Let's take the heat out of the debate.
We are obviously from a range of different generations, each with their own challenges.
We have a range of different life experiences all of which contribute to our perceptions and opinions.
'Boomer' seems to be a term that has now taken on a strange derogatory connotation.
It's used as an insult.
I find it that a bit strange because those kids born in the 40s, 50s and early 60s can't be held repsonsible for the timing of their birth.
The fact is that our make up is not just a result of some perceived inequity in opportunities.
It's from a whole range of life experiences, and if opportunity existed how we managed those opportunities, and choices we made.
I certainly don't think it was tougher back in the day...but it wasn't a dream run and that seems to get lost a lot in these conversations about different time periods.
Higher education was cheaper, much cheaper...but I seem to remember losing half my classmates and friends in Year 10 when situations at home required them to go out and get jobs.
So there were swings and roundabouts.
I remember around Year 10-11 there was a bit of uncertainty as to whether we'd be heading off to Uni when we finished school or to Vietnam.
The protest movements of the 60s and trade Union fights for working conditions in the 60s and 70s also had strong representation from "Boomers".
It wasn't worse than it is today.
The challenges were just different.
And in 30-40 years time the young folk of the day will complain about the current 30-40 year olds.
And yes, as I think Thry is getting at, It is the leaders who are the ones who can make a real difference.
The very first step, and of course it would be expensive, would be to make higher education free for all and wipe the HECS debts.
We are obviously from a range of different generations, each with their own challenges.
We have a range of different life experiences all of which contribute to our perceptions and opinions.
'Boomer' seems to be a term that has now taken on a strange derogatory connotation.
It's used as an insult.
I find it that a bit strange because those kids born in the 40s, 50s and early 60s can't be held repsonsible for the timing of their birth.
The fact is that our make up is not just a result of some perceived inequity in opportunities.
It's from a whole range of life experiences, and if opportunity existed how we managed those opportunities, and choices we made.
I certainly don't think it was tougher back in the day...but it wasn't a dream run and that seems to get lost a lot in these conversations about different time periods.
Higher education was cheaper, much cheaper...but I seem to remember losing half my classmates and friends in Year 10 when situations at home required them to go out and get jobs.
So there were swings and roundabouts.
I remember around Year 10-11 there was a bit of uncertainty as to whether we'd be heading off to Uni when we finished school or to Vietnam.
The protest movements of the 60s and trade Union fights for working conditions in the 60s and 70s also had strong representation from "Boomers".
It wasn't worse than it is today.
The challenges were just different.
And in 30-40 years time the young folk of the day will complain about the current 30-40 year olds.
And yes, as I think Thry is getting at, It is the leaders who are the ones who can make a real difference.
The very first step, and of course it would be expensive, would be to make higher education free for all and wipe the HECS debts.