Some good points jodelie.

Economists predict an economic slowdown which will clip about .5 percent off GDP over the next ten years. There are a raft of national economic issues but Australia's economy is too highly geared and has therefore priced itself (labour wise) out of many international markets. Most of my thinking on this comes from Ross Garnaut - hardly a socialist - but also others across the political spectrum.

One of the key problems is that employment will drop right at the time (we're seeing it now) the Boomers move to retirement. It's a double whammy. Unfortunately it does not always follow that Boomer retirements means more jobs as hiring is multivariate and multifactor.

I agree with you that young people in jobs is the primary issue but equity wise, ensuring those Boomers who want to work on, can work on and those older folk who want to work, find work

Mr King I totally agree that those reaching retirement age, who are still willing and able, absolutely continue on as they are in the workforce.
I have seen many cases of those who have been made redundant, pushed to retire and the consequences sometimes devastating. This is often an abrupt end to a life long dedication to work. Shame, inadequacy, frustration, boredom. Many emotions are experienced that have possibly never existed before. Worse case scenario-complete isolation, withdrawal, etc.. too sad.
Have a look at some of the nicest, most well tended gardens and often there will be an elderly person or couple pottering around. And have been since retirement to fill in some of the voids.

There are many inter related issues one can see in the Australian labour market including skills mismatch, skills incompetence and exclusion of 'human resources' due to age, location and artificially applied 'industry' barriers.

Most would agree it should be about access for all who are competent, vs exclusion and cronyism, all affected by organisational or industry culture.

As easy as it is to exclude (or include) a 55+, anyone can be excluded by the industry 'nomenklatura' by one personal attribute or selection criterion on job descriptions, whether public or private. For example the candidate must be in 'local professional networks' which will exclude outsiders (+ inexperienced & foreigners).

Public sector (permanent) positons being filled by the person who acted temporarily for 3-6 months, to ensure they have front running, and benefit of job descriptions designed for and by insiders, allowing suprerior interview preparation.

International education (and diversity in the student body) is being unnecessarily nobbled by a generation or two of marketing directors (i.e. admin managers) and influencers. Most are incompetent (by definition), short term in outlook, lack essential 21st centurty management competencies, while focus is upon 'international travel' to 'offshore recruitment, professional and networking events' and 'distributing marketing materials' sounds harsh, but they are incapable of informing, let alone devising, digital marketing and SEO, now essential.

International aid and development supported by younger generations (often as volunteers) led by professional middle aged salaried directors in the loop (with mortgages), while there are multitudes of older generation of older professionals whom are more competent, many willing to work as volunteers.

Don't think it is practical to make special rules for the 'oldies' including moi, but better to ensure there is open and fair access to all in the labour market.

*Administrative work/management has been a significant occupation providing employment, job security, promotion and status but this is being gutted by the digital economy (after IT processing revolution of previous decades)..... the most damning evidence is found in job descriptions for what are now know as 'bs jobs' where personal attributes have become the actual tasks of the position....

Andras
“Most would agree it should be about access for all who are competent, …”

The question is not whether “most would agree”, it’s whether it’s true. A majority is just as liable to error as anyone else. They are not infallible; they are not a god.

No doubt most would agree they should be paid above the market rate for their services, but if governments tried to achieve that, and didn’t stop, they would destroy civilisation, which is why tens of millions starved when socialism was attempted. Since even the ignorance of the electorate won’t let the destruction go that far, politicians are stuck instead promising what they can’t deliver, and creating pockets of corrupt privilege, which is what Malcolm is unwittingly arguing in favour of.

Production is not an end in itself.

Malcolm
By the way, what do you call persisting in believing what is demonstrably untrue, because that’s what you’re doing, isn’t it?

“I agree with you that young people in jobs is the primary issue but equity wise, ensuring those Boomers who want to work on, can work on and those older folk who want to work, find work”

See how you’re now defining equity so as to exclude ethics and include initiating aggression? And see how you haven’t been able to eliminate the possibility that you would advocate lethal violence to enforce the policies you advocate, or explain how they would be workable without initiating aggression?

Speaking of objective reality, the difference between objective reality on the one hand, and fiction, fantasy, miracles, magic and such like on the other, is that nature imposes limitations on human action. Man must adjust himself to these facts if he is to have any hope of achieving his aims. This is the realm of rationality, of logic. While it is always hard to know whether a proposition is true, logic gives us tools to enable us to know when a proposition is false.

(This is (one reason) why Aristotle was such a genius. He was able to distil out of the stream of human blather the parts, and the workings, that have logically necessary consequences, thus enabling us to connect, through the logos, with objective reality).

Nature doesn’t just impose limitations on human action through physical and chemical laws, but also through economic laws. If you think about it for a minute, this must be true, otherwise there would be no physical limitations on human production possibilities. (It’s true that a lot of economic theory is bullsh!t, but that doesn’t mean that true economic theory is impossible or doesn’t exist.)

Fiction and fantasies, miracles and magic, by contrast, represent man’s *hope* that the natural limitations of objective reality can be suspended for man’s benefit. He either doesn’t know, or he pretends he doesn’t know, the nature of the limitations on human action that are non-negotiable. This is the realm of irrationality. It includes all coercive and political socialism, however called, even if it is democratic, and even if its proponents wrongly call it equitable, or are professional consultants to government departments dealing with employment.

With a rational belief system, as soon as we identify a logical flaw that invalidates it, we reject it out of hand and search for a theory that has better explaining power. With an irrational belief system, even when faced with an unanswerable proof that the theory is illogical, or self-contradictory, or factually incorrect, we ignore the disproofs, and just keep persisting in what cannot be rationally defended. And that’s what you’re doing isn’t it, which is why you can’t answer my questions, because you’re wrong, and so you’re just trying to pretend that it all hasn’t happened. Quite pathetic really, not to mention intellectually dishonest.

It can be proved in more general terms. For example, if your basal assumption were true, that government knows best how to allocate the scarce factors of production to their most valued ends, then it would be true in all other economic processes as well, and full socialism would be possible and more desirable. So you either defend that, or you show why it’s true in some fields but not others. In either case you’re talking what can be irrefutably demonstrated to be bullsh!t. Which is why you can’t answer my question, and just try to slink away from them again.

Specifically as your belief relates to older workers, to be rational, you would need to demonstrate not only that it would be better for older workers considering all the negative consequences, which you haven’t done because you haven’t considered them. If you have, what are they?

But you would also need to show that the values sacrificed to achieve what you wanted were worth it in terms of all other values sacrificed, the bayoneting babies problem, as you so charmingly – or desperately – put it.

The reason you haven’t done that, is because you’re wrong, as a matter of objective reality.

But if I am wrong then what are the answers to my questions?

All
The error you are all making is that it’s not about “competence” in some objective sense. It’s about what satisfaction the consumer/customer is trying to achieve by buying the good or service, and this is a subjective evaluation.

For example suppose someone prefers to breakfast at a café staffed by good-looking waitresses and waiters. From their point of view, this is part of the experience they’re aiming to get by their actions in purchasing breakfast. This is the objective reality that the employer is confronted with. It’s simply not true that you, or anyone other than the customer or employer, knows who is best suited for the job. Nor is there any reason why the customer should not value people differently according to any criterion which, unlike you, avoids initiating aggression.