Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Nuclear family gets nuked by the Gen-Xers
The Australian ^ | 9/15/05 | Bernard Salt

Posted on 09/15/2005 9:28:57 AM PDT by qam1

THE Australian family is under attack: not from an evil outside force intent on destroying a wholesome way of life, but from a none-too-subtle shift in values between generations.

Whereas the boomers were great supporters of mum, dad and the kids, later generations of Xers and now Ys are clearly less enamoured with family life, at least in youth. If there is a place for the traditional nuclear family in modern Australia it has been relegated to the late 30s and early 40s wasteland.

In 1991, 41 per cent of all Australian households featured a traditional nuclear family. This proportion would have exceeded 50 per cent in the 1960s. In this early manifestation of the traditional family, "the kids" numbered four and upwards.

Not like today: families have slimmed to two kids at best; a single child is common.

There is now a whole generation of Ys, and increasingly of Zs, growing up as lone kids in suburban houses. There are no brothers, sisters, cousins, uncles or aunties. These kids are quite alone.

The role of the family changed dramatically in the 90s. By 2001 only 33 per cent of all Australian households contained a traditional-styled family. In one devastating decade the family yielded 8 percentage points of market share to other, flashier, trendier, sexier households such as singles and couples.

Gen Xers didn't want to be stuck with a permanent partner and kids. They wanted to flit from relationship to relationship, job to job, home to apartment and then back to home, or from Australia to London and back.

Xers wanted to "discover themselves"; doing the daggy family thing just didn't sit well with Xer's plans for their 20s. Xers are incredulous at the suggestion they should pair up, bunker down and reproduce by 25.

"This is a no-brainer, right? The choice is either the pursuit of a cosmopolitan and funky 20- something lifestyle or spending this time cleaning up after a two-year-old? And the upside of the second choice is what exactly?"

Well, my dear little Xers, the upside of having kids in your 20s is that you grow as a person; you discover a wonderful sense of fulfilment in caring for and raising a well adjusted child who depends on you for everything.

"Bernard, please stop it. I can't take it any more. My sides are hurting. Tell me the real reason why we should forgo earning an income and having a good time in our 20s to have children.

"You mean that's it? That was for real? Look, if previous generations were dumb enough to waste their youth doing the kid thing, so be it. But don't lay any guilt trip on us just because we are exercising options that others were too stupid to grasp. And if I wanted a wonderful sense of fulfilment, then I'd go shopping."

And so the family shrivels.

By 2011 the traditional nuclear family will make up barely 28 per cent of all Australian households.

Singles and couples will account for 28 per cent of households. By the end of this decade the traditional nuclear family will no longer be the dominant social arrangement within Australia.

This is a very different world to the childhood of boomers 40 years earlier. In that world the family ruled. The family was reflected positively on television rather than in dysfunctional parody.

A suburban three-bedroom lair was designed specifically for families. No-one questioned the logic or the sanctity of the 1960s family.

The family is projected to continue on its current downward trajectory to make up just 24 per cent of all households by 2031. Single person households at this time are expected to make up 31 per cent of households.

What will Australia look like in 2031 when almost one in three households contains a single person? And this is not the young, sexy 20-something single that blossomed in the 1990s. No, the burgeoning market for singles during the 2020s will comprise sad old lonely baby boomers whose partner has died.

If we accept that there was a cultural impact from the baby boom in the 1950s that shaped consumer demand for 50 years, then we must also accept the confronting fact that there will be a "baby bust" 70 years later in the 2020s. The former delivered and deified the family; the latter will deliver a fatal blow to a social institution wounded by the shifting values of Xers and Ys 30 years earlier.

No need for sporting fields in Australian suburbia in the 2020s, but there will be a need for social and religious clubs to stem isolation within the burbs. It is an odd fact that as Australians get older and closer to death they also get closer to God. The 2020s will see a rise in religious fervour.

The bottom line is that the family is in transition, downwards. It is little wonder that political institutions are rallying behind its demise. The stark and brutal assessment is that within half a century we will have shifted from a situation where traditional families accounted for one in two households to one in four.

There will never be another decade like the 1990s when families conceded 8 percentage points in market share. After all, if we did this in the 2020s, then by the end of that decade traditional families would make up barely 17 per cent of all households. And at that level, you would have to question the basis upon which we as a nation bring up our kids. I don't think the Australian nation would ever be happy to have the majority of our children brought up in a social institution that does not contain a mother and a father living in cohabitation.

If these are our values, then the attack on the family that started in earnest in the 1990s must slow down and grind to a halt in the 2020s. Such a shift will slow down the rate of household formation and, combined with the dying off of the baby boomers in this decade, will lead to a severe slowdown in the demand for residential property in the 2020s.

As a consequence, I reckon the property industry has one, perhaps two, boom periods to run before it hits the wall at some stage during the 2020s.

Bernard Salt is a partner with KPMG

bsalt@kpmg.com.au


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: deathofthewest; genx; havemorebabies
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 241-255 next last
To: GovernmentShrinker

Exactly. People with children conveniently forget the rest of us are covering them too.


141 posted on 09/15/2005 2:25:30 PM PDT by k2blader (Hic sunt dracones..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Melas
The vast majority of childless 30 something and 40 something individuals I meet are bigger children than my children.

Correlation is not causation. There are plenty of 30-something and 40-something individuals with children who are "self-centered prima-donnas with little or no maturity". (These people are the worst IMO, treating their children as baubles.)

The ability to get knocked up has no bearing on maturity or character. Where I live, being childless in your 30s and 40s is normal, and not remotely a mark of maturity.

142 posted on 09/15/2005 2:30:49 PM PDT by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
Those from a generation who's parents had such a high divorce rate are cynical about marriage. Who wants to tie the not when she will leave you in 5-10 years and take all your money?

And the parents were urged to find themselves and free themselves from burdens of childcare and the chains of traditional societal roles. All courtesy of the 60's-70's and their 'me' message and the greed and drugs, etc. How could the gen X'ers be any different? (I'm not excusing, but it's easy to see why they've become disillusioned...)

143 posted on 09/15/2005 2:33:15 PM PDT by fortunecookie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
Those from a generation who's parents had such a high divorce rate are cynical about marriage. Who wants to tie the not when she will leave you in 5-10 years and take all your money?

And the parents were urged to find themselves and free themselves from burdens of childcare and the chains of traditional societal roles. All courtesy of the 60's-70's and their 'me' message and the greed and drugs, etc. How could the gen X'ers be any different? (I'm not excusing, but it's easy to see why they've become disillusioned...)

144 posted on 09/15/2005 2:33:18 PM PDT by fortunecookie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

I wasn't boasting and wasn't being snide.

I pay the property taxes for my school district, so you are being intellectually dishonest by saying that he is paying for my kids since I am paying a share too every time I get a paycheck or write that mortgage check.

Sorry that he pays a boatload of taxes. I have an intense dislike for the current tax system and would like to see the IRS abolished altogether.

That said, if I was bringing home six figures, I wouldn't be saying that I wasn't certain of my ability to support children.

If you make that much money, you can certainly have and provide for a dozen children.

Unless you just can't bear to part with that 4th car you have parked in your garage. Then you better stick with just 6 kids. ;-D

That was a joke, but I intend it to show quite a bit of scorn for someone who openly posts about making six figures and then has the nerve to say that he isn't certain he can provide for kids.

That's just ridiculous.


145 posted on 09/15/2005 2:37:06 PM PDT by RMDupree (HHD: Join the Hobbit Hole Troop Support - http://freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Feldkurat_Katz
We treat children as if they were a liability, not an asset (investment).

We don't treat them like a liability, they are a liability by any reasonable analysis. And society pretends like they are an asset. The reason we are even having this discussion is that society is "shocked" that reality is not conforming to their ideals when it is patently obvious that the ideal is based on invalid assumptions.

There was a time when children were an asset, but it has been a while since that was true. Most people clearly recognize this in their behavior (biological urges notwithstanding), even if society has yet to acknowledge it.

146 posted on 09/15/2005 2:37:29 PM PDT by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Corin Stormhands

(((Corin)))


147 posted on 09/15/2005 2:37:42 PM PDT by RMDupree (HHD: Join the Hobbit Hole Troop Support - http://freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: tortoise
Back of the envelope, about 80% of the atheists I know (and being where I am, I know many) are married. However, less than half of those have children, though a few of those have several children.

This is my observation too. No children or one child.

148 posted on 09/15/2005 2:38:04 PM PDT by A. Pole (" There is no other god but Free Market, and Adam Smith is his prophet ! Bazaar Akbar! ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Corin Stormhands; RMDupree

Thanks, Corin.....Ruthy and I are well acquainted with each other.

I am having a bit of an issue right now with the school district - but that is more because the principal, teachers and I are on the same side and the PTB don't like it :) But I am extremely happy with the district.


149 posted on 09/15/2005 2:41:30 PM PDT by Gabz ((Chincoteague, VA) USSG Warning: portable sewing machines cause broken ankles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Shazolene
Thank you for a civil response.

But what is the remedy? I believe that government and society do have an obligation to do what they can to encourage the furtherance of the species and the country by encouraging families. The only means they have to do this is through monetary and tax policy. Would you support a movement to change those policies in ways that would support families?

Laissez-nous faire

Half of our problem today is social engineering run amok. More social engineering is unlikely to help.

Culture and civility are more important to civilization than law. These united States have spent the last several generations destroying the foundations of civil society.

It is sad, bad and dangerous. I would like to see it changed. Would you?

Absolutely, but we didn't paint ourselves into to this corner overnight and nor will we escape our current dilemma overnight.

Its not simply a matter of knowing what to do.

Decadence is *knowing* the correct course of action but being incapable of taking that course.

150 posted on 09/15/2005 2:45:24 PM PDT by AdamSelene235 (Truth has become so rare and precious she is always attended to by a bodyguard of lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker; RMDupree

OUCH.

So in your mind those of us paying taxes should NOT avail ourselves of such things as the public school system just because people that don't use them are also paying for them?


151 posted on 09/15/2005 2:47:45 PM PDT by Gabz ((Chincoteague, VA) USSG Warning: portable sewing machines cause broken ankles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: tortoise

Wrong. There is nothing on this earth more sobering or more maturing than when you take responsibility for a new life. The childless can deny this until they are all blue in the face but it won't change the veracity of it at all.


152 posted on 09/15/2005 2:48:35 PM PDT by Melas (The dumber the troll, the longer the thread)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: tortoise

"For most people, it does not make sense to have children in your 20s which is the real reason this is happening -- if it isn't rational, most people won't do it."

Which is why I tell my daughters to live their lives from their hearts rather than relying on their minds to know what's best for them.

There are things one just cannot know until one has aged, has lived, and has observed one's peers live (no one really pays much attention to older people-- people mostly figure that THEIR generation has all the answers.) So, by my reckoning, if one knows in their heart that they are meant to have children, one should go ahead, while one who either does not know that, or knows the opposite, shouldn't.

I was the first kind, so I had children in my twenties. Now, I'm 46 and both are in college. My husband and I are young and healthy enough to do everything we want to (hike, camp, travel, pursue new interests like art) and we have plenty of money and time to do them. Life is great!

One learns and grows from raising children-- not that it cannot be done in any other way as it obviously can, but it can also be more easily avoided by the childless. Parenting tests us, hones our character, and ultimately separates the wheat from the chaff. Just as I know people who say that the Marine Corps MADE them, I feel the same way about parenting-- it MADE me.


153 posted on 09/15/2005 2:51:52 PM PDT by walden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: tortoise

You can't be serious? Children aren't an asset? Survival of the species is advantageous (an understatement) and last time I checked, we needed to breed to insure our continued survival..


154 posted on 09/15/2005 2:52:39 PM PDT by Melas (The dumber the troll, the longer the thread)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Zechariah_8_13
Only a relationship built on a rock solid foundation -Christ and commitment to stay married forever- can work.

Sorry - you do not need one for the other. Do my husband and I believe in God? Of course we do. Is that what our relationship is based upon? No. Does that make us bad people? No. Does it make us less likely to stay together? Absolutely not.

155 posted on 09/15/2005 2:57:14 PM PDT by Gabz ((Chincoteague, VA) USSG Warning: portable sewing machines cause broken ankles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Melas
There is nothing on this earth more sobering or more maturing than when you take responsibility for a new life.

Some day you'll have to explain the multitude of immature idiots with children that are clearly present in our society. Either having children imparts only a marginal amount of maturity on the parents such that there are childless individuals who have more baseline maturity than these individuals with children, or you are over-stating your position.

As more of a pedantic "that is a stupid point" nitpick, taking responsibility for a life is what it is, whether you are talking about a baby or a stranger.

156 posted on 09/15/2005 2:58:23 PM PDT by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: k2blader; GovernmentShrinker
People with children conveniently forget the rest of us are covering them too.

I can not believe comments like this.

157 posted on 09/15/2005 3:01:08 PM PDT by Gabz ((Chincoteague, VA) USSG Warning: portable sewing machines cause broken ankles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Melas

I'm just pointing out the truth about who is paying to raise them.


158 posted on 09/15/2005 3:04:41 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Melas
That 'wooshing' sound you hear is my point going right over your head; I am using a strict calculus of value. For starters, you need to learn how 'asset' is usually defined. Nothing you said contradicts my point.

Drop all the handwavy touchy-feely stuff (that is the domain of liberals) and do the hard, cold math. I have no objection to people having children, but I do object when people pretend they are something they are not as a matter of principle. They are a liability in every sense of the word, arguably even emotionally if one does an objective analysis.

159 posted on 09/15/2005 3:07:19 PM PDT by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: darkangel82

Classifying anything as private property, instead of as community property subject to government control, is hardly socialist.


160 posted on 09/15/2005 3:07:32 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 241-255 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson