Government infomercials promoting pension reform “for the sake of children” do little more than add to the polarization of the debate. Stoking intergenerational conflict and sowing discord between generations, the advertisements met almost universal criticism, forcing the government to quietly remove them.
In an aging society with unequal allocation of resources, intergenerational equity and intergenerational justice have long been a worrying issue. About 10 years ago in France, a group of economists and social commentators in their 30s joined forces with a small number of baby boomer intellectuals and called for action on the issue.
In 2011, UK Conservative Minister of State for Universities and Science David Willetts accused the baby boomer generation of stealing the future of the next generation.
Baby boomers held the wealth and power in society and were responsible for the long working hours, low pay and high taxes young people were facing, Willetts said.
Not only did young people find it impossible to climb the property ladder, but they were also taking on large debts to pay for care for the elderly, he said.
However, Willetts was asked why he had neglected to mention the government’s policy to raise tuition fees, which led to so many young people accumulating debt to finance studies.
In the UK, the Intergenerational Foundation advocates legislation to protect the rights of the young and future generations. The EU also regularly publishes an intergenerational equity index, which shows how young people’s situation is worsening every year.
The foundation says that the more society ages, the leaner the pickings left for the young: In these circumstances, pension systems come to resemble a pyramid scheme, where youth pay for the elderly, but are not likely to enjoy the same benefits in their old age.
Such polarization deepens intergenerational division and tensions and makes the elderly feel guilty, fearing that they will be a burden to the younger generations. It also makes young people more hostile to the elderly and more anxious about their own old age.
In The Myth of Generational Conflict, French sociologists Claudine Attias-Donfut and Sara Arber challenge intergenerational polarization. They apply a life cycle concept to calculate lifetime contributions and rewards and establish an “intergenerational clearing system” that shows that baby boomers’ rewards in many cases do not outweigh their contributions.
They believe that the rise of intergenerational conflict in recent years is caused by a deterioration in public expenditure, that the elderly are scapegoats sacrificed in the competition for limited resources and that disputes over pension reform often coincide with economic recession.
The concept of intergenerational equity is based on generational reciprocity, which is a social contract for maintaining family and social ethics. During the 2012 French presidential election, a “generational contract” that would use a life course perspective to solve the intergenerational crisis was suggested.
The hardships facing Taiwan’s youth were not created by the older generation. They are the result of the nation’s political struggles, economic recession, educational reforms gone wrong, fiscal and tax policy failures and excessive public expenditure. These are the factors that have caused the young to lose their chances, abilities and future.
It would be both unwise and immoral of politicians if they continued to take advantage of the young by going on to deepen intergenerational hatred and conflict.
Chiou Tian-juh is a professor of social psychology at Shih Hsin University.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers