Let The Young Live Their Lives

The people of my generation, and those above it have lived during a particularly advantaged time compared to those that preceded it, and those that have followed it. But, it has generated a particularly selfish mindset that has manifested itself at the expense of the young. It can be seen in the fetish of high property and asset prices, in a disregard for the environment, an attempt to hold on to the past by blaming others – foreigners, homosexuals etc. - for the fact that past is crumbling, and its epitome was the vote for Brexit, and now in the demand that the whole of society come to a standstill, just so that the elderly – the ones actually at serious risk from COVID – do not have to isolate themselves from danger. On this Xmas Day, my Christmas Message is, end this selfishness, and let the young live their lives, as we were enabled to do, by our parents. 

If my parents were alive today, they would be 101. That generation suffered the period of economic crisis of the 1920's, and the period of economic stagnation that followed in the 1930's, and then also suffered World War II. Many, like my parents, suffered the consequences of sky-high house prices, in the immediate period after the war, as well as the continuation of rationing into the 1950's. There are very few of that generation remaining, and my comments do not relate to them. 

Anyone under 90 was too young to have fought in WWII, a 90 year old being only 15 when it ended. The worst effects of the stagnation of the 1930's, was even over by the mid 1930's, and, in some parts of the country, in the Midlands and South-East, it saw large numbers of new, better paid jobs in car production, domestic appliance production and so on, begin to arise. By the time today's 90 year-old, reached 25, and came to the point of getting married, and leaving home, in 1955, house prices were actually falling, as a large amount of new supply became available, and, at the same time, wages and living standards were rising rapidly, as capitalism had entered a period of new long wave expansion. As young adults, they benefited from all of the new products it created, as well as from the welfare state it had created to produce the workers it required. Compare that with the conditions that young people today face, with house prices, again, at even more unaffordable levels than they were at in the immediate post-war period, and with other asset prices at such extremely inflated levels that saving for a pension, and retirement has become impossible. 

Those between 80 and 90, are the ones who probably lived at the most advantageous time, in that regard. Today's 80 year old was just 5 when the war ended. When they left school at 15, in 1955, they did so at a time when there were labour shortages, making it easy to find employment, again in stark contrast to the situation the young find themselves in today. And, unlike today, those jobs were permanent jobs, in which many could expect to spend the rest of their working lives. They were jobs that provided proper apprenticeships, and training. For some, they provided final salary pension schemes, which, after a lifetime of permanent employment, would give pensions of half or more of final salary. But, even without that, with house prices still low into the 1960's, and wages rising faster than house prices, when they eventually left home, and started families of their home, they did so in conditions in which they had steadily rising disposable income, to save, and could do so with the benefit of rising interest rates on those savings. 

This age group, the 80-90 year olds, the ones who are most at risk from COVID, and the ones also likely to have voted for Brexit, not only benefited from living at an economically advantageous time, but they had none of the issues of the earlier generation that suffered the consequences of war. They also had the full benefit of the welfare state. Not only did it provide them with healthcare free at the point of use, but also it provided state nurseries and schools, and other provision, which meant that a large part of the job of domestic labour in child-rearing was socialised – something capital itself required in order to release this latent supply of labour. They also benefited from all of the new technological developments of the age. Today's 80 year old, was able to sit their family down in front of a TV, with more family time being freed as a result of the use of vacuum cleaners, washing machines and so on. At weekends and holidays, they were able to take them out in a car, and so on. 

Having bought houses at a time when they were cheap, they also saw them rise in price, in the late 1970's and after, a fact that has created for them the illusion of considerable wealth, over and above the actual affluence they enjoyed. The attempt to hold on to that illusion of wealth has been played upon by conservatives, as a means of seeking the votes of this age group, and those votes are bought at the expense of the young, who find themselves unable to buy these houses whose prices have been artificially, and astronomically inflated, and who also find that, as a consequence, the cost of renting has risen exorbitantly too. 

The 70-80 year olds, also lived during this advantageous period. Today's 70 year old left school at 15 in 1965, again at a time of full employment. During the period, unemployment was just 1-2%, which was nearly all frictional (people changing jobs), amounting to less than half a million people. The idea that unemployment would ever be allowed to go over a million again, as in the 1930's, was thought to be scandalous, even for Tories. By the time they left home to get married, in the 1970's, house prices were still relatively low, and although they started to rise in the 1970's, as a result of the Barber Boom, and rising inflation, wages still tended to outpace them. And, the same applied for those in my age group of the 60-70 year olds, though for those at the bottom end of this group, things had begun to change, as a result of the onset of a new period of crisis after 1974, and the period of stagnation that began in the 1980's. 

Those of us that grew up in that Baby Boom generation not only benefited economically from that period, but also in terms of the liberty that came with it. It was not just that widespread availability of contraception brought sexual liberty with it, but along with this revolution went the ending of censorship and blasphemy laws, and so on. The economic power of the younger generation was itself a factor in bringing about these changes. Today, the opposite is true. The economic power of those same generations, today, still leads to society catering for its interests, and politicians pandering to them, in search of votes. But, now that pandering is reactionary, and comes at the expense of today's younger generation. It is aimed at trying to maintain the ideas and conditions of the past, at the expense of the present and future. 

The most obvious travesty in that regard is Brexit. Brexit is the result of a delusional fantasy by the old, and particularly the reactionary old Tory voters, who grew up in that era still bathing in the afterglow of the British Empire. Some have even swallowed the nonsense that their own affluence, in the post-war period, was itself directly the result of the British Empire, and its exploitation of millions of colonial slaves. Its no wonder they have the desire to want to return to such conditions to keep them in comfortable conditions for the rest of their days. Their affluence was, of course, nothing to do with the Empire, but was built upon the accumulation of capital, in the post-war period, driven forward by rapid increases in productivity, resulting from the technological revolution of the 1930's. When, it began to fade, in the 1970's, as the effects of that technology were in decline, it was maintained only as a result of Britain entering the EEC, and, thereby, EU – i.e. the very thing those Brexiters now want to abandon. 

The elderly reactionaries have voted for the delusion of Brexit, but they will mostly not live to see its ultimate disastrous effects. As with their disregard for the environment, they will leave the young to pick up the tab for their reckless, and selfish actions. Had 16 year olds had the vote in the referendum, then Brexit would not have happened. If the vote were held today, it would be reversed, and yet the young are being held hostage to a vote that no longer has any democratic validity. 

And, now we see the same thing with lockdowns. All of the blame and responsibility is being placed once more on the young. Yet the young are not the ones at risk from this virus, so why should they not live their lives, in the same way that previous generations have been free to live theirs? The question is frequently framed as “Don't kill your granny”, but the real issue with lockdowns is grannies killing the future of their children and grandchildren. The idea that everyone has to stop their lives to prevent the spread of the virus is nonsense, because 80% of the population are at no risk whatsoever from it. As the scientists at Edinburgh University concluded, its not the amount of infection that counts, but the number of people in that 20% who are infected. And, that means that rather than bringing the whole of society to a halt, the way to not kill granny is for granny to be isolated from any risk of infection. If that means some mild inconvenience for granny for a few months, then granny has to decide whether that is preferable as against dying. It is no reason to stop everyone else living their lives normally. 

And, the fact is that only around 3% of COVID infections are a result of transmission in places like pubs and restaurants. The number of workers in these establishments that have fallen ill, appears to be even less, as they have put in place the required measures and protocols to prevent transmission. So, its difficult to understand, then, why the government closes down those venues, whilst, in hospitals, we have 25% of those being treated for COVID having contracted it in hospital! The number of people contracting COVID, in hospital, seems far in excess of what it is in bars and restaurants, including the number of NHS workers contracting the virus. Rather than closing down pubs and restaurants, perhaps, the NHS should be learning the lessons from them of how they have been able to keep their customers and staff safe, in a way that the NHS has not! 

But, of course, pubs and restaurants are the places frequented mostly by the young, and the government's narrative is that all of the social activity of the young is what is responsible for the COVID crisis, not the fact that it is largely being spread in the NHS, and care homes. It is not the social activity of the young that is responsible for the COVID crisis, as the government claims, with the backing of a useless and reactionary Labour leadership, but the fact that the virus has been allowed to spread amongst the elderly, the section of society at risk from it. A large part of that spread is due to the NHS acting as a superspreader of the virus. It has failed to separate those with the virus from other patients in its hospitals; it has failed to provide its workers with adequate PPE or protocols to prevent them catching the virus or spreading it to others; it has knowingly sent elderly patients with the virus back to care homes, where they have spread the virus amongst those vulnerable populations. None of that is the responsibility of the young or their social activity. The other part of the reason for the spread is that some elderly people themselves have acted irresponsibly, failing to self-isolate themselves, and insisting on continuing to go into town centres, often without face masks, and so on, where they put themselves in contact with the virus. 

There is a simple way to stop the virus, and that is for the elderly to self isolate, and, if they value their lives, that is what they should do. The rest of us should demand that the state provides whatever assistance is required for them to do that. Where possible, we should organise ourselves as collectives to enable such self-isolation, as I suggested recently in relation to TRA's organising to enable elderly and vulnerable residents to effectively self-isolate. What we should not do is to demand that the young unnecessarily put their lives on hold indefinitely, just to avoid us having to engage in such action. The reality, is, of course, that even if the young do needlessly go into lockdown, it will not prevent the need for us to self-isolate, it simply creates additional problems in doing so. 

The young should be allowed to live their lives. They have inherited enough problems to deal with from us as it is.