Latest news with #BabyBoomers
The Advertiser
6 hours ago
- Business
- The Advertiser
Can pensioners really be 'wealthy'? One economist reckons they are
The attacks on Baby Boomers, labelling them as "wealthy" to the detriment of "families and young people" just because their home has increased in value, needs to stop. Brendan Coates, an economist with the Grattan Institute, was given a soap box on July 24 to air concerns "wealthy pensioners" should be penalised to benefit the rest of Australian society. Perhaps Brendan forgets people over the age of 65 are also valued members of society, and if they're eligible for the age pension (the current base payment being $27,333 a year for singles and $41,210 for couples, before tax is taken out) it's because they are just scraping by. Compulsory super only began in 1992 at 3 per cent, whereas Brendan enjoys 12 per cent as of July 1. The age pension is below minimum wage, and far below the wage of an economist (in excess of $100,000 according to "[Retirees] can be in Potts Point or Toorak with a $5m house and receive the same pension that a person in a $500,000 unit in Bendigo or Bathurst is receiving," he is quoted as saying in the Australian Financial Review. "People with substantial wealth are receiving the pension who arguably don't need it." Read more from The Senior: Mr Coates believes a retiree's family home (regardless if they bought it 40 years ago for next to nothing, then for the pandemic to jack up the land value) should be included in the pension assets test to better help "those who need it". But Brendan isn't a fan of retirees with superannuation either. A Grattan Institute report by Brendan Coates, released a day after his quotes around "wealthy pensioners", ironically called for more tax on superannuation funds. Not sure about you Brendan, but my grandparents on the Gold Coast have lived far longer than they expected and are now living day to day, as their meagre super dwindled to nothing. Pensioners and self-funded retirees are being slammed every which way as the "cash cows" of society, that should be pushed out of their homes - "and downsize" - to make way for a seemingly more important demographic: anyone under the age of 50. In 2025, around 58 per cent of Australians aged over 65 (around 2.4 million people) receive either the full or part age pension. But why would someone not have enough super to retire on comfortably? Compulsory super only came into play 30 years ago (around 10 years after Brendan Coates was born). "While Australians have reason to feel proud of the success of Australia's superannuation system ... the need for review, refinement and reform continues. An example is the retirement savings of Australian women," the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority states on their website. Older women are the fastest-growing group of homeless people in Australia. The 2021 Census reported a 6.6 per cent increase to women over 55 experiencing homelessness. Divorce and lack of super (due to raising children) are a big factor. Banks also won't give older people a loan for a home and rents have skyrocketed. The Superannuation Guarantee, with a mandatory three per cent contribution rate for employers came into effect in 1992 - nearly 20 years after reader of The Senior Suzanne G finished high school. "As a woman of 67 soon 68 ... back in 1974 when I finished school there was no superannuation," the retired pensioner told The Senior. She said she's worked all her life, owns her own home, and had a "meagre private super" which was cashed in some years ago to complete home renovations. The 1980s was the birth of superannuation for Aussies, but in the beginning, it was generally limited to public servants and white collar employees of large corporations. It was only in 2003 that provisions came in to allow the splitting of superannuation between divorcing or separating spouses, while 2007 saw investment losses for Australian superannuation funds of more than $200 billion thanks to the global financial crisis (GFC). The other flipside to all this: is if an older person does want to keep working they are either financially penalised (if they're on the age pension) or they're discriminated against by employers (according to the research by the Human Rights Commission and Australian Human Resources Institute). Who's with me and standing up for the rights of our wise elders? Retirees are humans too, with basic needs like anyone else. It's time the generations before them showed some respect. Share your comments below if you agree ... or disagree ... The attacks on Baby Boomers, labelling them as "wealthy" to the detriment of "families and young people" just because their home has increased in value, needs to stop. Brendan Coates, an economist with the Grattan Institute, was given a soap box on July 24 to air concerns "wealthy pensioners" should be penalised to benefit the rest of Australian society. Perhaps Brendan forgets people over the age of 65 are also valued members of society, and if they're eligible for the age pension (the current base payment being $27,333 a year for singles and $41,210 for couples, before tax is taken out) it's because they are just scraping by. Compulsory super only began in 1992 at 3 per cent, whereas Brendan enjoys 12 per cent as of July 1. The age pension is below minimum wage, and far below the wage of an economist (in excess of $100,000 according to "[Retirees] can be in Potts Point or Toorak with a $5m house and receive the same pension that a person in a $500,000 unit in Bendigo or Bathurst is receiving," he is quoted as saying in the Australian Financial Review. "People with substantial wealth are receiving the pension who arguably don't need it." Read more from The Senior: Mr Coates believes a retiree's family home (regardless if they bought it 40 years ago for next to nothing, then for the pandemic to jack up the land value) should be included in the pension assets test to better help "those who need it". But Brendan isn't a fan of retirees with superannuation either. A Grattan Institute report by Brendan Coates, released a day after his quotes around "wealthy pensioners", ironically called for more tax on superannuation funds. Not sure about you Brendan, but my grandparents on the Gold Coast have lived far longer than they expected and are now living day to day, as their meagre super dwindled to nothing. Pensioners and self-funded retirees are being slammed every which way as the "cash cows" of society, that should be pushed out of their homes - "and downsize" - to make way for a seemingly more important demographic: anyone under the age of 50. In 2025, around 58 per cent of Australians aged over 65 (around 2.4 million people) receive either the full or part age pension. But why would someone not have enough super to retire on comfortably? Compulsory super only came into play 30 years ago (around 10 years after Brendan Coates was born). "While Australians have reason to feel proud of the success of Australia's superannuation system ... the need for review, refinement and reform continues. An example is the retirement savings of Australian women," the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority states on their website. Older women are the fastest-growing group of homeless people in Australia. The 2021 Census reported a 6.6 per cent increase to women over 55 experiencing homelessness. Divorce and lack of super (due to raising children) are a big factor. Banks also won't give older people a loan for a home and rents have skyrocketed. The Superannuation Guarantee, with a mandatory three per cent contribution rate for employers came into effect in 1992 - nearly 20 years after reader of The Senior Suzanne G finished high school. "As a woman of 67 soon 68 ... back in 1974 when I finished school there was no superannuation," the retired pensioner told The Senior. She said she's worked all her life, owns her own home, and had a "meagre private super" which was cashed in some years ago to complete home renovations. The 1980s was the birth of superannuation for Aussies, but in the beginning, it was generally limited to public servants and white collar employees of large corporations. It was only in 2003 that provisions came in to allow the splitting of superannuation between divorcing or separating spouses, while 2007 saw investment losses for Australian superannuation funds of more than $200 billion thanks to the global financial crisis (GFC). The other flipside to all this: is if an older person does want to keep working they are either financially penalised (if they're on the age pension) or they're discriminated against by employers (according to the research by the Human Rights Commission and Australian Human Resources Institute). Who's with me and standing up for the rights of our wise elders? Retirees are humans too, with basic needs like anyone else. It's time the generations before them showed some respect. Share your comments below if you agree ... or disagree ... The attacks on Baby Boomers, labelling them as "wealthy" to the detriment of "families and young people" just because their home has increased in value, needs to stop. Brendan Coates, an economist with the Grattan Institute, was given a soap box on July 24 to air concerns "wealthy pensioners" should be penalised to benefit the rest of Australian society. Perhaps Brendan forgets people over the age of 65 are also valued members of society, and if they're eligible for the age pension (the current base payment being $27,333 a year for singles and $41,210 for couples, before tax is taken out) it's because they are just scraping by. Compulsory super only began in 1992 at 3 per cent, whereas Brendan enjoys 12 per cent as of July 1. The age pension is below minimum wage, and far below the wage of an economist (in excess of $100,000 according to "[Retirees] can be in Potts Point or Toorak with a $5m house and receive the same pension that a person in a $500,000 unit in Bendigo or Bathurst is receiving," he is quoted as saying in the Australian Financial Review. "People with substantial wealth are receiving the pension who arguably don't need it." Read more from The Senior: Mr Coates believes a retiree's family home (regardless if they bought it 40 years ago for next to nothing, then for the pandemic to jack up the land value) should be included in the pension assets test to better help "those who need it". But Brendan isn't a fan of retirees with superannuation either. A Grattan Institute report by Brendan Coates, released a day after his quotes around "wealthy pensioners", ironically called for more tax on superannuation funds. Not sure about you Brendan, but my grandparents on the Gold Coast have lived far longer than they expected and are now living day to day, as their meagre super dwindled to nothing. Pensioners and self-funded retirees are being slammed every which way as the "cash cows" of society, that should be pushed out of their homes - "and downsize" - to make way for a seemingly more important demographic: anyone under the age of 50. In 2025, around 58 per cent of Australians aged over 65 (around 2.4 million people) receive either the full or part age pension. But why would someone not have enough super to retire on comfortably? Compulsory super only came into play 30 years ago (around 10 years after Brendan Coates was born). "While Australians have reason to feel proud of the success of Australia's superannuation system ... the need for review, refinement and reform continues. An example is the retirement savings of Australian women," the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority states on their website. Older women are the fastest-growing group of homeless people in Australia. The 2021 Census reported a 6.6 per cent increase to women over 55 experiencing homelessness. Divorce and lack of super (due to raising children) are a big factor. Banks also won't give older people a loan for a home and rents have skyrocketed. The Superannuation Guarantee, with a mandatory three per cent contribution rate for employers came into effect in 1992 - nearly 20 years after reader of The Senior Suzanne G finished high school. "As a woman of 67 soon 68 ... back in 1974 when I finished school there was no superannuation," the retired pensioner told The Senior. She said she's worked all her life, owns her own home, and had a "meagre private super" which was cashed in some years ago to complete home renovations. The 1980s was the birth of superannuation for Aussies, but in the beginning, it was generally limited to public servants and white collar employees of large corporations. It was only in 2003 that provisions came in to allow the splitting of superannuation between divorcing or separating spouses, while 2007 saw investment losses for Australian superannuation funds of more than $200 billion thanks to the global financial crisis (GFC). The other flipside to all this: is if an older person does want to keep working they are either financially penalised (if they're on the age pension) or they're discriminated against by employers (according to the research by the Human Rights Commission and Australian Human Resources Institute). Who's with me and standing up for the rights of our wise elders? Retirees are humans too, with basic needs like anyone else. It's time the generations before them showed some respect. Share your comments below if you agree ... or disagree ... The attacks on Baby Boomers, labelling them as "wealthy" to the detriment of "families and young people" just because their home has increased in value, needs to stop. Brendan Coates, an economist with the Grattan Institute, was given a soap box on July 24 to air concerns "wealthy pensioners" should be penalised to benefit the rest of Australian society. Perhaps Brendan forgets people over the age of 65 are also valued members of society, and if they're eligible for the age pension (the current base payment being $27,333 a year for singles and $41,210 for couples, before tax is taken out) it's because they are just scraping by. Compulsory super only began in 1992 at 3 per cent, whereas Brendan enjoys 12 per cent as of July 1. The age pension is below minimum wage, and far below the wage of an economist (in excess of $100,000 according to "[Retirees] can be in Potts Point or Toorak with a $5m house and receive the same pension that a person in a $500,000 unit in Bendigo or Bathurst is receiving," he is quoted as saying in the Australian Financial Review. "People with substantial wealth are receiving the pension who arguably don't need it." Read more from The Senior: Mr Coates believes a retiree's family home (regardless if they bought it 40 years ago for next to nothing, then for the pandemic to jack up the land value) should be included in the pension assets test to better help "those who need it". But Brendan isn't a fan of retirees with superannuation either. A Grattan Institute report by Brendan Coates, released a day after his quotes around "wealthy pensioners", ironically called for more tax on superannuation funds. Not sure about you Brendan, but my grandparents on the Gold Coast have lived far longer than they expected and are now living day to day, as their meagre super dwindled to nothing. Pensioners and self-funded retirees are being slammed every which way as the "cash cows" of society, that should be pushed out of their homes - "and downsize" - to make way for a seemingly more important demographic: anyone under the age of 50. In 2025, around 58 per cent of Australians aged over 65 (around 2.4 million people) receive either the full or part age pension. But why would someone not have enough super to retire on comfortably? Compulsory super only came into play 30 years ago (around 10 years after Brendan Coates was born). "While Australians have reason to feel proud of the success of Australia's superannuation system ... the need for review, refinement and reform continues. An example is the retirement savings of Australian women," the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority states on their website. Older women are the fastest-growing group of homeless people in Australia. The 2021 Census reported a 6.6 per cent increase to women over 55 experiencing homelessness. Divorce and lack of super (due to raising children) are a big factor. Banks also won't give older people a loan for a home and rents have skyrocketed. The Superannuation Guarantee, with a mandatory three per cent contribution rate for employers came into effect in 1992 - nearly 20 years after reader of The Senior Suzanne G finished high school. "As a woman of 67 soon 68 ... back in 1974 when I finished school there was no superannuation," the retired pensioner told The Senior. She said she's worked all her life, owns her own home, and had a "meagre private super" which was cashed in some years ago to complete home renovations. The 1980s was the birth of superannuation for Aussies, but in the beginning, it was generally limited to public servants and white collar employees of large corporations. It was only in 2003 that provisions came in to allow the splitting of superannuation between divorcing or separating spouses, while 2007 saw investment losses for Australian superannuation funds of more than $200 billion thanks to the global financial crisis (GFC). The other flipside to all this: is if an older person does want to keep working they are either financially penalised (if they're on the age pension) or they're discriminated against by employers (according to the research by the Human Rights Commission and Australian Human Resources Institute). Who's with me and standing up for the rights of our wise elders? Retirees are humans too, with basic needs like anyone else. It's time the generations before them showed some respect. Share your comments below if you agree ... or disagree ...
Scotsman
7 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Scotsman
What star sign are you? It might make a difference to your love life
Which zodiac signs get the most – and least – attention from prospective dates? | Pexels / Kai Pilger Aquarian women and Capricorn men have the most success when online dating, according to research. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Based on the profiles of more than 500,000 UK dating platform users, the study revealed which of the zodiac signs get the most – and least – attention from prospective dates. Among women, more than 10 per cent of all interactions went to those with the Aquarius star sign – people born between January 20th and February 18th. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad While for men, Capricorns – those born between December 22nd and January 19th – received 14 per cent of all likes – around one in every seven. But at the other end of the scale, Sagittarius was at the bottom of the list for both men and women, getting less than five per cent of the interest each. Emma Hawthorn, UK Relationship Expert at Seeking which compiled the data, said: 'We looked into the data expecting a few trends. We weren't expecting the stars to align quite so neatly. 'Astrology might be a bit of fun—but in 2025, and particularly among Gen Z daters it's viewed as a strong predictor of popularity, and compatibility. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'Capricorns are ambitious, goal-focused and love structure—traits that clearly carry over to dating. 'And Aquarians? They're independent, innovative and just unpredictable enough to keep people coming back. 'Interestingly, Aquarians and Capricorns can create a dynamic and potentially successful relationship. 'They have complementary strengths and weaknesses that, interestingly enough, illustrate the view of dating that we're seeing trending among Gen-Z. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'They're a success-meets free-thinker combination that together are able to craft both ideas and a connection that elevates both parties.' The research also revealed that while the reliance on the zodiac is a relatively new phenomenon, 75 per cent of modern daters view astrology as a tool to enhance their relationships. And 70 per cent view it as helpful in their quest for love. But star sign preferences vary across generations, with female Baby Boomers, Gen-X and Millennials all favouring Capricorns. While Gen Z women opt for Aquarians. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Male counterparts show a similar trend with Gen X, Gen Z and Millennials having a preference for Aquarians while Baby Boomers tend to opt for Capricorns. Co-CEO of Seeking, Dana Rosewall, said: 'Aquarians are officially the nation's heartbreakers. 'Seeking is a place for people who think outside of the box, it's for free-spirits, rebels and for those who do things their own way. 'This is a very Aquarian mindset, which might be why we're seeing such a slant in that direction.
Scotsman
10 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Scotsman
What star sign are you? It might make a difference to your love life
Which zodiac signs get the most – and least – attention from prospective dates? | Pexels / Kai Pilger Aquarian women and Capricorn men have the most success when online dating, according to research. Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Based on the profiles of more than 500,000 UK dating platform users, the study revealed which of the zodiac signs get the most – and least – attention from prospective dates. Among women, more than 10 per cent of all interactions went to those with the Aquarius star sign – people born between January 20th and February 18th. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad While for men, Capricorns – those born between December 22nd and January 19th – received 14 per cent of all likes – around one in every seven. But at the other end of the scale, Sagittarius was at the bottom of the list for both men and women, getting less than five per cent of the interest each. Emma Hawthorn, UK Relationship Expert at Seeking which compiled the data, said: 'We looked into the data expecting a few trends. We weren't expecting the stars to align quite so neatly. 'Astrology might be a bit of fun—but in 2025, and particularly among Gen Z daters it's viewed as a strong predictor of popularity, and compatibility. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'Capricorns are ambitious, goal-focused and love structure—traits that clearly carry over to dating. 'And Aquarians? They're independent, innovative and just unpredictable enough to keep people coming back. 'Interestingly, Aquarians and Capricorns can create a dynamic and potentially successful relationship. 'They have complementary strengths and weaknesses that, interestingly enough, illustrate the view of dating that we're seeing trending among Gen-Z. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'They're a success-meets free-thinker combination that together are able to craft both ideas and a connection that elevates both parties.' The research also revealed that while the reliance on the zodiac is a relatively new phenomenon, 75 per cent of modern daters view astrology as a tool to enhance their relationships. And 70 per cent view it as helpful in their quest for love. But star sign preferences vary across generations, with female Baby Boomers, Gen-X and Millennials all favouring Capricorns. While Gen Z women opt for Aquarians. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Male counterparts show a similar trend with Gen X, Gen Z and Millennials having a preference for Aquarians while Baby Boomers tend to opt for Capricorns. Co-CEO of Seeking, Dana Rosewall, said: 'Aquarians are officially the nation's heartbreakers. 'Seeking is a place for people who think outside of the box, it's for free-spirits, rebels and for those who do things their own way.
Time of India
a day ago
- Business
- Time of India
Why Brands' Gen Z Obsession Costs Them
Why Brands' Gen Z Obsession Costs Them Sandeep Das Jul 29, 2025, 19:56 IST IST Because there's a fortune to be made from 60-plus consumers. They are the ones with a lot of time and money on their hands. Goods and services they want represent very lucrative opportunities If you ask any marketing manager what their biggest priority is, they will typically say they are trying to crack Gen Z. That's their priority. You can understand why. Popular media is dominated by Gen Z discourse and by the idea of their being the most important generation right now. But are they really the most lucrative generation for brands and companies to target? Or is the fortune to be found at the top of the pyramid, with Baby Boomers?
Time of India
a day ago
- Business
- Time of India
Most American workers, especially millennials and Gen Z are burnt out: Here is what's driving them away from work
Burnout remains a widespread problem within the workforce, and at least two generations are experiencing higher levels of burnout than others. This isn't just a workplace trend; it's a generational warning flare. According to a comprehensive 2025 survey by talent-services firm Seramount, 67% of American workers report having experienced at least one symptom of burnout, such as exhaustion, cynicism, or a lack of motivation. But among these, Millennials (77%) and Gen Z (72%) are clearly shouldering the heaviest emotional and mental burden. As the youngest segments of the workforce, these generations are not only powering the future of labour, they are also being overwhelmed by it. The invisible load of youthful labour Gen Z, freshly entering the labor force, faces a paradoxical blend of digital hyper-connectivity and workplace isolation. They're fluent in tech, but often lost in hierarchies. The report found fewer than half of Gen Z respondents (45%) and Millennials (47%) rate their personal well-being above average, a stark contrast to 84% of Baby Boomers and 56% of Gen Xers. In other words, the younger you are, the more likely you are to feel like you're sinking. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like I Asked ChatGPT What Humanity Will Achieve In The Next 30 Years — Here's What It Said Liseer Undo Management without a map The Seramount report draws a troubling line between career level and emotional toll. 80% of managers and 72% of senior managers report burnout, compared to just 18% of executives. The discrepancy reveals a striking blind spot: those responsible for implementing workplace culture are themselves the most exhausted, while those setting the tone often remain insulated. This burnout isn't just about workload. It's about expectations without agency. These mid-career professionals are tasked with fostering productivity, maintaining morale, and executing executive vision, often with little say in structural decisions or access to adequate resources. Mental health: A broken promise Despite increased awareness, real support remains elusive. Only 40% of surveyed employees believe their companies provide adequate mental-health resources. Just 27% feel comfortable discussing mental health with their direct manager, and 41% don't feel comfortable talking about it with anyone at work. This silence is costing more than morale; it's costing time and money. Mental-health-related absenteeism is a significant driver of the $225.8 billion employers lose annually due to illness and injury, according to the Seramount study. Younger generations are not just burning out, they're opting out. The emotional ROI of a job no longer justifies the cost for many. Without meaningful mental health infrastructure, workplaces are watching their most energetic and innovative employees quietly disengage. The remote advantage and the volunteering edge One bright spot? Remote workers fare better. 49% of fully remote employees said they feel well supported in balancing mental health and work, compared to 38% of hybrid or in-office workers. Flexibility, it seems, remains a potent antidote to burnout. Another unexpected buffer? Volunteering. Among those who volunteer monthly or more, 59% rated their personal well-being as above average, compared to 49% who volunteer once a year or less. Purpose-driven engagement outside the workplace appears to counteract the internal pressures within it. An evolving definition of work Today's younger workers are not just seeking a paycheck; they're seeking a life. For them, mental health support isn't a corporate benefit; it's a baseline necessity. And when companies fall short, burnout becomes more than an individual issue; it becomes a systemic failure. This isn't the "Great Resignation" of 2021 revisited. It's the Great Disengagement, a subtle, steady erosion of faith in institutions that promise fulfillment but deliver fatigue. Unless organizations respond with structural changes, expanded therapy coverage, mental health days, clear communication, and leadership training, Millennials and Gen Z may continue to lead the workforce in one tragic metric: opting out. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
