Intergenerational inclusivity (and future proofing work)

I recently attended a workshop on "intergenerational inclusivity". Overall, this was a good workshop, with suggestions on good approaches (such as the reverse mentoring my current manager is so good at), effective words for conversations, PROPER succession planning (too often it's just another incremental add on, part of position description scope creep), identifying and encouraging younger talent, and so on.

However, one attendee commented about the difficulty of getting older people to move out of "the pipeline" - particularly older women, in their mid-60s. A comment was made about using things like financial incentives to get them to move on - which is a backhanded acknowledgement of the financial situation many women in my age bracket find themselves in.

I've fairly fortunate in that I have a particular technical skill (that I have been trying to pass on for ten years now), and there is too much focus on status and management generally in such planning, but the comment does show a few issues. (A warning: after too many years of having neoliberal governments stuff up life for just about everyone, the following comments show my anger.)

• Firstly, this shows the financial penalties discriminating against women (my equal favourite manager still shares that ranking because he gave me a 30% pay rise - and I didn't need "guidance on better negotiating" to prevent that prior discrimination from happening, I needed an inherently unbiased system . . .  and so does everyone else, so it's not the alpha character crowing about how far they can **** up the wall getting the kudos and the dollars); 
• Less obvious is the stupidity of Australian housing (see here, here, here, here, here, and here), which focuses - being mostly provided by private industry - on the sectors of the market that provide the most profit, and ignores the smaller sectors. I've never bought a house for a range of reasons, but the poor design (too big and glitzy / flash) and shocking construction (inept or non-existent insulation, so expensive to operate - and vulnerable in heat waves; also, not durable - basically what I would consider flimsy [I like stone, ideally, or "greener" concrete designed to last 200 years]) are a big part of the story. In the case of older people, the financial risks around moving into a smaller house (which are generally utterly misunderstood or ignored in economics articles) as well as the lack of choice (due to the aforementioned private industry problem) are key parts of it, but I also consider people should:
  (a) stop thinking about homes as a way to build wealth - all the international treaties about rights to housing are based on security and shelter, not getting rich; and
  (b) for those who want a family, consider buying their retirement home first, renting that out, and renting a family home while they raise their kids - which makes it easier for housing stock to go on to the market for families, and provides some stock for older people (whether couples or single). This would also be immeasurably aided by allowing tiny homes -on stumps if necessary - in people's backyards, which provides a rental incomes for the house owner (for parking rights, if the home is mobile), allows those with less money to own a home (it might have to be demountable, if it doesn't have wheels), and enables provision of housing stock quickly - and can offset housing slumps if builders learn how to do this PROPERLY (with good insulation!!!). Some US cities are even using this to address their homelessness crises. It also helps to reduce urban sprawl with the least angst;
• The growing gap between the age at which one needs to either stop or slow down, and when one can access a pension or one's superannuation - which shows how out of touch with reality some elites are (either that, or they want older people to die miserably, commit suicide or wind up homeless beggars - do they know NOTHING about domestic violence, discrimination, etc? Are they set in  "hubbie will look after her" heteronormativity? Are they just bloody stupid?)
  My home state has introduced some measures to address this, but I consider that more needs to be done structurally; 
• The self-righteous stupidity of those who think people should HAVE to work at being self sufficient - which is largely about their own selfishness, in my experience - they hate people they consider to be "bludgers", as well as anyone who has different (e.g., humanistic) life values. They also have a complete and utter lack of understanding of what life is like for most people on the lower ¾ of the income spectrum - and especially the working poor, and those who are forced (e.g., through ill health - and I have to admit my health is no longer too brilliant) on to some form of social security. These upper class neoliberals are basically agents of hate - although they probably don't understand that.
  I also have to point out that there are some people in this category, particularly middle class people, who genuinely want to ensure taxes are spent on others with greater need; and 
• The incredible blocks and obstacles to older people being able to work - such as work insurance, which politicians have wrung their bloody hands about, but DONE NOTHING - because they want private industry to pick up the ball! If (neoliberal) YOU change the retirement age, and private insurers dither, YOU, government, have a moral responsibility, in the interests of good governance, to fill any gaps so people can LIVE - or, again, do you want older people to starve to death / die on the streets / commit suicide / wind up as homeless beggars? (or work in the local supermarket, as I have seen more and more doing?) Even if people have families, not all have a good relationship, and setting up a system predicated on reliance on family is facilitating elder abuse.
  On top of that, ROBBING people of the ability to tend for themselves while they are still capable of doing so for financial reasons is bad for their wellbeing and health (and thus an AVOIDABLE health system cost) and an affront to human dignity.

Trying to get anyone to listen on this is one of the most frustrating areas I've encountered in activism - and I consider ageism underlies the problems, things like wrong assumptions that older people all own their own homes, are financially well off, have offspring etc who will not resent the imposition of having to provide for their elders AND are willing to sacrifice their self respect, etc, etc, etc.

And the problem is just going to get worse.

We need to start implementing a proper approach to work (future proofing work, I term it), based on skill clusters (but for ALL ages, not only young people [and I wish the ****s would release more of the details, but they won't even acknowledge my emails) and cycles of jobs throughout one's life.

I recently met with my local Federal MP - progressive, most definitely not neoliberal (a member of the opposition party, in fact), a great representative - to discuss a couple of matters, and this was one of the issues.

The discussion was fantastic, and shows - again - why people should not be cynical about their MPs!

What I learned included:

• European and other nations have made the move to "lifelong learning funds", which enables part of what I am seeking (see here, here [and here], and here [and, slightly off-topic, here]); 
• the term for the counsellors I want to see is "transition counsellors" (and couldn't find a good, generic, information-based link on this - just commercial ads); 
• the German coal industry implemented a transition plan before they shut down part of that industry in the 90s (and will do the same as they now aim to shut down the entire industry), so that only a few workers didn't have another job to go to - as opposed to our terrible practice of waiting until people have been thrown on to the unemployment heap, lost their savings, health, possibly their family, and their dignity as people, before we cram then into a cookie cutter social security system that isn't (better steps were introduced after a local power station here was shut down, but  not everyone is back in work yet - several years later, despite retraining [and I wonder if ageism and other forms of discrimination are the issue . . . ]) - see here, here, here, here, and here; and
• that this gets into the area of insecure work generally (see here), which is a clear health risk (so again, moving to that form of work - which reduces consumers' ability to spend - also increases costs through health risks and problems).

So, where to from here?

Well:

1. I can refer to overseas practices and better terminology in everything I do from here on (which will almost inevitably include emails to politicians ☺ ); 
2. my home state is asking for submissions on job seeking, so I can tidy up the above and make a submission on the situation for older workers, lifelong learning, transition counselors (and plans), etc (I'm back to work soon, though, and have to manage my energies carefully, so I may not be able to make the submissions - or quality of submissions - that I want to); 
3. I received some guidance on how to work towards this through my union; and 
4. I hope to be able to art of a political party's policy committee on these matters (and also tiny homes).

Now, Dear Reader, how about you?

PS - we also need to start seeing work as a marathon, rather than a sprint at the fastest pace we can do to satisfy our neoliberal masters