Demographic at Work — Episode 7 of Career Coaching with John
Episode Seven - The Demographic Gridlock
Listen on Spotify | Youtube Music | Apple | Patreon
In Part Two of Scarcity in a Land of Plenty, we shift the lens from tech to demographics — and ask why, in a world that claims there's a labour shortage, so many people still feel stuck.
From Baby Boomer capital preservation to Millennial risk aversion, this episode explores how wealth, leadership, and opportunity have gotten tangled across generations. We talk about politics, anger, and the Charlton Heston end-of-the-world trilogy you didn’t know you needed.
Because this isn’t just an economic story — it’s a story about movement, about why we’re frozen, and what it might take to break free.
Music Credits
Theme: Music by AllWorldMusic from Pixabay
Intermission: Musicby Electronic-Sensesfrom Pixabay
Written By: John Fialkowski
Published: May 14th, 2025
Share on:
Read Transcript — Episode 7: Demographic at Work
You're listening to career coaching with John. Thoughtful approaches for lasting change. My name is John Filkowski and welcome. Today's episode is Part 2 of our series Scarcity, Land of Plenty. Why Unemployment is in Failure. This one, Part 2, is the demographic gridlock Syno.
Before we get into all that, I want to talk about Charlton Heston. No, not gun toting you. Take this out of my cold dead hands, Charlton Heston, but specifically about the little End of the world trilogy of movies he made in the late 60s and early 70s.
I love these movies, not ironically, a little ironically, but and not as cab. But I love them because they are dark and weird and honest in a way that modern blockbusters rarely are. It starts with Planet of the Apes and 1968.
An astronaut crash lands on a strange planet. Only discover. Spoiler alert, it's Earth. The future Earth. The one we wrecked. You maniacs, you blow it up. Well, then comes the Omega Man in 1971.
Since the last man alive after a plague wipes out most of humanity, he does what most men do when they're the last man alive. He drives around a convertible, he drinks warm Scotch, he beds the occasional hottie, and he shouts at cultures mutants in abandoned department stores.
It's isolation, paranoia, and collapse all into one. And finally, Soylent Green in 1973. My favorite and perhaps the bleakest of the bunch. Based on Harry Harrison's novel Make Room, Make Room, the movie was set in the not so distant future of 2022.
The Earth was choking on overpopulation and global warming from greenhouse gases. The oceans are dead, real food is extinct, and society has split in two. Those who live in fortified towers with air conditioning and soap and everyone else.
And Charlton Heston's character is a cop, a detective trying to make sense of a murder in the world that's already gone off the rails. And of course it ends with the famous line Soylent Green is people voice wrong. But when you go back and actually watch the movie, and I mean really watch it, what sticks isn't that twist.
It's the vibe, the suffocating sense that everything we depend on is one step away from collapse, and no one in charge seems interested in preventing it. And maybe that's why these films hit so hard. Because beneath the dystopian sci-fi is something deeply familiar.
A society in denial, A ruling class more concerned with comfort than progress. Institutions that were built for a different time now stretched past their breaking point. And that brings us to today. Because while we're not living in Soylent Green, not exactly, we're living in a version of its world.
Inequality is reaching heights that hasn't been seen in hundreds of years. The looming threat of global warming can't forget. And homes are treated as vaults, not shelter. And finally, when job exists but access to them is more by who you know than by your talent or desire.
So in this episode, we're going to look at what happens when wealth doesn't flow, when opportunity gets stuck, and when generations start holding on instead of handing off. It's not just an economic story, it's a story about movement, about what happens when we freeze.
Well, this is career coaching with John. Episode 7. Scarcity in the Land of Plenty. Part 2. The demographic gridlock. I'm John, of course. Let's get into it. Welcome back to Career Coaching with John.
In our last episode of this series, we talked about how unemployment is in failure. It's a disconnect specifically around technology. How the tools that were supposed to make hiring easier have actually made it harder. We looked at job boards, algorithms, and the overwhelming number of applications that flood the system.
What was meant to create opportunity has instead created noise. Too much choice, too little clarity. Well, today we're going to shift the lens from tech to demographics and ask what happens when the economy says there is a labour shortage but you still can't find the good job?
Because both these things, too much choice and not enough opportunities, are symptoms of something deeper. The disconnect about how the system looks on paper and how it feels in real life. Well, though demographic forces have hardly been overlooked, they have been misunderstood.
For years we've heard that the retirement of the baby boomer generation would create this wave of opportunity, that labour shortages would open up doors for younger workers, that wages would rise, that power would transfer. The outgoing generation was massive and the incoming generation was small.
And in response, our government opened up the doors to massive immigration to make up that shortfall. And that's not exactly what happened, though we now have a situation with lots of people who have nowhere to live and nothing productive to do.
Baby Boomers are the wealthiest generation in North American history as of 2023. They control the vast majority of financial and real estate assets in the country. They benefit from a post war economic boom, subsidized education, stable employment, and generous defined benefit pension plans.
This generation is now retired or preparing to retire, and many are entering this phase not out of exhaustion, but out of choice in preparation. They are, on average, living longer, healthier and better lives than their parents did. The world, though, looked very different when boomers were in their prime earning years.
At that time, they were actively growing wealth, starting businesses, investing in industry, shaping the modern economy. But now, as they've transitioned into retirement, or at least the mindset of retirement, their role in the economy has shifted from builder to protector. The portfolios are now built for capital preservation bonds, GIC's, dividend stocks, annuities, real estate.
Of course these are smart, secure choices for managing longevity risk, but they don't fuel innovation or job creation. Large capitals and circulating it sitting still at the same time and the generation now at its peak earning age is generation XA.
Much smaller cohort with far less capital to move. The gravitational centre of the economy therefore hasn't kept pace with the shift. So instead of seeing a handoff from one generation to the next, we're watching more of a slow retreat. Drawdown of ambition and risk replacing replaced by stability and defence when public policy of course will reflect those preferences.
Low property taxes, capital gains exemptions and programs geared towards the aging populations. Governments are hesitant to make the change and sneeze structures because older generations vote more consistently than younger ones. So when we talk about labour shortages, more job scarcity, we have to follow the money and what it's doing well right now.
That means catering to the haves rather than the have nots, the retirees, the property owners and the property conservatives. This isn't necessarily malicious, it's more gravitational. It's a black hole of capital tends with decades of accumulated wealth pulling the policy, politics, and progress into its orbit.
Now let's talk about the largest segment of the population, the millennials. And my apologies, this is 1 isn't really based upon fact. It's based more on feelings and uncertainties. But those feelings are more personal. As this generation, our generation, moves from the first half of its life into the second, I find myself asking how well were we really prepared for leadership?
Because somehow we haven't really been able to step up as the adults in the room. Well, let's think of why that might be. Millennials for the term Millennial comes because the oldest of us turned 18 at the turn of money in 1819.
We came of age during the Great Recession. We built careers through precarious contract and unstable work. We were hit hard by COVID just as many of us were hitting our prime. We happen to be the most educated generation history. But at the same time, we also carry more student debt, we earn less and we own fewer assets than our parents did.
And that matters because maybe the issue isn't about a lack of cushion. Lord knows we had a lot of cushion. But what if the real issue is access not just to capital, but to mobility, to movement, to opportunity that's not locked behind cost of living barriers or credential walls?
If you can't rogue relocate without financial strain, if you can't shift industries without spending $30,000 in education, then what kind of risks can you even take? What happens to a generation when you can't move across the country for a new job because rent is unaffordable?
If you can't start a new business because capital is scarce? What happens to a generation when you don't invest in ideas because you're paying off your 20s? Some research has shown what happens. A study from Investopedia found that 85% of millennials identify as conservative investors favoring cash over stocks.
Another analysis from the Fed cited financial instability, debt and pessimism about upward mobility as the greatest drivers. Alone will risk aversion. Add to that the mental fog of social media at constant comparison performative success, and I have a generation that's exhausted before it ever got to lead.
There was a time not long ago when people assumed that millennials would transform leadership. We were raised on an empowerment, on group projects, on awareness. We were told we could rewrite the rules and now we're here. Mid career, post pandemic, credentialed, connected and largely absent.
I thought COVID would usher in a creative renaissance. Instead, it left us cautious, distrustful, prone to burnout. We've had a hard time asserting ourselves. We've had a hard time speaking our minds. Too many of us are crippled by trauma, whatever that might mean to them.
So why might that be? Now, of course, that's not all of us. Some are rising, but even those who have made it into leadership roles, there is still lingering hesitation, a sense of being watched, judged or boxed in by a system that doesn't really want change.
It just gave updated optics. These are hardly the conditions of a boom time, are they? OHP There's a lot of wealth out there, but it's sitting still to get educated with your time in by house. Path to success hasn't worked for this generation like it did for others.
So instead, we manage, we protect, we comply, we consume, we hog resources for ourselves, just like we've been taught. But we haven't figured out how to work together to work Oregon vote in our best interests.
Are these wounds self-inflicted or are we being held back? Well, the answer is probably both and either. Yeah, the economic conditions were not ideal for success, and the failure of preparation wasn't that we weren't given an opportunity. Maybe it's more like we weren't taught how to think like entrepreneurs, and as such, one generation is preserving and the other is hesitating.
The capital light is locked up and the talent is burned out. The system is stuck. I want to now kind of move to a reflection not on the job market, but on politics, specifically the most recent Canadian federal election.
I've always been interested in politics. I've always considered myself to be an aspirational voter, and by that I mean I don't see myself as firmly conservative or progressive. I see government as a partner. It's the crossroads between the individual and the collective, a vehicle for solving the relentless lists of challenges.
To me, government should be responsible for the things that the private sector can't or won't do for profit. Infrastructure, safety, education, public health, National Defence. It should take care of the sick, those in transition and those who can't care for themselves.
It should facilitate a vision of the future as defined by its people. It should mediate disagreements in public policy. And yes, if these things cost money, then by all means tax and tax fairly. It should strive to be a model employer, not perfect, just better understanding, of course, that the government isn't a business and won't ever operate with perfect efficiency.
It's a leaky bucket, sure, but ideally one that waters more than it wastes. Beyond that, it should stay the hell of our lives. Like I said, aspirational. This year, I didn't see a candidate who felt at all aspirational. I only saw retrenchment, safe messaging, defensive positions and a refusal to dream.
Why did we stop talking about global warming? Why did we stop caring about investing in the youth? About mental health, the drug or homelessness crisis? Reconciliation with the digital communities. Why did the conversation become so narrow about tax cuts and resource extractions?
Do we really believe that's going to solve our housing crisis? I don't. Are we worried about national security, or are our feelings just hurt? Now? Here's what struck me. According to the exit polls, the youth vote went conservative and the older vote went liberal, the exact opposite of what happened 10 years ago.
The Conservative candidate in this case didn't come in with spreadsheets or PowerPoint decks. He came in swinging, channeling frustration, tapping into the generational eye roll that's been building for years. He wasn't offering detailed policy. He was offering a punch line and a release valve.
A snarky sound biting in an apple. I hated it. And even if you didn't agree with him, you understood sort of where he was coming from. I mean, he did make anger feel like a plan. And for a lot of people, that was, well, that was enough to listen.
Maybe it is about being tired of stagnation, of being ignored or being asked to wait while the house keeps burning. Is it a coincidence that this guy is 45 years old? He seems out of touch to me, but he's only two years older than me.
Is it a coincidence that Vice President JD Vance was born in 1984? Why are the politicians of my generation so angry? Hmm? Now why, you ask?
Why did I bring this up in a queer coaching podcast? Because it matters. It matters to understand the world you're living in. It matters to know that the friction you're feeling isn't personal, that it's structural, it's cultural.
It's generational, it matters, so you can do something about it. You know our man Sung Zoo in the Art of War. What did he say? Know your enemy. There is a real sense of reservation in pessimism in our society right now.
So yeah, you can get angry, but be constructive about it. Lift each other up. Push each other to create rather than break. Don't join things just to sit there quietly and wait for instructions. Make a move. Be a leader. If you feel stuck, disillusioned, or invisible, you're not alone.
Understanding that isn't the end of the story though, and it shouldn't bring you down. It's the beginning of learning how to move differently within it. There's opportunity in being different. Well, this is queer coaching with John. Let's take a break.
By the way.
By the way, by the way, either way. Wait, why would I the way?
By the way. That was, by the way, from Electronic Sense, an artist coming to us from Barcelona. Welcome back to career coaching with John.
I want to circle back to those Charlton Heston movies that we opened with Planet of the Apes, The Omega Man, Soylent Green. Yeah, they're they're dated. And the dialogue is clunky. The fake blood is fake and the gender politics is swell.
Heston's character treats women more like furniture than people anyway. There is still something there. In all three of those films, Heston plays a man who's deeply flawed but driven. He's not confused about his role in the world.
He's not afraid to act. He doesn't wait for consensus. He doesn't even seem to question whether or not his vision is correct. He just moves, compelled by some internal force that tells him humanity is worth saving.
And maybe that's the part that's stuck with me. Because in a world like ours, without hesitation, all its fear of being wrong, all its focus on optics, the idea of someone moving forward with clarity, purpose, and even a little reckless conviction. Well, well, that's been taken over by the most negative aspects of our society.
So where then does that leave us? Well, I kind of said this before. Maybe it's not them, maybe it's me. I don't want to go around blaming the old people like the toxicity of a bad boss or draining coworkers. Those this Baltics of anger have gross of effect.
Where's down? It makes you reactive instead of intentional, and it convinces you that all you can do is protect yourself. Laugh out or shut down. That anger is probably always going to be with us. It's the question of whether or not we participate in it, whether or not we let it shape how we see others, how we show up, or how we move through the world.
And that's why this matters for your career. Because whether or not you're applying for the job, you're the big boss, you're launching a business, or you're just trying to figure out how to get through your day, you need some clarity, you need context, and you need support. And maybe most of all, you need to remember that you define that the best part of being in charge is that you get to set the tone.
Well, you're in charge of your own life, so you don't have to wait, You don't have to carry that weight of fixing everything, but you do get to decide how you respond. If you want change the error of passive swiping is over.
The boomer generation can created this individualistic world, so be an individual that contributes rather than takes away. And that's where I'll leave it for today. Thank you for again for listening to Career Coaching with John. This was episode 7, Scarcity of Land of Plenty, Part 2 of the demographic gridlock.
Now before I go, understand this is a huge topic and if you know anything about it, you will have spent the last 20 minutes either nodding in agreement or thinking I'm full of it. I've been planning this episode for three weeks at least, constantly finding holes in my argument and going down the rabbit hole of all the ways I've screwed it up.
So I did it anyway. It was never meant to be the definitive guide on how demographic structure has ruined the planet. It was only meant to say that these are some of the different factors that are at play, and understanding that these factors exist can change the narrative from failure to opportunity.
If you try an essence, then career coaching with John has been a tribute to sucking at things and doing them anyway. Giving myself permission to be terrible at something new has been the greatest motivator in my professional life. So to all you perfections out there, this is your permission.
Go do something and suck at it for the joy of getting it done. If this episode helped you refrain, reframe something that you've been struggling with, please share it. Send it to someone else who might need to hear it. And if you're looking for support in your career in leadership, in finding a way forward, you can reach me at johnfilkowski.com.
As always, I welcome your comments. And I know a number of you don't like the theme music, but I'm keeping it anyway just to spite you personally. Now go enjoy your day at work. Thanks for listening. This is career coaching with John.