Australia's youth and the Federal budget

The 2014 Federal budget was appalling in a lot of ways - but the one that particularly sticks out is the especially mean-spirited treatment of Australia's youth.

The goal appears to be getting young people into work or further education.  In itself, that is an admirable goal, but the methods of achieving this have absolutely no hope in hell of making a difference.  Well, that's not exactly true - they will make a difference, but there is very little hope that this will be a positive one.

Let's start with the deregulation of university fees. There are two main issues here:

1. Creating a tiered system of tertiary education not based upon intelligence, skill or future potential, but upon how much one is willing (or able) to pay; 
2. The devaluation of education for education's sake.  The decision to go to university must be a career choice, and we expect that 17-18 year olds have enough self-knowledge to be able to commit to spending tens (possibly hundreds) of thousands of dollars on a degree that will satisfy their future career aspirations (because they'll be paying for it for a very long time). 

As a young person with no exact idea of what I want to do with my life, I might perhaps wish to spend a few years working before I commit to accruing such a large debt.   That's would be all well and good if the youth unemployment rate wasn't around 13% (much higher in some areas).  That's not to mention that there are very few jobs that one can get these days that don't require some experience, or some post-secondary study.  And let's not forget that anyone under 30 won't qualify for unemployment benefits for the first six months. 

So what is a young person to do?  If they can't get a job then they will have to study.  Universities and other tertiary education campuses become dumping grounds for students who have no inclination towards higher education, and no desire to be there.  It looks good politically though because it keeps them off the unemployment statistics. 

Then we have to consider the huge debts that we are forcing our young people to incur that will need to be paid back, with close to commercial rates of interest.  The young people of Australia already have very little hope of ever being able to afford a home, and their future education debts combined with house prices and cost of living simply push this slim hope into the impossible.

We are essentially forcing our young people to supplement our taxation revenues into the foreseeable future - to become indentured servants.  We are offering them very little in terms of incentive - just the slim hope that they might be able to find a job after they finish studying - no guarantees though, and they'll still have to wait six months to access the dole if they can't find a job. 

Our universities should be places of higher education for those who are so inclined.  We should stop requiring higher education for roles that can and should be learnt 'on the job'.  We should tackle the problem of youth unemployment so that the kids who want a job won't be forced into study, won't be forced to incur those debts.  At the very least, if we are going to force them into higher education, we should make every attempt to limit the costs of that education.

Is this really the Australia that we want to live in?  Is this really what we want for our children?

The value of capitalism (or not...)

Why do we accept that some roles within our society are inherently more valuable than others, and why aren't we asking ourselves what we value, and why we value it?

There has been some recent dispute about executive salaries, and why the top end of town apparently deserve to earn mega bucks whilst the great majority struggle along on minimum or average wage.

The dispute has so far seemed to come down to the dollar value, in the sense that we have been acclimatised to believe that our contributions to our society are not sufficiently worthy unless and until we are making money.  My premise is that the only jobs which allow us entry to the higher echelons are those that have a profit motive. 

Surely we have it wrong... Why do we accept that at CEO should earn a huge salary and at the same time accept that a teacher should earn only a small proportion of that.  Surely the education of the next generation is something we should value more highly than the garnering of more wealth.

What about a nurse, a nursing home worker or even a doctor - we're all going to get old and/or sick one day - so why do we seemingly accept that the value that those workers could give to our lives, or our wellbeing, is worth less than those higher up the capitalist ladder?

How did we get it so mixed up?  How did we actually come to believe that our CEOs were worth more to our society than our teachers, our nurses or anybody that actually makes a difference in our lives?  Because apparently we did make that decision, or why else would we so readily accept that these huge executive salaries are justifiable.

The central draw of capitalism is the idea that we all have the chance to succeed, that one day, if we work long and hard enough, if we really try, we too might climb higher up the ladder.  That might be true, but one of the only ways to the top is to be engaged in a profession which has money at its core.  Are we really chasing the right dream?

The system, as it currently stands, assumes some heirachy of value, of worth.  It does so in two ways:

1. Within companies and businesses: so that those higher up the ladder are paid more, for their experience and skill (i.e. for their ability to make money, or manage others to make money)*; and
2. Across society as a whole: by categorising some jobs as having a higher value (salary). 

Why don't we value all contributions to our society?  Why do we accept that some of us who choose to contribute to society outside the quest for profit are worth less to our fellow humans than someone who exploits us for profit?  Why aren't we questioning what is really of value to us as a community?  Why do we blindly accept that the pursuit of profit is more valuable to us as a society than the people who contribute to our wellbeing?

I'm starting to sound like a socialist - but that's not what I'm advocating.  I am simply wondering why we blindly accept the status quo, why we don't ask why it is the way it is, why we don't value all contributions which allow our society to function, why we don't question that profit is the driving force in our society?

* Relative value within capitalist organisations is not addressed in this post, which instead focuses on relative value across our society.

Infertility and acceptance

This is one of those personal topics that I tried to keep separate - I'm not exactly sure why though...

I am an infertile woman, I am married to an infertile man.  Neither of us has been told that there is absolutely no hope, neither of us have been told that we should just give up - the chances are immesurably slim (when adding both our problems together), but the doctors try to keep our hopes up and refuse to tell us that it's not possible...

Infertility is a curse - a huge, horrible curse that lies across our sex-life, our marriage, and our happiness.  We've been coping with it a long time now, and we've actually become quite adept at managing our expectations, but the reality remains that it's just not going to happen for us, save for a miracle (and I don't really believe in miracles, despite how hard I try).

I spent a lot of time tonight commenting on an article at The Guardian. It was an amazing article, and well worth a read. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/06/i-know-the-pain-of-infertility-and-talking-about-it-helps.  We need to talk about infertility, we need to appreciate that there are stages of infertility, that there are stages of acceptance.

For those suffering through infertility - you need to know that it's not your fault, you need to know that you are worthy, you need to know that you're not being punished.  I spent so long thinking that I was being punished, that if I could just be good enough, worthy enough, I would be rewarded with what I really wanted.

It's not about worth - other than the self-worth you apply to yourself.  Your worth is not measured by how fertile you are.  I have a lot to offer this world, but I did once think that I could only measure that worth by my fertility, by how much my potenital children could learn from me.  I am so much more than that - I can be so much more than that.

I absolutely want to declare at this point that I have experienced very nasty, horrible thoughts towards those more fertile that I am. It was very hard not to - because I assumed that I was less worthy, because if I had been worthy enough, if I had been 'mother-material' then it would have happened for me too.

It just doesn't work like that, does it? We all have our burdens to bear. My burden has been infertility, perhaps a greater burden would have been to be able to get pregnant, only to realise that I wasn't, or couldn't be, the parent my child needed me to be. More than feeling unworthy in myself, I'm not sure I could have handled the realisation that I wasn't enough for my child, for the one person in the world I was charged with protecting. Surely that would have been the harder task...

I'm still not completley happy being childless, but I have come to appreicate that you can't always get what you want - and there is value in that lesson too. 

Drones and Summary Execution

How is it possible - in any sense of the imagination, that our society could believe that drone strikes are either necessary, required, or in any way justified?

It's 6 June today.  6 June 1944, D-Day, 70 years ago.  How on earth could we ever tell those men who fought for our freedom that we value their sacrifice so lightly that we have retained absolutely no concept of the rule of law?

I'm pretty sure that those men would have been similarly appalled at the threat to our way of life (to the extent it can be said to exist). The fact that we have forgotten what they fought for, the fact that we seemingly no longer value the right to a trial, evidence, and conviction prior to punishment speaks absolute volumes.

Yes, I too am concerned about being blown up in my neighbourhood market - but I am not so concerned that I am willing to throw away thousands of years of logic and due process on a whim. That right is what our forefathers fought for.

There is absolutely no justification for drone strikes - none.  The fact that any government of ours should support them is appalling - and scary.  I honestly, literally, shook in my boots earlier today when I finally realised what crimes were being committed in my name.

If you break the law, if you plot against the government, if you commit a crime - you should be charged, come before a jury of your peers, and, if found guilty, be sentenced.  There is absolutely no justification for summary punishment - the entire idea goes against everything we should believe in, everything our forefathers fought for.

Further reading: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/05/two-australians-were-killed-by-us-drones-of-course-thats-our-business

Wider aim...

I have, to date, tried to keep this blog to my political musing.  I thought that my purpose was better served by separating the various parts of my psyche and sharing my thoughts only on discrete issues.  The result, however, has been for me to fail to convey any cohesive sense of who I am, or what influences my thought processes.

And so, this post marks the end of that demarcation. It also serves to demarcate the end of my strict reliance on proof.  It's a blog - it's my opinion.  Disagree if you will - I welcome that, but as long as my original thoughts are based in logic and I know that I can support them - then challenge away!  Fight me - I welcome that, I encourage that - I want to convince you, and I want you to convince me (I'm under no illusion that I'm right - I want to be proved wrong)...

Here we go!

Empathy in modern society

A thirteen year old was charged with stealing two cigarette lighters.  Hauled before the courts, public opinion is divided on the efficacy of using the legal system to deal with a comparatively minor offence.  Is it possible that he could have been dissuaded from a life of crime with a simple warning, or was it really necessary to bring the full force of the legal system down upon him to set an example? 

This incident raises two issues.  The first is the ability of the public to comment upon criminal law matters with a very scant knowledge of the facts.  In any news article we are presented with a very short précis of all the evidence brought before the court.  Yet even with such scant information we believe that we are entitled to an opinion about whether or not the judge made the correct decision. 

Even if we could form an opinion without knowing all the facts - what could possibly be the justification for reporting on such a story at all.  Are we to believe that all thirteen-year-olds are career criminals in the making and should be dealt with as such?  At the very least the fact that he stole cigarette lighters invites us to speculate that he was either planning on committing arson, or using them for some other nefarious purpose – after all, what else could a thirteen year old need cigarette lighters for!

The reason is, of course, distraction.  If they make us afraid of thirteen-year-olds with cigarette lighters then we aren’t focussed on the real ills in our society.  Children with access to fire are the least of our worries.

The second issue is the more concerning, as the reaction to that story proved.  Are we so in lack of empathy as a society that we would rejoice in seeing a thirteen-year-old dealt with by the courts for such a minor infraction? 

Criminality is a reflection on us all.  What drives another human being to break the social contract should be a question we ask ourselves constantly – and yet it’s not.  We sit back and say, ‘well I’ve had it tough too, but I’d never steal something, I’d never break the law, I’d never do that’. 

How can we really be so sure that we wouldn’t?  If we’ve never lived the life of the person we are judging, how can we be so sure that we wouldn’t do exactly the same thing in their position?  We’d like to think that we wouldn’t, but how can we be so sure unless and until we are faced with those same circumstances?

If we want to live in a community then we need to consciously practice empathy.  We don’t have to agree with the choices that our peers make, but we at least have to appreciate that there may have been a reason for them making the choices that they did.  If we believe that their reason is misguided, all we can do is try to educate them - try to push them in a different direction.  

Without empathy, all we do is shout our opinions at them and threaten them with punishment.  Shouldn’t we have learned by now that threats of punishment just don’t work?

In defence of Brisbane

You know, one could say that you're not much of a looker yourself Mr de Botton - but I'm sure you're a very nice person and I'd never call you ugly.  Brisbane might not be 'pretty' on the surface, but if you got to know her, I think you would come to love her as I have.

Of course it could be argued that the aesthetics of a city, as opposed to an individual, are open to critique as they are the product of the conscious choice of the city's planners, but that is not quite true.  Whereas an individual's appearance is largely a product of their genetic inheritance, so a city's is a product of it's history.  Founded in 1824, Brisbane is less than 200 years old and yet you seek to compare her to grand old dames, millennia in age.  In that sense it could be said that she is currently going through the kind of awkward puberty that we all must endure.

Time is but one factor.   A city's beauty should not just be measured by it's outward appearance, but also by the people who choose to call her home.  I think I objected most to the use of the word 'ugly'.  To my mind this word describes not only appearance, but also character.  I appreciate that wasn't your point, but I still felt the sting of the insinuation that nobody could possibly love her because she is so ugly.  I love her.  She is vibrant and friendly and warm and caring and it doesn't matter to me that she's got a few, superficial, blemishes.

I thought the point of The Philosophers' Mail was to provide news with compassion, truth, justice, complexity, calm, empathy and wisdom.  To that end, you could still have made the point that we need to have a discussion about design and civic beauty, but done it by focusing on the positive characteristics of a city still finding herself and urging her to consider the choices she will one day make.

Here, I'll give you a hand.

Brisbane is a city coming of age.  Blighted by some poor choices in the past, which still stain her landscape, she could yet rival the great cities of Paris or Siena.  This will only be possible if her leaders accept that good taste is not relative. Thankfully she is populated by committed, hard-working and forward-thinking people who are willing to leap to her defence.

* This post refers to an article published today at http://www.philosophersmail.com/280314-utopia-design.php and promoted by @alaindebotton via Twitter.