OPINION:EVERY BUDGET cut needs a justification. During this crisis, politicians have often spoken of the need to "ensure that our children have opportunities and the chance for a good life".
Cuts are said to be necessary so that the State’s finances are handed over to the next generation in proper order. Yet the reality is that Irish policies during this crisis have not protected Ireland’s youngest citizens, but rather have been imposed at their expense more than any other group.
Ireland’s young are not an abstract rhetorical device. Many are working and, more than any other group, many of them cannot. While the unemployment rate in Ireland hovers at about 14 per cent, the average for young men is about 25 per cent.
Neither is this problem isolated to Ireland. Across the EU and particularly in the “debtor states”, youth unemployment is at unprecedentedly high levels, with figures putting employment for under-25s in Greece and Spain above 50 per cent. If you are a 24-year-old university graduate in Madrid, more likely than not you are unemployed.
Without the opportunity to work, many are leaving this country, with every intention of returning but little prospect of fulfilling that aspiration. In 2011, 33 per cent of emigrants were between the ages of 15 and 24, with a further 34 per cent aged 24-44.
Yet policymakers are not passive bystanders to these trends. Emigration and unemployment are exacerbated by labour market policies both in the public sector and in many protected professions which strongly favour current workers over new and recent hires.
A two-tier system offers different legal protections to temporary and permanent workers. New, young workers are often recycled through short-term contracts while older colleagues are not subjected even to basic evaluation of their performance. First-in/last-out policies remain unquestioned though a new “worst-in, first-out” would undoubtedly benefit young people trying to get a start on their careers.
The starkest demonstration of this is the situation facing teachers who began their career in February 2012. They will earn 30 per cent less than peers who began their careers only two years ago while, over their working lives, they will contribute significantly more of their income in pension payments than older colleagues. These older colleagues will retire younger, and with vastly superior benefits to what a young teacher can now ever hope to achieve.
The National Pension Reserve Fund was designed to relieve the burden of covering high pension costs for this generation’s retirement in 20-25 years’ time. This has been forgotten by short-termist political parties who see the reserve solely as a vehicle to relieve short-term pressure on their budgets.
While this may ultimately be necessary, the long-term implications of disbursing this fund now on risky propositions are notably absent from public debate.
Childcare costs, which are among the highest in the EU, disproportionately affect younger parents, who endure a triple threat of high costs, declining new entrant wages and, for many, an expensive home mortgage.
This will be supplemented further by the almost certain prospect of rising levels of indebtedness as the Government withdraws support for third-level education, as is already happening in the US and the UK. The two-thirds of US bachelor’s degree graduates who had student loans in 2010 had average debts of $25,250, while predicted debt levels for 2012 entrants in the UK reach above £35,000. This personal debt will be even more difficult to carry in light of the public debt burden resulting from the banking crisis.
During the Tiger years, political life was captured by a small number of powerful interest groups in construction, banking and finance. While these groups achieved their short-term goals of super profits during the boom years, they accumulated greater and greater risks which resulted in the socialisation of debt when the house of cards collapsed.
Few have escaped the fallout entirely but well-organised groups still hold great sway. Meanwhile, younger people are notoriously poor at representing their interests at the ballot box. Young politicians, many of whom were elected in the last general election, are rewarded for loyalty to their parties and to their senior peers who can help them advance.
The data bears out these facts. Central Statistics Office figures show that between 2004 and 2010, the income of those aged 65-plus increased by almost 40 per cent, almost 3.5 times that of those aged 18-64. A recent report by the Bertelsmann Foundation placed Ireland 17th for intergenerational equality, behind the UK, Germany, France and notably, below the OECD average.
What we are witnessing is the opening of a profound generational breach, where policies in employment, education, childcare and the banking system are driving a wedge between younger and older generations. Unfortunately for the young, they find themselves on the wrong side of this artificial division, denied the opportunities to realise those essential aspects of a fulfilling life: well-remunerated work, housing and the supports needed to raise children.
While interests on both sides of public debate have argued about conflicts between the public and private sectors, the real conflict has been a generational one, which has passed to date almost without comment. Politicians, employers and unions have lazily sacrificed the young at the altar of political expediency, all the time mouthing the words “we’re doing it for the kids”.
The kids are here, alive, now. And their backs are breaking.
Dan Hayden (27) is an Irish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences PhD scholar at UCD Centre for Regulation and Governance and a former president of UCD students’ union.
Andrew Byrne (27) is a PhD candidate at the University of Edinburgh and a former president of Trinity College Dublin students’ union.