Harold James says the "generational war" fought between the young and the elderly in Europe stems from "today’s self-centered culture," and will benefit neither camp. Due to an ageing population and low birth rates, many European countries are run by gerontocrats, who rely mainly on elderly constituents to win elections. As they shape their policies, that cater to these cahorts, it drives young people to despair, because they find themselves "starved" of prospects and opportunities. Instead of clamouring for their rights, many instead take advantage of the labour mobility and leave. Italy has some half-million Italians aged 18 to 39, who live and work abroad. Other EU countries observe similar trend - the brightest emigrate, while low skilled workers flood in.

Although "it is difficult to expect people to put the interests of future generations first," it is not "hopelessly naive to expect altruism of the present generation." A "generational" bridge can be built to promote understanding between the two camps, allowing the current generation to maintain a quality of life in retirement, while seeking to "reverse the exodus of the young through better policies." It is a loss that can't be ignored, because "young people receive extensive subsidies in the form of education, when they leave, they take with them resources that could otherwise have been used to pay for other people’s retirement." Brain drain leaves "behind a debt burden that will be much more difficult to reduce without them."

But can we call the benefits that current generation enjoys as "selfishness and complacency of the elderly?" They won't agree and claim that they had worked for their entitlements and gone through hardships before or after the war. In their teens they couldn't travel the world, and enjoy same social benefits and possess technological skills as today's youth. Some of them had never gone abroad, or secondary school and forced to work at 15, or been ordinary housewives. But those who finished school had more job opportunities than what many young people can dream of, and they can afford holidays, cars, houses etc. Feeling the resentment of the disaffected millennials, they complain about the youthful mood being unforgiving.

Is it fair that young people accuse the "middle-aged population" of "environmental damage on a global scale?" Not everybody is so irresponsible by "making decisions without regard for the younger generation." No doubt global warming has become "a heavy burden on future generations," and the babyboomers could be held responsible for squandering much energy resources, as a result of ignorance. It is therefore the duty of politicians and the younger generation to ensure that the perpetrators adjust to an ecological and environment friendly life-style, so that they leave behind a sustainable planet to the next generation.

If today's young people envy their older cohorts and blame them for their hopeless situation, no one can speak with certainty about the extent to which they have let down, or will let down, their own children, when they reach retirement age. Today's young people need to help shape their country's politics, if "opportunities abroad are no better than those at home."

James says: "in the mid-twentieth century, rapid economic growth implied that each generation would have a better future than the last. Today, by contrast, widespread malaise and forecasts of secular stagnation make promises about a better future appear fraudulent." Indeed, the population growth poses enormous challenges. On personal level, people compete for jobs. On macroeconomic level, countries compete for resources, leading to conflicts.