It's not just boomers who are discriminated against, basically anyone over 35 is "too old".
With regard to demographic changes none of them are set in stone, there are cycles both long and short which intersect and influence society.
For example:
Who's to say we won't see a different attitude to marriage at some point in the future, men are marrying older and women younger so we could see a trend toward a median age difference of 10 or 15 years in partners.
That's just one scenario which could drastically change society by causing a break in one pattern or trend and establishing another.

Malcolm King has never given any reason why older workers should not be discriminated against, and has not established any justification for policy other than pointing to problems of the government's own making, like the current unsustainable welfare shemozzle.

Malcolm's concern, like the government's, is completely fake. For if it were real, instead of standing outside the employment relation and crying for "policy" (translation: sucking the blood of the productive class) Malcolm would go right ahead and *employ* all the old people he says "employers" should be employing wouldn't he?

Well? According to Malcolm's theory the prejudice against older workers is mere irrational discrimination; they are actually undervalued in the market. This means Malcolm has NO EXCUSE WHATSOEVER for not starting up a firm that employs every single one of them, thus making a profit while solving the problem at the same time.

Of course the reason he doesn't do that, is because he fears making a loss, because he knows his own theory is wrong. That's why he's trying to get the government to do it with other people's money.

What is frustrating about the endless stupidity of all socialists is that they refuse to do the minimal brain-work to understand that their interventions make things worse for those in society with the least income, the least skills, and the least capital. It never occurs to Malcolm that all the imposts on business caused by all those prior know-it-all interventionists might have anything to do with the problem he is trying to solve by more of strangling businesses to death.

Malcolm's foundational assumptions are wrong. The solution is to do less, not more of what's causing the problem.

It has been a long time since I’ve heard a reductio absurdist argument from the libertarians. Let me give an example in the same vein for Jardine.

One of the reasons we don’t bayonet babies is that morally, we believe it’s wrong to bayonet babies. Libertarians don’t believe in morality because it can’t be demonstrated objectively or empirically. It’s just another ‘human construct’.

Jardine and his ilk believe that we should bayonet babies because to deny them the right to do so, would be a form of violence against them (the perpetrators).

Notions of merit, employment rights, even objective reality are tendentious concepts for the libertarians – unless the bayonets are turned against them. Then they soon change their tune.

The story is about how to ensure young people are not taxed to death over the next 40 years to pay for the healthcare and pensions of their parents and grandparents.

The story is about how to ensure young people are not taxed to death over the next 40 years to pay for the healthcare and pensions of their parents and grandparents.
Malcolm,
It threfore is vital that we move away from the socialist notion of givng too much now as many of us have been telling the ALP crowd for a very long time. It's only now as we predicted that when it actually starts affecting the do-gooders they too will start objecting.
The ship has only recently been fitted with a rudder & an anchor after drifting for so many years on the ALP ocean. If you're so concerned about the next generation being taxed too much then help push for a flat tax & get some of the billions back that have been paid to useless bureaucrats during the Rudd/Gillard circus.

How has the policy changed since the rout of Labor?

Governments right across the developed world are commissioning reports willy-nilly on their ageing populations, merely as an excuse to keep putting up the retirement age. Australia is no different.

Our younger generations are being brainwashed to fear having to support our so-called ageing population and that there is no alternative to putting up the retirement age. This is nonsense. We CAN support an ageing population and there are plenty of alternatives to putting up the retirement age. It's just a question of priorities.

What young people are not being told is that one day they will BE that ageing population. Most likely they will be forced to work well into their 70s, even their 80s, so that governments can keep on doing what they've always done best - pumping money into propping up corporations and banks, feathering their own nests, and financing tax cuts for the rich.