A survey of Baby Boomers from Melbourne’s City of Monash found that almost 70 per cent said they intended to remain in the family home in retirement.  I suspect what this actually means is that Boomers will do a seachange in situ which involves transforming suburban houses into lifestyle properties.  Perhaps put on a sundeck.  Perhaps turn one of the kid’s bedrooms into a study or craft room.  Perhaps build a veggie patch where the trampoline once stood.

The scope for vast numbers of Boomers to transform their 3-bedroom brick-veneer homes into retirement properties is enhanced if this transformation can be completed gradually and over time.  A retirement garden should be low maintenance in terms of digging and water usage.  In an ideal world a Baby Boomer might develop an easy-care garden over several years.  What Baby Boomers need is a ‘good design guide’ to help transform house & garden into accommodation and lifestyle that more easily fits the idea of ageing in place.

Local Councils can help Boomers transition into retirement by co-ordinating retirement volunteering, by showing how housing can be modified to assist ageing in place, by investing community resource centres (now known as libraries) and, most important, by connecting men with local social networks.  One of the findings from the workshops was the extent to which men have limited social connection outside work.  This sets up a potential liability for social disconnection on a grand scale unless Council put corrective action into place now.  To see a copy of the full report and media release click here.

Not Enough Time To Enjoy Life, or NETTEL, refers to the rising pool of households headed by two high-income-earning, full-time-working parents with dependent children up to the age of 24.

At the 2006 Census there were 129,000 Nettel households in Australia up from 93,000 five years earlier.  About half a million Australians are now thought to live in a Nettel household.

The distinguishing feature of Nettel households is the way that both parents whip out their BlackBerries after dinner so that they can plot, scheme and diarise the next day’s activities.

About five per cent of all traditional nuclear families are Nettels but in some areas this proportion rises well above the national average.

The nation’s undisputed Nettel hotspot is the suburb of Curtin in Canberra where Nettels comprise 15 per cent of all families. 

Canberra households are dominated by two-income earners and Curtin is popular because it obviously allows Nettel households to shuttle between work at Parliament House, home and school.  Downtime is minimised in Curtin.

Other Nettel hotspots include Paddington in Sydney, Albert Park in Melbourne, Balmoral in Brisbane, Burnley in Adelaide and Karratha in Western Australia.

Given the rising pressure on families to keep up with the latest technologies and consumer goods I suspect that Nettel households are here to stay.

The term “Nettel” coined by Bernard Salt was quoted in the New Vocabulary section of the New York Times website within two days of release in Australia.

Whenever something like that happens “over there” it’s really only a matter of time before it surfaces here: after all, from a politician’s point of view the precedent has been set.   And you can sort of see their eyes light up at the thought of getting their hands on more tax dollars.  More people in the workforce for longer is good news for governments.  Not only is there the bonus of a delayed draw on the Age Pension but there’s also more tax paid.  And, let’s be frank here, not only will workers work and pay tax for two extra years but there’s also the delicious possibility that some will drop dead within that time frame: more tax in; less pension out.

The counter argument to extending the working life is that baby boomers have been in the workforce paying taxes for 40 years; the premiums have already been paid; now it’s pay-back time.  The problem is that much of the tax paid by boomers since they entered the workforce in the 1970s has been spent.  Future retirees must rely on current workers to fund their lifestyle.  This system worked well enough for 40 years because the worker base was always expanding.  But from 2011 onwards the rate of growth in the working age population of Australians slows: more boomers exit at 65 than Gen Ys enter at 15. 

The year 2011 is critical because it is in that year that the first baby boomer ever invented will turn 65.  Not that the first boomers (born in the late 40s) are much of a problem; there’s not so many of them.  The real demographic trouble-makers are those pesky boomers born in the 1950s.  And that’s the group that is targeted in the planned postponement of pensionable age.  I agree with the policy; it’s the right thing to do.  However I think there will be issues in extending the working life for some sections of the workforce. 

Pen-pushing white-collar workers can easily extend their work commitments.  This is a more difficult proposition for labourers.  Consider the plight of say a boilermaker who has been hard at work with his body all day every day since the age of 15.  By his mid 50s this bloke’s body is buggered.  There needs to be some consideration for the circumstances of those whose work can be described as hard labouring. 

The other issue here is the way in which older workers will be used in the workforce.  Even without this new policy the number of older workers (say 60-64) is rising because of the boomer push. 

There’s now a need for employers to find meaningful work that is tailored to older worker’s capabilities.  They aren’t all going to end up sitting on boards pontificating about matters of importance; many will end up in mundane “old jobs” cordoned off from the main cut and thrust of business.  Or at least that’s one possibility. 

Finally the fact that there will be more old people working, and drawing a commercial income, means more discretionary spending will be injected into the 60-something stage in the life cycle.  In the 20s this “me money” ends up in cafes, bars, restaurants or is spent on clothes, travel and electronic gadgets including phones. 

What do you think older workers will spend their money on?  And don’t say Generation Y because by then the Ys will be in their late 30s with families and commitments and a life of their own.  I think the boomers will spend their money in areas not traditionally associated with this market such as fashion clothing.  Show me a fashion label that packages and presents clothing styles for the over 60s that is not “grandma daggy”. 

There is also the distinct possibility that the pensionable age will be pushed beyond 67 at a later stage.  But Australia will never lead the world in such a move; there is no moral basis for such a decision.  Pushing the pensionable age to say 70 would have to be implemented by other countries, say the UK, first.  In this respect we should be watching this issue in other western nations in order to get a heads up on what age-based policies might turn up on our doorstep less five years later.

I wanted an outlet where I could conduct a public debate about rising demographic issues.  And, yes, demographic issues do rise and fall.  Are consumer values changing as a consequence of the GFC?  What will be the defining characteristics of Generation Z?  What is the (population) carrying capacity of the Australian continent?
But the purpose of The Blog is more than this.
Often I come across bits of information, random data, commercial trends and news reports that I think, given appropriate discussion, could be into a thought line worthy of a broader audience.

And because each month I speak to corporate audiences no less than 10 times and write no less than seven columns each month I am always on the look out for new consumer and demographic trends.

Join me on The Blog and to discuss—no, to define—the key issues in consumer, cultural, generational and demographic trends that are shaping the Australian nation.

Bernard Salt

May 2009