yet another rehashing of 200 yr old Malthusian population theory.

You could learn from the story of Paul Ehrlich who, using similar Mathusian ideas and spurred on by the new environmentalism, predicted mass starvation in the US during the 1980s (amongst other disasters). He was a Professor of Population Ecology yet he was completely wrong on a number of counts.