Glenn, with three kids aged 18-(almost)24, one left home, one about to leave home,I think that's a pretty accurate appraisal. I take issue however with your comment "Young people in particular, are the victims of the new forms of precarious employment, which tends to be casual with minimum pay and conditions and limited prospects for further advancement in the field." I don't think that the term "victims" is accurate or helpful, many young people I know, including my kids, have appreciated and benefited from casual, temporary employment, they've learned valuable work and life skills and it's complemented their non-work life. As you say, the latter is often more important to this generation than it was to more work-focussed earlier generations who lived in harder times and, in my view, had fewer opportunities.

Re schoolies, two of my kids had no interest, one went and returned unscathed.

I am sorry but anyone's greatest asset is their home, real estate.
Assets have nothing to do with people. Not now when everything has a dollar value.
A youth is not more valuable than a 40-year old or a 60-year-old.
I always laugh when I catch one of those bumper sticks "Baby on board".You mean a baby is more valuable that the person who drives the car.
The bumper sticker should read "Driver on board". Doesn't that sound silly. Yes it sounds as silly as valuing a baby or a child more valuable than anyone older than that baby.
The only time that anything is valuable is in the time of "Now' and that is a split second.
This world is the world of monitary value.
Take a man or woman's monitary value away and we have two people on social welfare no matter what their wisdom or knowlege or even that they are members' of Mensa.
The same with today's youth. It does not matter how intelligent an adolescent is if they have no wealth to go to universty or TAFE, they will miss out on jobs and opportunity.

Off on a tangent here, GlenWriter there is a history to those Baby On Board stickers. A few years back, quite a few now I'd imagine, there was a car accident in the US in which people were stuck in a burning vehicle. Rescuers managed to save the adult/s, but unknown to them a baby was in the back seat. Tragedy struck. Hence the stickers came out to alert to the presence of a baby on board in case of similar circumstances. Wouldn't seem to be a lot of value in it to me given the freak nature of the incident, and nowadays it really just means a baby might be on board. Wouldn't suprise me if the next phase involves some rescuer copping third degree burns trying to rescue a non-baby on board.

Children are our greatest asset, a house can't work to produce anything. Our children can produce love and affection for us, an economy, our future, and this country's continueing prosperity, that being the case, I would agree with this article, completely, we need to see the whole picture, please remove your blinkers GlenWriter

a good article and a fair point fautismo, allthough i think it may take some time for the effects (good or bad) of opportunity over stability in the job market to become fully apparent, i guess we will see how everyone keeps track of their super while constantly changing jobs. personally i prefer opportunity, i have never had any capacity for 'loyalty' to a job, but you grow up, as the author said, in a growing trend towards globalisation and its associated individualism(as opposed to national, social, racial or work groupings) and thats what your going to get. i have no qualms about jumping job or even country(for a while anyway) if i dont agree with the situation.

i also recently moved out of home, at the ripe old age of 23. i stayed at home through my degree not through lack of independance, but through the simple inability to work enough hrs, outside of the 15-16hrs or so i spent at uni every day, to feed myself.

HarryC to reduce the population it is better if the baby dies.
Our greatest asset are adults with intelligence to recognise that we need to reduce our population. We have already been told Australia has not enough water and we are all going to die from thirst in the future so why keep children alive if they are going to die in 20 years' time.

Glenwriter, sad commentary. Who is to say that the adult is more valuable to society than a baby? The baby could in fact grow to be the most wonderful human, go on to invent water sustainability and much more. I would reach whomever I could reach. Do you kick the cat and hiss at innocent children on your good days?

In response to the article I do agree with the shift in the values of younger people. One major drawback of the IR reforms is that due to many people seeking more hours to cover what they will lose in penalty rates, and single mothers and people with disabilities out there looking for work, the jobs which previous went to school age kids, will be taken up by these people.

It will be interesting to see the shifting sands which will occur both for the young people who use this money to fund the 'extras', and often help in supporting their families,but do not have the full realm of family responsibility, and, for those who need the work to feed their families, pay their rent and bills. Part time, and casual Work and employment will now become a commodity which will be fought over vigorously. I can see many people demanding that school age workers give up their jobs so that parents can have their hours, and at least feed and clothe their families.

Glen, you're taking the piss and I'm laughing my head off.

Dr Dawes

Nobody is any more valuable than anybody else. We just are who we are. And in that vein, we are to a great extent who and what our generation shapes us to be.

You describe a young generation that differs in attitude to those that precede it. But what if you take a longer view? What id you go back 20 or 30 years and re-run your analysis; you'll find the same outcome - a generation with different views to its parents'. Go forward 30 or 50 years and I'll wager that again you'll find the same outcome.

Every 'young' generation will be experiencing something different to its parents. Things change as societies mature, new ideas emerge, new patterns of educating, labour, living, entertainment emerge. So inevitably the current new generation of school leavers and new employees is more adaptive to a flexible career path than was the case for my generation (1972 graduate).

However here's a thought for you. My father's father, after being forced into the workforce at 14, changed jobs many times. My father too had several jobs over a successful career. I have been laid off twice and now am building a business that includes a 'portfolio' of jobs. How far removed is that from my 18yo son's first job - in fast food - as a casual. Or his present full-time job on an AWA - effectively as a casual, with no holiday pay. He accepted these terms immediately and recognises that he has no more certainty than did I. The difference is now its well known and better understood. And he accepts it as the way it is and gets on with doing a good job.

I too accept it, and have always thought that my security depended solely on my performance, not on any tenure of office, award or contract. And most of the productive people I have worked with over the years seemed to hold the same view.

So in the end, the more things change, the more things stay the same.

its allways funny when people say 'the children are our future'. they are not. they are their own future, you are their past. and the past is irrevelant.

A good article.

The comment made in the penultimate par is spot-on: "Adolescence is a time when issues such as “Who am I?” and “Where do I fit in this world?” are of paramount importance to young people." This is my expereince as a father of three teenagers, if that counts for anything. More pertinently, that was certainly my experience.

However, the suggestion made in the final par points to the problem we have. The writer suggests we should "provide adequate forms of welfare, educational and employment provisions to support young people and their families in coping with the rapid social and economic changes that are occurring in contemporary Australian society." Well, maybe. The problem is that this does not address the philosophical question of 'who am I?', and we need to answer that question in order to answer the one about 'Where do I fit in the world?".

Tinkerbell1952, I agree with your assesment, some people are so blinkered in their view, that they could run a Melbourne Cup, That intellegence range also suits the arguement presented re let the children die, because we have no water. We can use desalanation plants if need be, solar energy, to save water that large industry uses, as well to keep their plants going, in North Queensland, we are using recycled water, after treatment, to keep our Nickel refinery going, innovation that will be lost to us in future if children are not considered "our best asset". We need to be nurtureing young minds, so they can build on our technology, this is the way of the future, a great pity those who don't agree, are unable to see.

If Generation X is 1965-1976 and Generation Y is 1979-1994 then what about the people born in 1977-1978?

'76 was a good year ;-)