Kippers and Plon(k)ers

I found this article on Saturday far more therapeutic than all the calls for budget handouts.  It made me introspective. 

Kippers are; kids in parent’s pockets eroding retirement

Plon(k)ers are; parents letting offspring not contribute, eroding retirement savings.

I know many Plon(k)ers – they are lovely people.  Far more family orientated than I ever was but I wonder if they are really benefiting the Kippers.  I remember heading to Wellington when I was age 20 – went flatting in Roxburgh Street, Mount Victoria with three other guys around my own age.  We each had separate household duties and it operated like clockwork.  Thankfully our Chef flatmate finished work before us and he could supply the meat wholesale.  I got to do the dishes.  The rest of the domestic duties were hardly time consuming but the place was never a pig sty, the music an eclectic mix of mutual likes and outspoken dislikes.  We learned to compromise.  They were wonderful times – a mixture of child and adult.  Serious and whimsical. 

But what about these kids that stay attached to mum whilst in their 30’s.  To each their own, who are we to hypothesise the rights and wrongs – but I did enjoy the acronyms. 

I don’t think we experienced the horrific suicide rates we hear of today – were we mentally stronger, through making our own way or is the pressure of expectation and influence far greater today than in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s.  Officially, at least 11 people a week die by suicide in New Zealand.  Timaru based GP Dr Oliver Bourke warned that the number could be three times higher.  If a coroner is not satisfied that a death can be ruled a suicide, then it is classified under a different category, such as an accident, or the cause is simply declared undetermined.  Former chief coroner Neil Maclean said the number of recorded suicides in New Zealand should be taken with a large grain of salt.  If we have one of the largest rates of suicide in the developed world (and we have, especially with our young people) the allocation of a couple of billion more dollars to the health industry is obviously warranted. But is the mental health industry at the top or the bottom of the cliff.

I know I’m biased and commercially a beneficiary of financial planning – but unless people have a purpose and a plan they will be subservient to external influence and likely respond via impulse, emotion and instinct.  Whilst the baby boomer era is recognised as the ‘lucky people’ we are the children born soon after the horrors of World War II.  Our parents and grandparents were tough – they had to be.  Experiencing both depression and war.  We couldn’t help but be affected by the stories of deprivation and death.  Today’s children enjoy a standard of living far superior to billionaires of the beginning of the 20^th Century.  Transport, entertainment, communication, healthcare – opportunity.  There is no comparison, yet so many are desperately unhappy.  How can that be?

Perhaps the family unit is the critical answer, after all, being loved is a pretty powerful motivator for life.  But many suicide victims have close family and friends, desperate to help and committed to ongoing support.  The irony of living in a country so removed from hatred, conflict and bloodshed yet so entrenched in depression, anxiety and chemical dependency (often prescribed) is unbelievably confusing.  Rather than clamouring for equality of wealth perhaps we are better to focus on quality of thought.  Instead of demanding the redistribution of wealth we should be demanding the redistribution of learning.  Not highlighting the rich and the poor but highlighting strength and weakness of mind.  Not focusing on IQ and demanding a return to ‘free’ education but focusing on EQ and building emotional intelligence.

There has to be a connection between societies evolvement from family unit and basic living standards of 50 years ago and today’s fast paced interaction of digital communication and desire for instant gratification.  We are living in a trance of expectation with greater and greater demands for perception and possession.

Perhaps the ‘plonkers’ have got it right – after all if reciprocity were to prevail Mum and Dad just might have built in care givers for the future.  A discussion along those lines would create for some interesting reactions around the dinner table, and on a more serious note – keeping an eye out for each other in a hectic – often frantic life wouldn’t be all bad.  Perhaps a stay at home mum has a whole new meaning – but will the kids really pay her or just expect the unconditional love with a nominal reward and promise for the future.  I think – ‘Kippers’ but would like to believe kindness and mutual benefit – what do you think?