thinkabit & Paul1405,
So, all these work being done now by the people in the workforce now is possible due to what ?
Due to the the now old people who invested in the infrastructure that enabled the present folk to keep building without having to build the base first just many of my generation built on what our elders provided & their elders before them. And, so the show works !
Will you forfeit your Superannuation/pension when you're no longer productive ? My bet is not because you paid for it up front just like we & those before us did.
I really wished there was a requirement for a license to vote when I think of how you people think !

Individual, I suspect that you don't understand exponential growth. Exponentials are tricky and not at all intuitive!

Let me try to demonstrate the power of exponential growth:

If someone is elderly, say a 75 year old aged pensioner, then that means that most likely they haven't, on balance, made a positive contribution to society's production for the last 25 years or more. Because, as I said in my previous post, productivity peaks for most in their 40's. From there it's a fast falling downward path and once 65 and retired it drops precipitously. In fact for many (at a guess including you) personal productivity becomes negative once retired because they cost the economy more than they produce.

Now, if you look at a population chart, 25 years ago Australia's population was about 18.4 million but today it is 25.9 million. That's a 71% increase!

And if you look at a GDP chart, 25 years ago the economy was about 435 billion$US while today it is about 1350 billion $US*. That's more than a 300% increase!!

So for the 25 years that the elderly candidate above has been overall non-productive the working population has supported them (along with others eg: the young, their compatriot old folk, the incapacitated, etc.) while building all the infrastructure required for a 71% increase in population (and that's a population today that demands higher living standards than 25 years ago) and at the same time more than tripling the GDP.

That's why it's correct to say that the older a retired cohort is the less they have contributed to the current wealth of Australia as a percentage of the total. Basically, the wealth of the country is mainly due to those CURRENTLY working due to exponential growth.

-- continued below --

-- from above --

Again, I challenge you. Look around your house: how many of its contents are decades old? Go for a drive: how much of the public and private infrastructure that you see is decades old (and if it was originally built decades ago- how long since its last major overhaul/renovation). The truth is that not much of the man-made world that currently surrounds us was created by the elderly.

---

By-the-way: Unless something goes catastrophically wrong, I've way too much wealth to receive a pension when I'm 65 (there probably won't be an aged pension in its current form anyway by then). And also, because I'm wealthy with a delicious yearly investments derived income, I'm severely penalised for making contributions to my super. My retirement is funded by my personal investments and not a pension/super.

---

*:admittedly, these figures are not inflation adjusted and unfortunately not $AUD- I had a quick look but couldn't find inflation adjusted $AUD figures.

shadowminister wrote " I believe you are just lying and making up stuff again. "

Of course, what Paul wrote about Menzies is utter rubbish but its not fair to say he's lying. He truly believes it. Over the years I've met many an ex-Marxist who believe things that are historical rubbish. What happens is that they get told these fables in their youth and, being used to just believing what their Marxist gurus tell them, they accept it without the need to verify.

Then later in life they regurgitate it as fact, just as Paul does in these pages. I've explained to him in the past that the pig-iron Bob assertions are rubbish. I've even shown him the evidence for that. In one ear, out the other.

So he says rubbish like Menzies "believed 10% unemployed was an acceptable number to keep workers under control." If I was to point out to him, as an example, that, in his 1962 budget speech, he said that his main aim was "to maintain full employment of man-power and resources" Paul would be unimpressed. Such truths elude people like Paul, who will both ignore and dismiss said truths.

So he's not lying. He's just delusional.

Dear o sung wu,

To be fair it should be noted that besides “parcels of food, gifts and other personal mail to the diggers fighting in Country” it also carried heavy military equipment including Centurian tanks.

And it seems navy personnel were pretty good at standing up for themselves regarding wages too. When the ship was crewed by a combined civilian and RAN contingent the naval blokes found out the civilian crew were getting a small 'war bonus' when they were in the war zone itself. The RAN crew kicked up a thorough stink and it was only resolved by the navy promising to pay the difference into the RAN Relief Trust Fund.

It seems Australians were a lot more inclined to seek collective wage justice back then. It seems we are far more compliant with mediocre offerings now to various roles now.

This doesn't of course include our police unions which are among the most powerful in the country.

Back in the early 90's police unions started affiliating themselves with the ACTU and became notably more militant securing payrises for their members well above what the ordinary worker was receiving.

“Already during the past 12 months, the various State-based police associations have secured large pay rises for their members through a strategy of greater national coordination of their wage campaigns and shrewd "working"of the centralised wagefixing system.
While most of the unionised workforce received last year the 2.5 per cent general wage rise handed down by the Industrial Relations Commission, police officers were granted special additional pay rises ranging from 5 to 26 per cent.”
http://www.afr.com/politics/police-unions-on-the-brink-of-tough-tactics-nation-wide-19920117-k4qv9

Push back from the union has been a feature ever since for instance in 2011 continuing industrial action by the NSW police force cost the taxpayers 11 million dollars.

I am assuming you would have been a beneficiary of this largess to some extent. Having benefited from such a strong union I'm interested in your view which industrial actions are acceptable and which are not?

Hi there INDIVIDUAL...

Those 521 souls who perished in Country was bad enough - but it's almost incalculable the precise number of those Vietnam Vets who've died by their own hand since?

Accordingly, we should never forget, whether a war is justified or otherwise. If a soldier of any structured military force fails to respond to the wishes of his political masters who are engaged in some warlike activity, and is sent to prosecute that war by his political masters, he must surely go. To do otherwise is tantamount to a treasonable offence.

This is a fact that most consciences objector's conveniently forget.