An Interview with Paul Kershaw on public policy & intergenerational equity

As of late I've been getting more and more interested in research on the construction of social generations and notions of intergenerational equity. So it was exciting to get the opportunity to interview Dr. Paul Kershaw earlier this month. Paul is a professor at UBC and one of the directing minds behind the amazing Generation Squeeze campaign that ran during the recent provincial election in British Columbia. The campaign is premised on the idea that younger generations in Canada deserve a fair chance. The interview appears below and covers a range of topics from public policy to intergenerational equity to political strategy. 

Q: How did you become interested in intergenerational equity as a public policy issue? Can you explain to my readers the reasoning behind and the goals of the Generation Squeeze campaign? 

A: I became interested in intergenerational equity after spending years studying how Canadian policy investments in the generation raising young kids are low compared to the investments made by many, many other affluent countries.  A common response from Canadian governments of all political stripes is that our provincial and federal budgets “cannot afford” to invest more in younger generations.  All the while, the same governments have routinely increased spending on issues like medical care and retirement income, on which we primarily draw as seniors.  These are important programs, and benefit people I love like my mom and grandmother.  But my question is why the cupboard is bare when it comes to adapting for younger generations when we have adapted for decades, and continue to do so, for our aging population?

Q: One of the core narratives from the Generation Squeeze campaign is that government spending on Gen Y and Gen X (and their children) pales in comparison to the public expenditures for the Baby Boomers and the Silent Generation. Why should people be worried about governments spending favouring certain generations over others?

A: Public policy is fair when it adapts appropriately to the pressures facing different generations. A generation ago, around 30 per cent of seniors were poor.  So we needed to adapt by building public medical care to ensure people don’t go bankrupt when they wind up sick in the hospital, and public pensions to ensure people have enough income in retirement. We achieved great success, reducing poverty among seniors to around 5-6% today - lower than any other age group.

But over the same period, the standard of living fell for younger generations:  they make $3/hour less than in 1976, despite being more than twice as likely to have post-secondary; and then have to pay housing prices that have nearly doubled.  While we spent the last decades raising annual government spending by over $80 billion for programs that cater to our aging population, we’ve barely increased spending on younger generations when they start their own families.  The result? We now spend around $45,000 per retiree compared to $12,000 per person under the age of 45.  Our slow pace of adaptation for younger generations leaves Gens X and Y squeezed for income; squeezed for time if and when they start their own families; and squeezed for services like child care which are in short supply and cost more than university.

This squeeze in turn is harming young kids and compromises our population’s health, school achievement, crime reduction, gender equality, truth and reconciliation, going green, and even business profitability.

Q: Over the last year two major political movements appeared: Idle No More and the Maple Spring. Both movements had strong notions of intergenerational inequity contained in their core narratives. At a societal level we've inflicted high costs on young Canadians via poor public policy setting and it's clear that their long-term economic prospects have been impaired (i.e. extreme tuition levels, high cost of housing, poor labour market policy). What specific public policy options are available to realize the goal of increased intergenerational equity?

A: Great question!  This is something that the Generation Squeeze campaign has thought a lot about, because we pride ourselves on being policy experts.

Since younger generations are squeezed by lower wages and higher costs of housing, many presume that the policy solutions should directly address wages and housing.  But here’s the rub.  Markets largely determine wages and housing prices.  Yes, policy makers can influence those markets.  But the available policy levers often involve establishing floors below which we don’t want people to fall:  eg. a minimum wage; rental assistance for the working poor, shelter for the homeless.  These are very important.  But the Gen Squeeze campaign shows that almost all in entire generations of young people feel a squeeze for time at home with kids, or income or services.  And most of these people don’t rely on the minimums.

So if we want to address the squeeze facing the vast majority, we need to ask ourselves what else is going on in the lives of most young people as they try to establish their careers and homes.

Answer?  Around 8 in 10 young people still want to start families. Presently, a typical couple will forgo around $15,000 to share a year at home with a new baby.  We can change this with better parental leave policy.  And child care services often cost as much as another mortgage.  We can change this by building more spaces and bringing the cost down to $10/day.  These two policy changes would save the typical young family around $50,000 before their kids reach age six.

Saving young families $50,000 means they can pay off their student debts, reduce by years the time it takes to save a down payment or pay a mortgage/rent; or invest the money at 3% interest so that it grows to around $150,000 when they wish to retire. Yes, a New Deal for Families is a really practical way to support younger generations cope with student debt, housing and pension challenges.

Q: There's a powerful gendered dynamic in setting public policy related to education, child care, labour markets, and taxation. How are females (particularly young females) impacted (i.e. unpaid work, use of time, lower wages) through inequitable policy setting?

A: My career as an academic has always focused on the gendered implications of public policy, and I’ve received two national prizes from the Canadian Political Science Association for this work.  The research is clear.  On one hand, we have made considerable progress reducing poverty for senior women, and real headway medically on a range of illnesses from which too women many died in the past.  But on the other hand, we continue to neglect that many gender inequalities flow out of our failure to invest in family policy.  There isn’t much of a gender earnings gap between men and women under the age of 25.  But the gap grows substantially thereafter, because that’s the moment that young adults tend to start having families.  And our failure to build on insights shared by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women as far back as 1970 in terms of leave, child care and work-life balance reinforces a gender wage gap, occupational segregation, glass ceiling, higher rates of poverty for women, lower rates of participation in senior levels of politics, etc.

Q: The recent election in B.C. resulted in the surprise result of the Liberals being returned to office with a majority government despite polling that suggested the NDP had widespread support. In a recent Globe and Mail op-ed you suggested that neither the Liberals or the NDP responded to the needs of Gen Y or Gen X in any meaningful way. Why aren't the political parties engaging with young workers? Did the NDP campaign strategists commit a critical judgment error in failing to mobilize young citizens or create policies catered to their needs?

A: Those under 45 are a third less likely to vote, often because they claim ‘politics aren’t about them’ and ‘it doesn’t matter if they vote.’  Alas, it is true that the political platforms on the left and right tend to commit relatively limited dollars to policies that address the squeeze on younger generations.

But platforms are less likely to change if young people don’t vote.  And young people are less likely to vote if platforms don’t change.  Behold the vicious circle!

Political parties that are already in power have little reason to worry about this dynamic, because they are already winning with the disproportionately older population who show up at the ballot box.  The recent BC election is an example.

I would argue that the official Opposition party in BC did make a serious strategic error.  The NDP presumed that the path to government requires transforming enough of those who voted last time for another party into voters for them.  I would suggest that the path from Opposition into government is more likely if a Party focuses on turning abstainers into voters.  Since abstainers are primarily young people, this means opposition parties would be wise to re-organize political platforms to invest more heavily in substantial, and meaningful, policy solutions for Generation Squeeze.

Q: What avenues are available for young citizens to influence the political process inside and outside of party politics?

A: Join the Generation Squeeze campaign (see: www.gensqueeze.ca)!

Q: It strikes me that intergenerational equity is an issue that doesn't get discussed often at the Federal level. Are there any plans to repeat the Generation Squeeze campaign during the next Federal election?

A: Yes. We were just piloting strategies in the lead up to the BC election, and will spend the next weeks evaluating what worked, and what didn’t, in order to adapt accordingly.  Our campaign plan focuses on the year 2015/16 when the next federal election will take place, along with another half dozen provincial and territorial elections.  Starting this fall, the Generation Squeeze campaign intends to initiate partnerships in provinces from coast to coast.

We are inviting citizens of all ages to join something bigger, something inspiring, where we work and party in common cause to amplify our voices in support of a better generational deal – one that gives all generations a chance.

Here’s what the Generation Squeeze campaign promises: (1) Humour and Fun.  Politics is important.  So is having fun.  The Gen Squeeze campaign is about both, and we think gathering in pubs, cafes and other fun places is a big part of social change. (2) Appreciation and Encouragement.  We appreciate and encourage all levels of participation, because we know small acts can make a big difference.  Especially when they’re repeated. (3) Respect.  We promote respectful relationships with partners, proponents and critics. 

(4) Connection.  We support opportunities to connect as much as possible, in person and on-line.  Sign up for our campaign newsletter to stay apprised of the latest developments (5) Suggestions, not Prescriptions. Because you are time-strapped, we suggest ways to participate efficiently in our campaign.  But these are suggestions only, and we value input about alternate ways to mobilize. (6) Clear, Concise Information – You can count on us for leading research about the generational spending imbalance, the squeeze on younger generations, and available solutions.  Since your time is limited, and information overload is real, we will always strive to provide clear, concise evidence to help you take action.