Which generation had it toughest?

So of course the Baby Boomers had it easiest, same old story. Let's leave the judgement of how well off the Millennials & Gen Z are AFTER they inherit the largest wall of money in the history of the planet. That's what's coming their way courtesy of the "lucky" Boomers

"AFTER they inherit":

'Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations.'
https://www.firstlinks.com.au/preserving-wealth-through-generations-is-hard

So, my Mom worked at A&W, a fast food chain in the early 70's when she was a teenager. She made $1.65 an hour, and their signature burger cost 25 cents. Minimum wage is now $17 an hour but the same burger costs $7. Basically, we make more money now, but we can't get as many burgers (or anything) compared to what boomers could get because everything costs so much more now.

Governments aim to have inflation on purpose to devalue the dollar.

You need more dollars to buy the same things over time.

Keeps a population of working poor to help workforce numbers.

Last thing Western Governments want is large numbers of the population being able to retire early

The vast majority of the Boomer or any generation have little to no control over how things go. Big business and Government run the show. They also love that society is so distracted with the blame game and pointing fingers at each other. Division is their friend, that way, they can carry on doing whatever
they want. Anyone from the younger generations who think they would have done it differently back then so 2025 was better for everyone is joking themselves. If you want things to change you need to get involved not play the blame game against each other.
Keep your chins up.
1980 baby.

im mid gen X 1970 have boomer siblings and uncles, have gen Y and Z kids.
Its diificult to compare but no doubt at all that Boomers had it best and if they deny this they are just the whinging boomer type. Cheap housing cheap food , fee higher education, cheap second hand cars , cheap bills, no speeding fines, no camping fees , cheap caravan parks etc etc and things were so cheap many of the boomers didnt have to have their wifes even work , even as working class !!!!!! Unimaginavble that could be so for anyone except the wealthy few today --thats where the ultimate KO blow to any whinging bommers hits home against their case they had it tougher
Its impossible today for the younger gnerations to earn enough to get ahead in life as everyday basics like food, bills, rents, housing are just so expensive compared to current wages. Sure thell have super but that doesnt help for the first 4 decades of your working life only the last 7 years of it.

as Gen X we are in a unique position where we lived this cheap life as teenagers and young adaults and recall it well , but all but the very early Gen X were flogged badly by the 90-91 recession and rendered jiobless which took post 1995 to return employment back to its 80s levels ,----- by then a stack of Gen X had been stuck living hand to mouth for half a decade , while boomers who had steady employment and plenty of employment experience through the 80s could capitalize on cheap real estate and cheap everything that was the through the 1990s when things dint go up that much, if you had money then your rich now and many boomers have lots of money cause they had solid work by 1990 and werent retrenched like so many young gen X were .

When you factor in so many had wifes who made them lunches, cleaned their homes, cooked their dinners, did all the kids things and didnt work themselves ( lucky them imagine just being a parent and not working as well!!!)--you cant honestly say they didnt have it easier only a fool whose never experienced the strain on families of both parents working long hours wouldnt agree with me here .

some boomers on here try to say they arent responsible, some are some arent , but a majority are because depends who you voted for between 1984-2013. If you voted for goverenemtns that privitized the ultities and the commonwealth bank and quantas, and voted for people like John Howard who boosed property invester perks making property a weath creation pathway --the YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE and should answer to your kids/grandkids for it if you had any balls------------ , or at least compensate them handsomely as you have profiterred by shutting down the same egailtaiarn systems that you benefited from to help create the weath that you then casjed in on by selling off the farm on futire generations. You weakened gioverment protectiosn and allowed the cost of living to accelerate as it has been dictated by big buimess. Look at Coles and Woolies i bet 80 percent of their sharholders are boomers. Commweath bank - how huge would the return be for those boomers who all brough a stake in it when it was sold - massive profits on passive income - and these boomers ys=usally lack the balls to take any repsonsibility they just blame goverment . If you didn't not vote for these parties then you can sleep at night and say you arent reponsible without being a hyprocrite. If you say you didnt know the policies impacts --NOT GOOD ENOUGH no sleep at night your repsonsible for handing on a stayrtem that was fair and equaitable that this country had and wrecking it into a free for all. The silent Generation who voted for these changes is just as bad prob worse as they would have led the boomers into battle here

As for the younger generations some have themselves to blame . The amount of cafe eating is outragous as a Gne X we always are at home to save money so we could save for a car or eventyually a house . The amount of overseas travel at such a young age for Gen z especially but also Gen Y is also gobsmacking , we just slept in our cars and cooked on tiny gas bottles . I first went overseas at 27 by then I had my deposit saved desite an ecomic recession with over 10 percent unemployment nationally dragging across the previous 5 years and being oit of work myself in and out with no bargining power as an employee. I know a lot of youth today have chalked up a dozen trips abroad by 27--!!!!!. if thats you then you cant blame anyone but yourself if lifes hard after that. Youve chasen to run before you can walk and have to pay the pied piper for that . You have to knuckle down, it is much harder now to get a place to live but people nede to be realistic and live in cheaper areas in the regions and organise their career accordingly to buy there . The cafes and restrayunts meals need to be ditched. We had one retaunt meal a year as kids, one chinese meal. only take away was fish and chips , if you wnat to pay down a morgage you must sacrifice things , nit try to live like your in your 50s and over the worst of the morage stress

You blame Baby Boomer voters, yet Gen X Y and Z have been voting for decades. Not seeing any changes in the same political manipulation Baby Boomers had to swallow. For example, people were outraged when the safety maintenance of trains was changed from cyclical maintenance to risk assessment. In other words, don't fix it until it breaks. With hundreds of jobs lost. Same same with shifting the registration of building works from the Clerk of Works in Shire Councils to private providers who were hired and paid by developers! They couldn't see Opal and Mascot coming? Two massively egregious rip offs of citizens. A thousand cuts to citizens, coming over and over. Vote them out? They all operate the same! They love an electorate divided by petty generational blaming games. It keeps us busy while the institutions play Grand Theft Auto with our hard-working lives.

Mate I'm 67 a boomer got on the property ladder in 2001 I was 41 I can count the holidays I've had in my life time on 1 hand don't buy clothes actually I wear the same clothes over and over their not even fit for the second hand store so think before you say and my children who are millennial and gen x and I've looked after them well which was more than what I got from my parents who came from wars and the depression and TB outbreak so what do you think about that.

Whilst I understand the objective of selecting a reference year, the analysis misses a very important issue. The Baby Boomers have had to deals with every one of the economic shocks listed above and each economic shock has a cumulative impact, a fact apparently lost on politicians who are eager to thieve retirement savings in an attempt to appease the growing number of younger voters, thereby garnering support for the further re-election of sub optimal politicians.
The analysis also ignores the significant growth in transfer payments including those to the middle class. Whilst the comparison of tax rates is a persuasive indicator of burden, it ignores the issue of transfer payments which have the impact of reducing the effective tax rates of later generations even further. Indeed, many Australians now pay no net taxes at all!
Yes, house prices are now extremely high now, but this due to incompetent politicians who have supported policies that suggest that it is somehow smart and a worthwhile endeavour to invest savings into hopelessly over price property by global standards - now the most expensive residential property in the world. The answer to the problem can be found in immigration, capital gains tax concessions which were originally only intended to stimulate investment in risk assets which would stimulate businesses which would producing GDP - and I don't mean economic bubble prices in residential property.
When we look behind the figures it is self evident which generation has done it toughest and which now has to deal with theft by elected representatives.

In general,yes. I think the main point is click bait,and I want it now,and the internet that promotes division

You bought a house in 1940,it was a struggle,you paid it off,and 40 years later it looked as if it was worth an amount that nobody could afford to pay.

You bought a house in 1980 that nobody could afford to buy or pay for but they did.

By 2020 that house looked as if it was worth an amount that nobody could buy or pay for,but they did.

By 2060 that house has compounded for the same 40 year period and nobody will be able to buy it or pay for it,but they will .

I'm in my 70s,that's all I've ever heard for the whole of my life,nobody can afford to buy a house.
Supply needs to increase and it is a struggle to raise a deposit.When I bought my house you had to commit to saving with the bank for 3 years to try and get somewhere near a deposit,all the while paying rent,it was a struggle. Got the mortgage,I was frightened,if I lose my job I'm gone,I lose the house . High interest rates,the recession we had to have,high unemployment etc etc.

Nobody ( virtually) has it easy,get over it and try your best to get ahead.

If you're 70 you're lying. The government heavily subsidised your home ownership and deposits were pretty much a non factor, the people still owned our resources (power, water, telecommunications, ore, timber, oil) that's all been privatised and we miss out because your generation was too scared to do it tough.

"government heavily subsidised your home ownership":
What subsidies? Taxes on savings imaginary [ inflationary ] earnings?

"deposits were pretty much a non factor":
Saving cost of home plus 'emergency fund' makes rent, 'deposits' and mort-gages "non-factors".
See 'Bunk of Dad&Mum' for the hard of saving.

When I started school in the 1950s a lot of people lived in houses on dirt roads and the nightman came once a week to empty your toilet. Not much government regulation on housing in those days. Now best estimates are that federal state and local government regulations and costs are 50% of the costs a house. After year 10 at high school 50% of the class went to technical college to learn a trade. If you went to university you PAD FULL FEES. Now 1 in 2 people have a university degree. Why don't they start offering a Bachelor of Bricklaying? I did not start a superannuation account till I was 55, but now the government mandates that 12% of your income goes into a Union controlled superannuation account. Despite the resistance of Big Union Super people should be able access some of this money which is theirs for housing.

Now I don't suggest we revert to the standard of living which was patently much lower in the 1950s but standards and expectations are much different now (and a hell of a lot more expensive). I live in an area where local government has just increased rates by 40% - WOW. How can people cope with government cost increases like this and it is all levels of government. Governments need to take responsibility for cutting some of their costs

I love this comment, The opening statement says everything anyone needs to hear in regards to who had it hardest, "Boomers had to deal with it all, plus the cumulative effects." As a younger person we are entering adulthood "Dealing" with these cumulative effects. We had some things better off than the older people, but what do I want..... A house to be warm, food to eat and water to drink. Everything else was made to make like easier and these things working out to be doing the opposite. I'm just sick of the blame game. The fact is, if change were to happen it rests on the shoulders of Gen Y and Z.

I support this "if change were to happen it rests on the shoulders of Gen Y and Gen Z.

"The answer to the problem can be found in immigration, capital gains tax concessions"

But you left out what is arguably the biggest contributor to ballooning house prices, namely loose monetary policies which were implemented to help government fund ballooning debt but also had the consequences of cheaper credit for all which led to the asset bubble that property now finds itself in.

The lucky few Baby Boomers who get Grand kids have a housing affordability epiphany

People don't realize that each point of inflation and rates have about 4x the impact today compared to 70s. This because of the price/wage differential. So, anyone comparing the peak at 22%, and then dropping, this would be like 11% as a neutral rate. Meaning it's the new normal.

When we see people talking about say voting against cost of living measures we can look at how minimum wage increased about 55% over 10 years, but yet, the time it takes to earn the amount to afford the home rent increased by about 30%, regardless. This means its less affordable. Where no job type has seen a 55% increase at entery level, you are all going further without. This can be seen as the time it takes to earn the amount to afford the same quality of goods increasing as a macro average across total incomes over total prices.

The BoC sets rates based on environmental conditions. It's to restrict debt driven consumerism in an attempt to balance supply and demand using the debt based currency. The 2% target was a mandate from the government created after the inflation crisis 50 years ago or so.

The issue is that inflationary cycles, passive and sharp, stack on to lost purchasing over time. You still have to return purchasing power back to the marketplace after the fact regaining price stability. Otherwise you just pass costs onto future like the above.

So, you get into a pickle as people run out of time. The intention of driving down debt driven consumerism affects all debts, including previous debt commitments, affected by prime rate.

The unfunded spending will translate into higher market prices the future must afford. This where affordability is the sum of all purchases, the more things cost, the less you can afford, the more debt required to fund commitments and previous commitments. This as people go further without, your top of mind issues just become more acute.

Or

As a societal debt, you push rates to a point where people can't afford to consume in debt. And what that means is not necessarily losing their home. The banknote is pretty indiscriminate in the marketplace we all use. The cheaper your debt is, the more you can consume from the marketplace. It doesn't matter if it's a loaf of bread or a car. The government spending will be issued for an intention, spent by a human in the marketplace we all used on things that took time and energy to produce, capitalized on and reinvested into the finite marketplace.

All those resources have to come from somewhere and to throttle supply and demand, people go without things they otherwise wouldn't without the spending.


And as this is a trend going on for about 55 years, I wouldn't expect it to get better anytime soon especially as they do more of the same.

Over time things change.
The Bretton Woods system, which established a fixed exchange rate system with the US dollar as the anchor, collapsed primarily due to the United States' inability to maintain the dollar's convertibility to gold and increasing speculation against the dollar. These factors, combined with a lack of flexibility in the system and growing international tensions, led to its demise in 1971.
The simplified way of saying it was true macro trade wasn't occurring.
Instead of correcting the issue, funding bills with value, fiat debt based replaced it. This ends up passing costs onto the future.
Cost of spending, people pay the debts via going further without. This in the form of the time it takes to earn the amount to afford the same quality of goods increase. As a societal debt, the future pays for the past. The past afforded what it owns under better market and monetary conditions of the past, where the future has yet to do so because it didn't exist.
The funding of initiatives benefits the present, where the future does not see the benefit of initiatives, it is stuck with the bill. This where the value of the initiative is what it is, the inability to afford the initiative in the present is just an extraction on the future. Debts are physical in this sense. People go without time and things as they pay debts.
It's pretty zero sum as all debts are paid in one way shape or form.
Misrepresenting the cost of spending driving unlimited consumption feeding into the demand side currency problem, burning the time and prosperity of the future through macro supply and demand debts which will create greater affordability and generational debt issues.
So, when we look at the top of mind issues driving voting intentions, we see a trend that started a little after 1968. Going through the 70s and 80s inflation crisis, you went from about 1.9 gross earning years to about 4 to afford the average home. This where the home bought in 1968 for $7,500 is now worth a about $110k, the average income of around $25,000 makes the previous debt commitment basically worthless. This where the intention of replacing the value extracted from the marketplace via earning by producing the value-added goods and services back into it didn't occur.
Having central banks mandated to a target rate of 2% inflation, the purchasing power was never returned back to the marketplace.
The sharp and passive inflation cycles stack onto lost purchasing power over time.
This where affordability is the sum of all purchases in one's lifetime, you can use the same method at a societal scale using macro averages. Basically measuring you against yourselves over time.
Individuals living in their own time bubble, the one that bought in 1968 sees no problem with their outcome. Yes, you all suffer through the inflation crisis in different ways but once price stability returns, time just moves forward.
The difference is the ones entering the system becoming a contributing member of society earning by producing the value-added goods and services people want and can afford to buy see that same home now costing 4 gross earning years.
Fast forward, you are about 8.5 right now. And how a prerequisite to being a contributing member of society earning by producing the value-added goods and services people want and can afford to buy is shelter, a human input, the end user pays all inputs should the value the value creator creates exist. This should inputs not exceed outputs. Inputs exceed outputs, the unit doesn't exist.
You can pass costs onto the future as described above where the new end user is the future being born into the system having to afford these costs with their earnings.
And as only humans spend money and money buys things, the more things cost the less you can afford typically leading to more debt to fund initiatives as similar value and previous commitments, including debt commitments. Spirals.
Its a form of economic scarcity.
We talk about things like how costly climate change is going to be or the funding required to have security in an ever more dangerous world.
It must be interconnected.
Where that home built in 1972 for $35k maybe worth a million today, you'll still trade for similar value regardless, where a house is worth a house. Just because the time it takes to earn the amount to afford that same home has quadrupled (and worse than that as you need to adding all the taxes afforded as you are taxed on every dollar you earn and transact, and the lending costs including prime rate as that's a stack on top of all of it), that 4 beds didn't turn into a 16 beds. This where one who does the same job as the person in 1972, needs dual income (80 hours), still double the resource allocation to afford that same home.
Where when you buy a home you aren't paying a home, you are paying a debt based on market and monetary conditions.
Couple of points here. You can't be truly investing as a society when this is going on. Making it ever more difficult for the present to create value for the future because of affordability issues, people can only have what they can afford. Can't afford it, can't have it. This where the unit doesn't materialize as inputs exceed outputs, regardless even if its at a human input level.
With a conveyor of new entries into the system becoming contributing members of society earning by producing the value-added goods and services people want and can afford to buy experience the same outcome, mathematically impossible - you'll have an ever greater cross-section of the population experience this outcome as time moves forward. The measure is based on new entries starting from scratch. Where the prerequisite to accumulating fruits of labor is affording the basics, you get into the inability to extract in the form of taxes to fund initiatives further and/or do more of the same as described above.
And we do this to ourselves. Get into how taxation works and what not, but to keep it short, I'm pretty sure nothing really matters while this is going on. Climate change for example, it's not climate change that's going to kill you, it's going to be the inability to afford it. Adversaries? Well, the weaker you become the more advantageous they will become. They covet what we own. You'll never outrun that with defense as more of the same is applied. Stuff like that.

The idea that we can't just let this continue while saying we want to fix everything from the military to healthcare, want climate change and housing solutions, where you are just playing wack-a-mole having 2 more issues after fixing 1, where the once you fix becomes an issue down the road after trying to wack the moles faster and faster in a half life way - is pretty short sighted. It used to work in the past as you had the buffers and resilience to absorb this type of damage. Eventually the totality of all debts catch up and people start running out of time. There has to be big changes, where the problems you face solve themselves organically, you can only imagine the time wasted trying to go after everything all at once at the same time, while ignoring this.

A pity that the figures and statistics do not take into account our compulsory super which came in during the period and its effect on people being able to save for a home .Remember Super funds refuse provide funds for people to purchase homes which by all examples is acknowledged as a best retirement benefit.Perhaps they should be directed to provide loans for housing .That would also show they are interested in their members retirement

An interesting statistic not actually listed is the median mortgage cost as a % of nett income. From my crude calculations during and just after the COVID crisis, that was about the same for me (1983} as is was in 2021; due ridiculously low interest rates.

The issue of course was the deposit. In that regard, living costs play a significant part, and are not realistically addressed in the article. However, I do agree that saving for the deposit is always the biggest challenge; now maybe more than ever.

Another consideration not addressed is two income families. In my generation, lots of wives were stay at home mothers, i.e. one income families. We also probably had children earlier, and more of them. I have no doubt that our standard of living, housing aside, was far lower than it is now.

Obviously, as identified by many, the issue is one of supply and demand. Demand is artificially raised by ridiculously high immigration. Housing supply is continuously falling behind. Another significant impact is building costs. The impact of Labor government sweetheart deals with the CFMEU has filtered through all levels of construction, driving up the cost of building enormously. That cost is also not included in the article.

Comparing generations is interesting. However, each faces the time they live in. Best to put your emotional effort into your own development that waste it complaining that another generation had it easier. Head down, work hard, pick your priorities and don't waste your limited funds. Maybe less coffee and go without smashed avocado breakfasts might help.

Where did the numbers come from cause a lot are wildly inaccurate ???? a computer for 800? I wish. Average income $106,000pa? I wish.

Yep, median income makes more sense. Clearly whoever did this is no statistician, meaning 70% of the figures are pointless.

It may not matter whether you use average, median or other metrics to for the purpose of comparing generations as long as you apply the SAME metrics to each generation because the aim is to flesh out meaningful CHANGES in the metrics from one generation to the next. For example $106k average per year in 2025 may seem high to someone on the median wage but $13.5k average was likely also high to someone on the median wage in 1980.

The "way up and the way down" are no longer the same for a young person seeking to establish a home. The path is steeper, the burdens are heavier, and the destination is more distant than ever before. So, in the spirit of Aristotle's logical analysis, one could say they face a challenge of a magnitude not experienced by their forebears in this particular, and most fundamental, aspect of life.

Let’s come back in 40 years and see if life was really so tragic for Gen Z. I have a feeling Gen DEF will be complaining the most loudly then.

Comparing generations might be an interesting discussion point but does nothing to solve the issues Australians of all categories face today.

The cost of housing is not the fault of boomers but is the result of very poor management over many years from politicians of all political stripes at local state & federal levels and now it has come to a head.

Let’s face it - very few of our representatives are qualified for their roles - have any real or relevant life or work experience and boy does it show !

Aussies arguing or blaming amongst ourselves achieves nothing - focus on the fools governing us & hold them to account.

The fish rots from the head !

I agree with Angry boomer. We are really let down by our pollies who have agendas and no business or other decent skills. Hence the saying that "the trouble with political jokes is that most of them get elected"

"pollies who have agendas and no business or other decent skills"

Does a PhD in political science qualify one for the responsible job role of treasurer?

You have hit the nail on the head perfectly

Comparing housing prices (a necessity) to a colour television (a luxury) seems a bit disingenuous. As a Gen Z I agree with conclusion - everyone has had it tough in different ways. But implying that the price of a television is comparable to the price of a house is mind-boggling. Baby boomers and Gen X deserve better comparisons to truly show the hardships they faced that have a similar significant impact like having a roof over your head does.

I’ve been told by my bank that, with my current rental prices, I’ll never save enough for a deposit. The Australian dream has disappeared, or at least transmogrified to something unrecognisable.

I'm a pre-boomer - my parents grew up in the Depression, and went to WW2. They had nothing like the opportunities we now expect.
For me, the biggest change has been in expectations of what is good enough: I grew up in a small, fibro (asbestos sheet) house in the (then) sticks, no car, no phone, no TV - but that was OK.
The second big change has been the structure of families. It used to be a broader group, living relatively nearby, helping each other. That provided child care, aged care, help on projects, counselling etc.
Now we have nuclear families - just mum and dad and kids - quite often single parent due to parent incompatibility. We have to hire support so that we can indulge ourselves in non-essentials and keep up with the Joneses.

The old fibro house argument is also disingenuous. Today, the price of a newish brick veneer home is going to be very similar to the old fibro shack right next to it. This is because the biggest portion of any house price is actually the land underneath it. You could live in a cardboard box in a vacant block in Sydney and it will still cost well over $1million

In a society where higher education is more common than ever, the average family's inability to afford a home reveals a disturbing economic reality. The promise of dual-income households and university degrees appears to be a cruel joke, as homeownership becomes an increasingly distant dream for many. This crisis isn't a result of poor choices by individuals, but rather a reflection of a system that has fundamentally broken its social contract.

Dual income families are part of the cause for the affordability issues with respect to housing.

Not the only, true but definitely a cause.

I was born in the 60's. Primary School in the 70's High School to mid 80's

Most of my school peers were in 1 income families still.
Some, the mother worked part time hours only and the rest were 2 full income families.

Buying a home in a single income family was still possible.

Moving into the later 80's and early 90's we had a stronger move to 2 income families buying homes and out bidding the single income family, the 2 income family had more borrowing power, more purchasing power and bid up prices or paid over the odds to secure the property. Then those 2 income families then began being outbid by the famous DINKS, Double Income, No Kids households

Property investors were big on yield back than and capital gain was a second benefit. Property yields were higher then but capital growth was lower.

Then we had Howard and Costello change the CGT system to the 50% discount after 12 months.

Dual income families and DINKS jumped on the property investing ladder en masse, flippers too, buy renovate and sell after 12 months.

2 full time workers in the household, birthrates declined, immigration taps opened up to add pressure to property prices.

Re CGT, there was no CGT on assets held over 12 months, until 1985 (Hawke/Keating). At that time, I believe indexation was applied to the purchase price before calculating the capital gain. Indexation was dropped and the 50% discount applied instead by Howard/Costello. Another issue is that capital losses can only be offset against future capital gains.

I have been carrying some capital losses on shares for about 6 years now. If capital gains were going to be classed as pure income, then capital losses should also be immediately deductable.

Also the system only considers those things that historically increase in value. If the increase is roughly in line with inflation, CGT is incurred even if the value has not changed in real terms. Also what about things that depreciate? If you pay tax on things that increase in value, then why can't depreciating assets offset that tax?

I agree that it is difficult to compare generations on an affordability basis. Us Baby boomers did not have much, but I would think on a whole that we were all pretty happy with our lives. We made do with second-hand stuff including cars, seldom ate out and air travel was very expensive. We did not have the expectations of more current generations and had our families early. I think that we are the winners.

Like comparing chalk and cheese. In 1950s, five of us lived in a 2 bedroom weatherboard home with wood stove, copper boiler, ice chest, no A/C or TV or computers and outside dunny! Mainly men worked, apprentices were paid virtually nothing for first 2 years. If you wanted to find out anything you travelled to a town library. Yes house prices have doubled in recent years but this was driven by huge immigration intake and cutting interest rates to near zero to make it easier for Gen Z to borrow for a house loan. Interest rates to be cut to again and government policy hasn’t slowed immigration very much. Good luck!

Totally agree with your chalk and cheese - we had a very similar experience in the 1960s when eight of us lived is a compact 3 bedroom home, no a/c, no computers, no internet, no phone , no international travel , no eating out because we couldn't afford any of it. Excessively low interest rates, excessively high immigration and no government housing are the main drivers of overblown housing demand and prices no matter what others may want to believe.

Very interesting article thanks. At the tail end of the Boomer generation and as a single woman on lower wages than males, wanting to buy a home for myself I felt fortunate that as a female I was finally able to get a mortgage (at 17.5% variable rate with the then State Bankmof Vic) in 1989.
Not too long beforehand I believe a woman could get a mortgage only if there were a man involved, such as her husband or father. I'm so glad that has changed! However, for many women their wages to this day do not match the wages of males doing equal work and this has been completely overlooked in your article.

Well said Maggie; and as for (shock, horror) two women (both in professional jobs) applying to "which bank?" for a home loan in the early 70s with no man involved, well "In your dreams, Ladies"...

As a single female I never had any problem getting a home loan, credit card etc. Just had to wait 6 months for the home loan due to the credit squeeze.

Actually the "lower wages for females" has been completely debunked. Besides the fact that it is illegal to offer a lower wage based sex, many jobs that offer higher wages have a very small % of females interested in them. ( think STEM or trades). As for males being required to cosign a mortage for a female in the 80s, it was more a question of collateral than gender. A 40 year old male in 1985 would have been part of the workforce for about 20 years, whereas most women stayed home to raise the kids. My mom was a notary public in the 1970s and she brought home a very hefty salary compared to my dad. You should stop the victim hood mentality and look at all the facts.

Another metric is the effect of population growth on housing demand our the generations and the effect on house prices.

The only way to compare which generation "had" it toughest is to run the comparison across a significant period of time, in retrospect - so really, the only generations you could reasonably make comparisons about are silent G and boomer G seeing the vast majority of their lives have been lived.

Anyone younger is still in the process of dealing with life and who knows, things may get better, or may get worse for any particular generation, on balance, over the course of their lifespan.

Younger generations can and should, by all means as part of the political process, agitate for improvements to their lot relative to older generations, but they'd be wise not to assume success in this endeavour and would be well served having a plan to deal with life as it is right now, not as they hope it will be in the future.

Being a baby Boomer I have lots of memories of how tough it was growing up, and how youngsters these days have it easy. When necessary I can draw on the Monty Python skit about the four millionaires who have increasingly bizarre accounts of how tough it was when they were growing up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue7wM0QC5LE
The cost of housing is certainly a concern but real wages and living standards have increased over the decades. The quality and safety of cars also are quite different these days. I have unfond memories of drum brakes, vacuum driven wipers, and side vent windows providing climate comfort and demisting.

Real wages have stagnated leaving most working people with the buying power of the 1970s with 2020s exponentially higher living costs.

Having lived and worked through both periods, I would challenge this statement. If you exclude housing costs, the cost and standard of living is dramatically higher now than 50 years ago. Having bought a home in western Sydney in 1983, our living standard was absolutely Spartan for over ten years before things started to become financially easier, though we did manage to buy an 18" colour TV for $400, or more than a week's wage.

Absolutely correct. I have never felt more impoverished and that is from a person who doesn't eat out a lot, never orders Uber Eats, makes her own clothes or buys second hand, lives in a cheap outer suburb. Life is very hard now on a modest wage.

The housing doesn't recognise that historically only 1 parent worked. So with both now working the 14.1 multiple is 7.
The above could have a line for child care costs, another for HECS. Different metrics can skew the perception.
My grandparents' generation went through 2 world wars, the Spanish Flu (covid) and the Great Depression by age 30.

There is a dearth of discussion as to how the nature of the Australian economy has changed, particularly since the floating of the Australian dollar in 1983. There has been significant overseas investment in real estate, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne where poor planning by the respective State governments has resulted in a supply/demand anomaly which has resulted in significantly higher house prices. Sydney and Melbourne have also become more internationalised adding to the problem.
I’m happy to be corrected.

The Centre For Independent Studies published an interesting program on this topic. Link attached.

https://www.cis.org.au/commentary/video/if-everything-was-working-out-for-everyone-it-would-be-a-miracle-marian-tupy-fraser-nelson/