Latest news with #MarkMcCrindle
Daily Mail
27-04-2025
- General
- Daily Mail
Australia's birth rate drops to an all-time low - and the reason behind the alarming trend
Australia's birth rate is at an all-time-low with many young Aussies blaming the cost-of-living crisis for their decision to not have children. Australian Bureau of Statistics data showed the country's birth rate has halved since 1960 with 52 per cent of Aussies under the age of 35 delaying their family plans. Among the highest reasons for people choosing to have children later in life, or not at all, were finances, career and relationships. The cost of raising a child was the biggest factor with 49 per cent of childless young adults citing it as the main reason. Others blamed job security, housing and mental health concerns. The decision to have kids later in life was reflected in an increased median age of parenthood which rose to 31.9 for mothers and 33.8 for fathers. Families are also having less children with the birth rate dropping from 3.55 children per woman in 1960 to 1.5. 'Desire for personal freedom and flexibility (eg travel, hobbies)' was also in the top 10 concerns for people having kids at 19 per cent. McCrindle social researcher Geoff Brailey added Aussies that do want children are choosing to have smaller families. 'I think this complex equation of establishing a career is important, finding security amidst uncertainty is important, and that's both financial. It's also that mental health and managing mental wellbeing,' he told the Courier Mail. Founder Mark McCrindle claimed the growing preference for smaller families would 'reshape society for decades to come' as it meant the birth rate was not high enough to sustain the current population. The survey results were widely reflected in online comments with many young Australians agreeing they wouldn't have children until their 30s, mostly due to the costs involved. 'Who can afford to have kids! Childcare, medical costs, cost of living in general,' one wrote. 'With the current huge housing prices and costs of living. How is anyone affording to start a family? No wonder the birth rates are dropping,' another said. 'I would not start a family if I was in that era of life. As it is my children's outlook is very bleak. I wish I had known what hell they were going to be trying to live in,' another wrote. 'It's scary having kids these days. Most people can't afford to support themselves let alone add children to that,' another said. 'They are being clever. The future seems a little scary at the moment,' another wrote. Others, like 20-year-old Nicole Hanssens, have used the decreased pressure to have children as a young adult to decide whether they'd be good parents or not. Ms Hanssens was blunt in saying she didn't want kids. 'I don't think that's ever going to change,' she said. 'I can barely look after myself, let alone a whole other human being.'
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
‘Gen Z' the label hurts young people at work—and ‘Gen Beta' is even more doomed if nothing changes
Generational labels have long served as a shorthand for understanding workforce trends, but they often miss the mark in accurately representing the complexities of these cohorts. Gen Z, the cohort that entered the workforce during a pandemic, continues to be defined by sweeping generalizations that don't fully capture the range of their experiences. As we still attempt to define Gen Z's role in the workplace, discussions about a new cohort—"Generation Beta"—are already gaining traction. But is it too soon to apply another label? Some believe the generational divide could start as early as the mid-2020s. Among them is Mark McCrindle, the Australian demographer who coined the term 'Generation Alpha' to define the cohort following Gen Z—and who also introduced 'Generation Beta' as its successor. A more apparent distinction might not come until the 2040s, argues Jessica Kriegel, chief strategy officer at workplace culture advisory firm Culture Partners. She contends that generations need more than just a shift in technology or social trends; they require defining historical moments with real cultural significance. Mausam Kumar Garg, an expert in demography and quantitative research, echoes this sentiment, warning that a rush to define new generations might lead to an oversimplified view of complex, ongoing societal changes. "We haven't yet pinpointed a clear technological or societal change that allows us to draw a definitive line marking the start of Generation Beta," he says. The problem is not unique to Generation Beta. Similar issues arose with Gen Z. Initially, their generational starting point was assigned to the mid-'90s. However, the boundaries shifted repeatedly to fit emerging narratives rather than a clear, well-documented historical moment. These shifting definitions highlight how generational labels are often adapted based on external factors rather than being grounded in rigorous, long-term societal change. For Kriegel, generational labels aren't just imprecise—she says they can be 'a destructive way of simplifying the complexity of human behavior into buckets of stereotypes,' undermining the unique qualities of individuals within these groups. Why, then, do generational labels persist in workplace conversations? Employers and analysts often rely on them to predict behaviors, values, and work ethics. This is especially true when strategizing about recruitment and retention. However, the portrayal of Gen Z in the workplace—especially in the media—proves how flawed this approach can be. At first, Gen Z was hailed as the tech-savvy, socially conscious, and adaptable generation set to take the workforce by storm. However, as they started filling roles, the narrative began to shift. Gen Z was suddenly labeled as entitled, difficult to manage, and prone to 'quiet quitting.' These contradictions aren't the result of inherent flaws in Gen Z but of how generational labels are applied without acknowledging the diversity of experiences within any given cohort. The labels are often more about reinforcing a narrative than reflecting any concrete, verifiable trends. Instead of asking how Gen Z differs from millennials or predicting how Gen Beta might behave, a better question would be: What workplace conditions help all employees—regardless of their generation—thrive? Overgeneralizing workers based on birth year creates artificial divides that overlook more pressing issues affecting people in the workforce today. Wage stagnation, work-life balance, and evolving workplace norms are just a few examples of factors that affect people of all ages, often in ways that are more meaningful than simple generational divides. When new generational labels are pushed before we've fully examined the impact of previous ones, we risk perpetuating stereotypes that do more harm than good. The truth is that social and technological changes don't adhere to neat 15- or 20-year cycles. 'We can't assign a fixed time period to each generation,' says Garg. 'It should be based on the significance and impact of changes occurring in the world.' Given that Generation Beta has already been named, what are the consequences of officially adopting this label moving forward? For today's young people—those who are growing up in a world marked by rapid advancements in artificial intelligence, automation, and climate change—the premature labeling of their future could create misguided expectations before they've had the opportunity to shape their own paths. It could lead businesses to make assumptions about how they will behave in the workplace instead of addressing the evolving needs of a workforce that spans multiple generations. It's crucial to consider the long-term impacts of these labels. If we hastily assign a generational title, we risk framing an entire group of workers according to assumptions that may not stand up to reality. History has shown that generational divides, while convenient, are far from perfect predictors of behavior. What might be more productive is focusing on the changing dynamics of the workforce as a whole and how companies can adapt to meet the diverse needs of workers across all age groups. Generational labels may offer some convenience in broad discussions, but they've outlived their usefulness when navigating the modern workplace. Instead of defining workers by the year they were born, the focus should shift to the economic, technological, and social conditions that shape the professional experiences of all workers. Before we jump to conclusions about who Generation Beta is, let's take a deeper look at Gen Z—beyond the headlines—and understand how they're contributing to the workforce. Perhaps more importantly, it's time to ask whether generational labels are still helpful at all in the ever-evolving world of work. Instead of further dividing workers into categories that may not reflect their reality, the conversation needs to shift to the structural issues that affect every generation in the workplace. The opinions expressed in commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune. Read more: Gen Z doesn't lack a work ethic. They're just uninspired by today's workplace Managers are puzzled by Gen Zers as giving feedback becomes a lost art in the era of the 'coddled mind' Gen Z are demanding more in the workplace. Here's how we changed our culture for them to thrive Gen Zers walk into the workplace with one foot out the door—slandering them won't solve the future-of-work conundrum This story was originally featured on
