Is there a generational divide in Australia's spending habits? Here's what the data tells us
BTW. I am not a boomer. So please don't suggest I am as has been done in the past.
"You Can't Blame The Boomers, as So Many People Like to Do", Independent Economist Nicki Hutley Said
CurlCurl on 09/09/2024 - 16:26
Last edited 09/09/2024 - 16:40 by 1 other user
Last edited 09/09/2024 - 16:40 by 1 other user
Comments
Not claiming that this is one, but this sort of post on an inflammatory divisive topic is exactly what is being highlighted in the US now in relation to Russian influence.
Adding fuel to the fire
Another common tactic for keeping content believable is linking it to the fears and concerns that are already important in any society. For example, Russia did not bring the culture war to the US, but it has skilfully tapped into American society’s anxieties around the topic.but it has skilfully tapped into American society’s anxieties around the topic.
Has it?
Or it is rather internal, domestic forces creating a yet-another entity to hate and fear?
It is a perfect distraction.
Americans are usually born dumber and dumber, I seriously doubt Russia needs to make any effort to fuel that (dumpster) fire. If anything, it's the American social media that's been having the most detrimental effect on the entire world.
Perfect explanation
I seriously doubt Russia needs to make any effort to fuel that (dumpster) fire
Except they did put tremendous effort into doing just that.
Easy target and convenient media football. If there were no boomers, their offspring would either not exist, or never have had what they were given (life,education and beyond). Non boomers criticising 'all' boomers are just singling out the better off or greedy minority.
There's probably as many battling boomers these days, as there are so called cashed up BOOMers. Either way suck it up. Circumstance is random, and uncontrolled. The flaming torches should be reserved for the property magnates, and the AHs in Canberra who are .(1) in that category and (2) too gutless or invested to scrap negative gearing on all but the first investment property. They could piss it off in stages, by leaving it there for another 5 years and phase it it out (peel it back) . If anything it should be reserved ONLY for investors who build and rent affordable housing for the lower socio-economic cohorts.BTW Koshie has made his entire fortune off boomers. . Now he's kicking their heads in. What a wa*nker
Circumstance is random
Yeah policy plays no role, catering to large demographics plays no role, and once people are established their interests appear to be pulling up the ladder educationally and economically.
I look forward to renting clean air in the future, if we can just turn that necessity into an investment.
The circumstance of where & when you were born is about <001% policy.
BTW. I am not a boomer. So please don't suggest I am as has been done in the past.
Young people on here think anyone with money and property must be a boomer. They refuse to believe that you can get to a good financial position through hard work and disciplined saving.
Worse, they think Boomers didn't need to do any hard work or discipline to get ahead.
Worse, they don't think independently. Period. . I guess now we now know who the 'influenced' are.
Seriously , those "nobodies" on social media using psychological gill nets, (or flesh) to drag them all in. That 'influencer' money comes from the gullible downstream 'victims' (loose terminology) .LOL
Curious, are you American? Always had my suspicions
@timthetoolman: I suggest you review my previous comments.
(BTW ,On the surface your username (at this point) lines up well)@Protractor: Give me a tic, I'll just look through 5000 of them. Sorry I triggered you with simple question.
Worse, they think Boomers didn't need to do any hard work or discipline to get ahead.
nobody has ever said that.
I love how you and @JIMB0 are just creating a narrative to suit your "lol KidS LaZy" attitude.
The reality is that housing affordability is at the worst it has ever been.
Look at the salary to house ratio back when boomers were buying compared to now.
It's not about working hard. It's impossible unless you're on 3x the median salary or want to live 500km away from the cbd, in which case you aren't going to be on that salary anyway.
but go on, tell us again how everyone is lazy.
Just stop ordering avocado on toast and you can afford that 1 million dollar 1 bedroom apartment 300km from your nearest capital city.
Have a go, to get a go!
@Ruddaga: Well, it's more like you could have taken advantage of the fact that you have free information at your finger-tips, a society that no longer discriminates (as much) against women and minorities, access to global skills and education (including selective schools which offer first-rate tuition for free), higher disposable income and all the other good things we've accumulated in the last 50 years. In the 1970s if you were a woman, a minority or not from the dominant culture you would have had a much harder time becoming successful. Now plenty of women and minorities are surgeons, software engineers, quants, bankers, etc, and there is a whole class of upper-middle class knowledge economy jobs that didn't exist 2 generations ago.
I love how you and @JIMB0 are just creating a narrative to suit your "lol KidS LaZy" attitude.
I have not said here that Gen Y and Z's or anyone is lazy.
I am referring to the multitude of social media, tik tok posts where people in the 60's bought a house for a pack of bubble gum then danced and drank tea for the next 40 - 50 years to collect the Pension.
Look at the salary to house ratio back when boomers were buying compared to now.
I swear some people grew up in a world where critical thinking didn't exist, so they don't actually think about how the world has changed since they were young and that more people = more competition for everything. Somehow nothing has changed anywhere on this planet and young people can't afford housing simply because they're lazy.
more people = more competition for everything.
More people who want to be owner occupiers + more landlords.
18.4% of households were rented from private landlords in 1994-95 compared to 26.2% in 2019-20.
@jjjaar: It's really basic yet people who grew up in simpler times can't understand it because the most advanced concept they learnt was long division.
@Ghost47: More competition also means increased prizes for the winners. It's not all bad. Depends if you are skilled enough to take advantage of the competition. Have a look at how many migrants come out here and smash it.
More competition also means increased prizes for the winners.
Sure, you can believe that if you want. A more realistic take is that a larger labour force automatically means more choice for employers and more ability to suppress wages. You just need to look at history to see how that's worked out for us.
Have a look at how many migrants come out here and smash it.
The most successful migrants I've come across tend to have one thing in common: they were refugees. Most of the immigrants I've met who've migrated here by choice (i.e. they weren't forced out of their country) work standard white collar jobs. I do see plenty driving taxis and delivering food too.
Im certainly not a Boomer but the last few years its pretty constant on social media and on ozbargins that Boomers have basically had it easy. I know how tough my parents and grandparents had it and how had they worked.
Each generation has it's difficulties.
Depending on the stats and regions around 4x median in 1980/1981 and 12 times today.
With 3 jobs I should be able to work 24 hours a day, and make it happen
But then I won't need a house to go home to
Lazy? No. Early signs of thought disorder in the elderly. One of the first symptoms is irrationality and frustration with things.
Boomers had to work to get ahead like every other generation but you could transport a millennial/gen z back to the 80s and they'd be able to do achieve exactly what a boomer achieved if not more because younger generations have experienced a harsher world.
Boomers didn't have to compete with heaps of job applicants from interstate and overseas, they had access to free tertiary education, houses didn't cost 8-11x their income, they didn't live in a digital world where you can be contacted after work hours, when they left the office that was the end of their work day and they didn't have a mobile phone that could be called by their employer which meant they could fully devote their evening to whatever they wanted without being distracted by work, they didn't have to deal with a public transport system that constantly breaks down or has issues in inclement weather, they didn't have to compete with hundreds of others for a rental property, boomers weren't subjected to online psychometric tests and interviews to land a graduate role, they could walk into a business with their resume and have a good chance of getting a call whereas these days there are ATS in place that automatically read resumes and veto applicants based on keywords in their resume.
Did white collar boomers even have KPIs or OKRs in their jobs back in the day? Did they even have performance reviews?
If you're at a medium-sized lake with five other people you could easily catch some fish for yourself, but if you're at a large-sized lake with 50 other people then your chances of catching a fish is smaller. It's really that simple yet some people can't understand this.
you could transport a millennial/gen z back to the 80s and they'd be able to do achieve exactly what a boomer achieved
They wouldn't survive as air-conditioning was very uncommon back then and cars were very basic with manual transmissions. They also didn't have fancy $1000 phones and cheap international travel to waste money on.
Boomers didn't have to compete with heaps of job applicants from interstate and overseas, they had access to free tertiary education
Do a trade and you can enjoy an abundant amount of jobs and get your education for free.
They wouldn't survive as air-conditioning was very uncommon back then and cars were very basic with manual transmissions. They also didn't have fancy $1000 phones and cheap international travel to waste money on.
So the hardest thing boomers had to deal with was hot weather and manual cars? Ironic because it's been reported that Gen Z are fueling demand for manual cars. Not every young person buys a new phone every year or travels overseas every year either, but if you're constantly scrolling on Instagram or TikTok that's probably what you would believe since that's all you're exposed to. As I said, critical thinking didn't seem to exist in the 70s or 80s.
Do a trade and you can enjoy an abundant amount of jobs and get your education for free.
Yeah well that's basically the only option now since boomers have been doing whatever they can to run this country into the ground.
houses didn't cost 8-11x their income
Suck it up. I had to when I bought my first house a few years ago.
@JIMB0: Your comments attacking younger generations imply you're a boomer, if you just bought your house a few years ago you failed epically as a boomer. Hilarious you're attacking younger people for flying overseas and buying $1000 dollar phones, what were you doing with your money if you only bought a house a few years ago as a boomer?
@JIMB0: Then you should be able to recognise that it is objectively harder for younger generations to buy a house. If it wasn't the term "bank of mum and dad" wouldn't even exist.
@Ghost47: It's always been hard. Some people get on with it, working and saving hard to get into property, whilst others bitch and moan.
It's always been hard.
Nah I disagree with that and it's easily observed just by looking at how many multiples of income it takes to purchase a house (and that's before the interest paid over the life of the loan).
Some people get on with it, working and saving hard to get into property, whilst others bitch and moan.
It's not as if people aren't doing both. It's absurd to imply the people who are complaining aren't working to earn more to get on the ladder.
@Ghost47: Then either increase your income or buy a cheaper house. My parents moved to an outer suburb to be able to afford a tiny 10 square home back in the 80s. First home buyers generally aren't buying the median house.
@JIMB0: My first home purchase in 1968, 5kl west of Parramatta cost $9,650. The minimum wage in 1969 was $42.65 a week. My second home purchase in the same suburb in 1988, cost $165,000 with a $135,000 loan, and yes we had the 17% interest thanks to Keating.
The minimum wage in 1989 was $214,29 a week. Not everyone was earning the average wage.
@JIMB0: You just don’t get the point I’m making. Obviously those things can be done but in the 70s and 80s people could buy a house on a single white collar income. They didn’t have to work multiple jobs to buy a house. If they did buy further afield they weren’t 90 minutes from the CBD or living in a unit closer to the city.
These things are facts, deny them all you wish but it doesn’t the help the general direction this country is headed in. It’s a fact that high house prices are correlated with lower productivity and our productivity has been declining for years now. High house prices come with a lot of issues for the country, anyone who actually gives a shit about this country should be calling it out.
@Ghost47: I bought a property 6 years ago. About to buy another one. I'm a millennial. The opportunities are there. It's got nothing to do with $1000 phones, and everything to do with who can take advantage of the knowledge economy.
Plenty of high paying jobs that exist today didn't even exist a few decades ago. Not many quants back then, for example, nor software engineers. You reckon the smart millennials currently earning $300k+ at Atlassian or Google would have had anywhere near the selection of jobs a few decades ago? They'd all be earning today's equivalent of $100k at some union construction site. Instead, now we have low skilled jobs paying $50k and high-skilled paying mid-6 figures instead of every job paying aroundabouts the same.
@justworld: I'm sure the opportunities are out there but it's still a fact that younger generations are not achieving home ownership rates at the same level as older generations.
You reckon the smart millennials currently earning $300k+ at Atlassian or Google would have had anywhere near the selection of jobs a few decades ago?
No, but they probably also wouldn't have had an issue getting a high paying job a few decades ago if they're smart either.
@Ghost47: "No, but they probably also wouldn't have had an issue getting a high paying job a few decades ago if they're smart either."
No doubt, but the point is they're better placed now due to more selection and higher relative incomes.
Society is better for the high skilled. Worse for the low skilled. Compared to before.
@justworld: If you're just going to cherry pick then what's the point? 0.1% or less of millennials are earning 300k+. How is that relevant to any discussion?
@Autonomic: It's not 0.1% or less - the top 1% of earners are on $300k, so unless you think the ratio for millennials should be only 1/10th of that, your figures are off.
In any event, it's relevant because it shows that society now is better in relative terms for the high-skilled and worse for the average/low skilled. In other words, there's been a bifurcation in outcomes.
In any event, it's relevant because it shows that society now is better in relative terms for the high-skilled and worse for the average/low skilled. In other words, there's been a bifurcation in outcomes.
So it's worse for the average person and better for the
0.1%0.5%
You’re forgetting that they forget ageism is a part of life and will probably experience the ageism they have against older generations (although hopefully as a society we would have moved on from that)
Here and Reddit as well….
I mean you can get there but it's ridiculously harder than it used to be.
My parents worked two entry level jobs and could afford multiple houses from that while raising 4 kids while still remaining close to city.
You're not buying a house and raising 2 kids while working hard at Coles and having disciplined saving, unless you're living an hour out of the city. That's the issue, and for many no matter how hard you work and save you'll never get there.
Just saying that both "Work hard now to buy a house" or "All boomers had it easy" statements are too broad to mean anything useful.
It's the elites wanting us to fight one another while they continue hoarding. Intergenerational fighting stops when death taxes come back, and that's one the elites will be fighting tooth to nail to prevent.
Intergenerational fighting stops when death taxes come back
There is as much chance of that happening as a Muffti being on the Papal chair at the Vatican.
Blaming boomers for COL problems is silly. They're retired and enjoying life, there's nothing wrong with that. It's good to see some older people in that video [of the article] recognise and acknowledge how hard younger generations have it. Back in the 80s — even though rates were high for a few years — houses cost what, 2-4x income? These days it's more like 8-11x income. A lot of people can't seem to understand that fundamental fact, they call young people lazy when back in the 70s or 80s you could buy a house on a single whte-collar income and your wife could stay at home and raise a child or two. I mean, house prices detached completely from wages in the late 90s to early 2000s.
The RBA is doing its best to get inflation down but the government is continuing to do really stupid stuff which is keeping inflation high. IMO everything ultimately comes down to house prices; if they're too high people need more money to pay off their mortgages, those who own businesses (e.g. small businesses, tradies) will charge more to be able to pay their housing costs.
As an aside, I don't know about other people but this country doesn't feel like Australia anymore IMO. Everywhere I go I hear foreign accents, whenever I watch the news people interviewed on the street have foreign accents, shopping centres are extremely packed, specials sell out quickly, roads are congested and deteriorating due to more (and heavier) cars on the roads, people seem to be impatient and angrier on the roads in general, trains basically fill up at the end of the line meaning if you live one station from the end you're probably not going to get a seat even though 10 years ago you could, if it's a public holiday and you want to go on a road trip it's absolutely packed because everyone has the same idea as you do. COL is only one part of the problem in this country.
specials sell out quickly
The country's been OzBargained?
"You Can't Blame The Boomers, as So Many People Like to Do" then the article state "Many boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, think they are winning.".
There are many in this category that aren’t boomers. It’s blaming one generation for growing wealth gaps, that go hand in hand with our current economic structures and policy. Plenty of boomers are poor too. There are wealthy millennials and Zs also.
If there's one thing Aussies love doing it's blaming others for their own inadequacies. Yes, it's the boomers'/migrants'/rich people's fault you can't afford a house. Make sure you find "the other".
It's just greedy pricks at the source of all the inevitable capitalist misery, not boomers. Always was, always will be.
Whinging aint gonna fix it. Anyway the human race is racing towards an existentioal brick wall that makes wealth totally irrelevant. That's why these discussions are both hilarious & pointless all at the same time. (But for those who feel overwhelmed, it's OK, there's a veritable plethora of options at the 'all you can eat' religious smorgasbord, to see you through.
Anyway the human race is racing towards an existentioal brick wall that makes wealth totally irrelevant.
All the more reason to spend up big today.
For some
I wonder what per capita income tax revenue is today (adjusted for inflation), vs back then.
There are still ways to build wealth through property. You can rentvest where you buy a property in an affordable country town and live where you want to live in a share house to save on rent. There are several ways to get ahead still.
It’s just what economic cycles produce
For a couple of years, interest rates were at all time lows which was a benefit for many generations except boomers who rely on bank deposit interest. Now it’s flipped the away way. In time it will change again.
Boomer has become shorthand for people who got to their place of advantage then campaigned to deny the same advantages to others - free education, cheap homes, full employment.
It’s harder to get to what many boomers would say are their priorities - a home, a family, reliable work, good access to healthcare, affordable necessities.But these things weren’t easier for the boomers by accident, and they aren’t tougher for young people today because of luck, they are the results of policies and decisions.
Decisions like making uni free, or charging HECS, decisions like setting up Landcom and funding cheap homes or restricting in-fill development, decisions to reward property investors with lower tax rates, decisions to build a public health system and Medicare, and decisions to cut back investment in it in later years.The reason the boomers get the bad rap is because they are ones who have chosen through their policies and votes, not to continue spreading the wealth and investing in the future in favour of concentrating wealth and restricting opportunities.
You don’t get to take the benefits, remove them for those following, then have the cheek to complain they don’t like it and call you names!
boomers get the bad rap is because they are ones who have chosen through their policies and votes, not to continue spreading the wealth and investing in the future in favour of concentrating wealth and restricting opportunities.
Maybe be accept some of the blame lies more widely occasionally - have a quick read of this article for a few more points.
After Morrison evoked the spectre of a housing market crash, 47 per cent of those aged 35-44 (early Millennials and late Gen Xers) reported voting for the Coalition, according to the Australian Electoral Study. That’s higher than the proportion of Boomers aged 55-64 who voted for the Coalition (46 per cent).
…and by the way Morrison is not a boomer either. We've actually only had a run of 4 boomers as PM (Turnbull, Abbott, Gillard and Rudd)
Albo is a boomer, Morrison is 6 months too young.
But the opening line of what I wrote definitely includes him:
"Boomer has become shorthand for people who got to their place of advantage then campaigned to deny the same advantages to others"I'm actually not sure why you replied to me, as I'm not doubling down on some definition of an advertising demographic, but saying the change is that past generations (including some genx) benefitted mightily from the generous systems in place, yet when their turn came to make decisions, they chose to dismantle them.
Do you disagree with that, or just the naming convention?
Boomer has become shorthand for people who got to their place of advantage then campaigned to deny the same advantages to others"
There's plenty of other descriptive terms that mean that and 'boomer' is just used for lazy convenience.
It’s more like “boomer” has become the lazy way to to refer to anyone who is older than you who says something you do not like.
Like all name-calling it just kills useful conversations.You don't get to redefine a widely used term that has a specific age range to something that fits your personal opinion.
Also, it's pointless generalising about these so-called generations, as I'm pretty sure a boomer born in 1946 would likely have vastly different attitudes compared to one born in 1963. So there's no point attributing what you think is a set of characteristics to a pretty disparate group. eg boomers had it so easy - maybe if born in '63 but pretty sure the '46ers had a world that had just come out of World War II.
I'm actually not sure why you replied to me……… but saying the change is that past generations (including some genx) benefitted mightily from the generous systems in place…
That's why - you jump in and throw around the 'boomer' tag and now say you weren't referring specifically just to them. Being a bit more concise would help the conversation rather than throwing blame at one specific group (fashionable at the moment from what I can see)
@Grunntt: Ok, your issue is the people who were born a couple of years after the boomers also benefitted.
And maybe some older ones didn’t benefit as much.So what are some of the other descriptive terms that describe people who benefitted from low house prices, low taxes, free tertiary education, Medicare and bulk billing, high wages with good wage growth, secure jobs, a middle class life on one income etc. that benefitted people growing up from the 1950s to the 1980s?
I’m not sure what those descriptors are, but if it helps you to focus on the problems not the lazy naming as being the issue, I’m happy to use them.
I am not a boomer, but the boomers are just doing their version of what everyone else will do when they become boomer age.
And more importantly, when will people learn that problems are created by the rich and their influence over poiticians!Heaven help us if everyone lives their life with a "got mine, f you" attitude.
Isnt that the Boomer credo?
Isnt that the Boomer credo?
Some people are always looking for someone else to blame for their woes.
@CurlCurl: That doesn't mean sometimes they hit it right on target.
For the record I am younger than Scott Morrison yet was lucky enough to benefit from house price growth, low HECS, low income tax, bulk billing doctors and many other benefits that have reduced over the last 40 years.
This original benefits weren't there by accident, they came about because people didn't say "I've got mine" but looked at the good of society.
The easiest way not to be blamed for causing people's problems is to make sure you aren't causing them.
You have to think outside the box (tip from a boomer)
The world still full of opportunities, I just found a house for sale for 140000. with a long term tenant in place for 200 a week. and the house has everything. The boomers invented google search and the information highway. All at the click of a mouse.
Buy it! Then just sit back and wait to find out the reason you were able to buy it. I mean, what kind of idiot would sell such a golden goose?
Thats not the only one, so there must be lots of idiots
Theres one for 157000 with a tenant paying 300 per week. I dont have time to look any more, these are just examples for sale today
@screensaver: And so ends another episode of "Pam Reads Out Headlines Of Advertised Properties".
If you clicked on this channel searching for the series "Pam Does Analysis To Confirm The Value And Feasibility Of Advertised Properties" then we regret to inform you it doesn't exist.
140k house = 20% deposit = 28k, plus a $112k loan.
The median earnings is $1300 per week.
The median rental cost is $627 per week.
That is 48% of their income.
There is $673 left per week.Average living expenses are $400 per week for a single.
That leaves us with $273 per week.To save $28,000, this will take 102 weeks.
But that doesn’t factor in increases of rent and living expenses over the two years. OR that the $140k home is now ~$160k, and now you need a $32k deposit, so an extra $4k, which is another 14 weeks.
Let’s just assume, despite the above being very difficult, someone has the $28k deposit…
I plugged in (per week):
Income:
$1300 in income
$200 from the rental property
Expenses:
$627 in rent
$400 other living expensesThe loan amounts I got, and remember, I need $112,000:
$58,300 CBA
$72,847 Westpac
$53,800 INGThey’re all a bit short, eh?
It’s not the servicing the loan that’s the problem - oftentimes the mortgage repayments for an owner occupier are lower than their current rent. It’s actually getting the loan to begin with. Being able to come up with the deposit is hard enough, but not having the income to satisfy the banks, even WITH a 20% deposit, is a whole other issue.
A keen person would live in their car for awhile just to secure their future (or rent a room for 150 a week or something along those lines)
Why stop there? Live in a tent instead!
Oh wait, because of the rental crisis (that is, the lack of rooms for “150 a week or something along those lines”), people are already living in tents.
Remember, the stats above are the median, which means anyone earning below the median isn’t only stuffed when it comes to buying property, but even finding available rentals that they can afford is nearing impossible.
You can’t be that out of touch with what many Australians are dealing with… can you?
A keen person would live in their car for awhile
Troll comment of the day.
@screensaver: Aren't you the person who started a post on here because you were upset an employee at an Australia Post shop made you pay for a (previously blank) package you took off the shelf and labelled and then decided you wanted to use a different one instead?
Have you figured out how shops work now, cluefilled one?
@Crow K: I cant remember exactly what happened but I think I discovered it was torn and as an ebay seller at the time I didnt want to send torn item, I spent a lot of money at their shop and the employee was new and didnt know me. I dont spend money at their shop anymore
Why would someone on median individual earnings want to rent the median home? You should at least compare like with like: a median individual earner renting a median 1BR or studio apartment.
A median household can rent a median home.
Over 10% of full-time earners earn more than $150k a year. You're competing with them. Get used to it.
Because I’m comparing to the 80s and early 90s when the boomers were either renting or entering the market and household living on a single salary would get you the median house to rent or buy.
The fact that you think a single salary needs to go for lesser than the median home proves my point. Thanks.
@jjjaar: 80s and 90s are a thing of the past. Yes. Life back then was so easy even an idiot could succeed. That's not the case any more.
Not sure why you think mathematically a single salary should support the median home when the median household has 1.5 salaries. That's not how maths works.
The great thing about this world is that the smart get ahead, and the dumb get shafted. As it should be. Just be good at life.
Larry page was born in the 70's, so I think that makes him GenX
On the contrary, I know many rooms for rent for that price. I know where to look. I am good at research, one of my skills. I pay $340 a week for a freestanding house with a yard in the middle of sydney, I have lived here for 24 years. At the time of renting it, I knew where to look. That price could not be had now, but if I had to search for a house I would be able to find the cheapest available. If I have to leave now, I would not be able to afford another freestanding house, thats true. But I have a plan of what I would do instead.
What does the plan involve?
a couple of things. I have been going through my stuff to keep it organised and move ready, and also dispose of anything not needed. No heavy, bulky furniture. Purchase of a van, so I can move it myself if necessary. Can even sleep in the back of the van temporarily whilst relocating. Keeping an eye on storage rental and prices, there is a cheap way to store but I cant share all, and keeping an eye on where to get cheap room prices. The aim is to pay less than what I am paying now, certainly not more.
Sounds like you are very prepared
Go on..?