At the same time we know the money working people pay into social security no longer covers the costs of the benefits being paid out. Worse: one tenth of government expenditure comes from money we don't have but have to borrow. So the baby boomers have saddled us with an expensive pension system, and not enough money to pay for it.
The government praises itself for its quick decision-making. Even the Labour party gave into without a fight. So what now? Should young people be happy the state pension age has finally been raised, that the state's finances are finally getting some breathing space?
Photo courtesy: ANBO, Netherlands Seniors Association
Where were the young people when all this was being decided? For most of us the whole debate felt like getting a call from a telemarketer offering a funeral policy: ridiculous, irrelevant, not a priority. We have just started our professional lives, and we are still convinced we are going to have such satisfying careers that we wouldn't dream of retiring at 65.
The baby boomers on the other hand do want to retire at 65. In making their case all the cliches about elderly people are fair game. How could we deny the elderly their golden years after all those years of hard work? Didn't they rebuild the country after the war? Didn't they feed us, send us to school, give us a future? We are being hit over the head with images of 64-year-old men forced to work on their knees paving the streets while dreaming about their well-earned pensions.
But this is also the generation that has benefited from a very generous social security system: student loans for as long as they wanted, early retirement, severance pay, disability allowances for the slightest aches. These are all benefits we young people will not be able to enjoy, or only in a very slimmed-down form. But nobody ever asked our opinion.
Contrary to what may people have said, young people are involved with politics. We blog and twitter about every issue under the sun: the cost of higher education, the future of the public broadcasting system, the protests in Iran... But the state pension age is not a popular topic. The group 'AOWnaar67' (Raise state pension age to 67) on the popular social networking site Hyves has only ten members, and nobody has left a message on the forum yet.
It's not so much a generation gap; it is a gradual change: the younger the employee is, the less he or she feels represented by the traditional Dutch negotiating structures. The unions represent only 20 percent of the working population, and young people make up only a fraction of union members.
My generation isn't into marching in the streets. The idea of joining a union doesn't appeal to most of us. And even those young people who have joined a union have a hard time getting heard: many young members tried to argue for a raise in the pensions age, but often their voice was overruled by the older vote. The few youngsters who did join a union are scared away by this. The Hyves-group in which members are encouraged to give up their membership has 146 members and many forum messages.
The fact remains that as long as the elderly keep benefiting from a social security system we simply can't afford, my generation will always pay more into the system than we will ever get in return. The baby boomers may have built a beautiful country for us, but they have left it to us in a shambles. [rc]
Rosanne Herzberger (25) is a student of molecular biology at the University of Amsterdam and a columnist for nrc.next, NRC Handelsblad's sister paper.
Source: NRC Handelsblad
October 21, 2009
NETHERLANDS: Footing the bill for the happiness of the baby boomers
.
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands / NRC Handelsblad / Opinion / October 21, 2009
The baby boomers may have rebuilt the Netherlands after WWII, but they are leaving it to us in a shambles, argues 25-year-old Rosanne Hertzberger.
By Rosanne Hertzberger
The state pension age in the Netherlands is to be raised from 65 to 67. But not just yet: we first have to wait for everyone who was born in the ten years following World War II to turn 65 and collect their pensions. Only then, when the ageing of the population is past its peak, will something finally be done.
At the same time we know the money working people pay into social security no longer covers the costs of the benefits being paid out. Worse: one tenth of government expenditure comes from money we don't have but have to borrow. So the baby boomers have saddled us with an expensive pension system, and not enough money to pay for it.
The government praises itself for its quick decision-making. Even the Labour party gave into without a fight. So what now? Should young people be happy the state pension age has finally been raised, that the state's finances are finally getting some breathing space?
Photo courtesy: ANBO, Netherlands Seniors Association
Where were the young people when all this was being decided? For most of us the whole debate felt like getting a call from a telemarketer offering a funeral policy: ridiculous, irrelevant, not a priority. We have just started our professional lives, and we are still convinced we are going to have such satisfying careers that we wouldn't dream of retiring at 65.
The baby boomers on the other hand do want to retire at 65. In making their case all the cliches about elderly people are fair game. How could we deny the elderly their golden years after all those years of hard work? Didn't they rebuild the country after the war? Didn't they feed us, send us to school, give us a future? We are being hit over the head with images of 64-year-old men forced to work on their knees paving the streets while dreaming about their well-earned pensions.
But this is also the generation that has benefited from a very generous social security system: student loans for as long as they wanted, early retirement, severance pay, disability allowances for the slightest aches. These are all benefits we young people will not be able to enjoy, or only in a very slimmed-down form. But nobody ever asked our opinion.
Contrary to what may people have said, young people are involved with politics. We blog and twitter about every issue under the sun: the cost of higher education, the future of the public broadcasting system, the protests in Iran... But the state pension age is not a popular topic. The group 'AOWnaar67' (Raise state pension age to 67) on the popular social networking site Hyves has only ten members, and nobody has left a message on the forum yet.
It's not so much a generation gap; it is a gradual change: the younger the employee is, the less he or she feels represented by the traditional Dutch negotiating structures. The unions represent only 20 percent of the working population, and young people make up only a fraction of union members.
My generation isn't into marching in the streets. The idea of joining a union doesn't appeal to most of us. And even those young people who have joined a union have a hard time getting heard: many young members tried to argue for a raise in the pensions age, but often their voice was overruled by the older vote. The few youngsters who did join a union are scared away by this. The Hyves-group in which members are encouraged to give up their membership has 146 members and many forum messages.
The fact remains that as long as the elderly keep benefiting from a social security system we simply can't afford, my generation will always pay more into the system than we will ever get in return. The baby boomers may have built a beautiful country for us, but they have left it to us in a shambles. [rc]
Rosanne Herzberger (25) is a student of molecular biology at the University of Amsterdam and a columnist for nrc.next, NRC Handelsblad's sister paper.
Source: NRC Handelsblad
At the same time we know the money working people pay into social security no longer covers the costs of the benefits being paid out. Worse: one tenth of government expenditure comes from money we don't have but have to borrow. So the baby boomers have saddled us with an expensive pension system, and not enough money to pay for it.
The government praises itself for its quick decision-making. Even the Labour party gave into without a fight. So what now? Should young people be happy the state pension age has finally been raised, that the state's finances are finally getting some breathing space?
Photo courtesy: ANBO, Netherlands Seniors Association
Where were the young people when all this was being decided? For most of us the whole debate felt like getting a call from a telemarketer offering a funeral policy: ridiculous, irrelevant, not a priority. We have just started our professional lives, and we are still convinced we are going to have such satisfying careers that we wouldn't dream of retiring at 65.
The baby boomers on the other hand do want to retire at 65. In making their case all the cliches about elderly people are fair game. How could we deny the elderly their golden years after all those years of hard work? Didn't they rebuild the country after the war? Didn't they feed us, send us to school, give us a future? We are being hit over the head with images of 64-year-old men forced to work on their knees paving the streets while dreaming about their well-earned pensions.
But this is also the generation that has benefited from a very generous social security system: student loans for as long as they wanted, early retirement, severance pay, disability allowances for the slightest aches. These are all benefits we young people will not be able to enjoy, or only in a very slimmed-down form. But nobody ever asked our opinion.
Contrary to what may people have said, young people are involved with politics. We blog and twitter about every issue under the sun: the cost of higher education, the future of the public broadcasting system, the protests in Iran... But the state pension age is not a popular topic. The group 'AOWnaar67' (Raise state pension age to 67) on the popular social networking site Hyves has only ten members, and nobody has left a message on the forum yet.
It's not so much a generation gap; it is a gradual change: the younger the employee is, the less he or she feels represented by the traditional Dutch negotiating structures. The unions represent only 20 percent of the working population, and young people make up only a fraction of union members.
My generation isn't into marching in the streets. The idea of joining a union doesn't appeal to most of us. And even those young people who have joined a union have a hard time getting heard: many young members tried to argue for a raise in the pensions age, but often their voice was overruled by the older vote. The few youngsters who did join a union are scared away by this. The Hyves-group in which members are encouraged to give up their membership has 146 members and many forum messages.
The fact remains that as long as the elderly keep benefiting from a social security system we simply can't afford, my generation will always pay more into the system than we will ever get in return. The baby boomers may have built a beautiful country for us, but they have left it to us in a shambles. [rc]
Rosanne Herzberger (25) is a student of molecular biology at the University of Amsterdam and a columnist for nrc.next, NRC Handelsblad's sister paper.
Source: NRC Handelsblad
