It takes an awful lot to galvanise anyone under 30.
In the 2014 election, less than 50 per cent of the 18-29 year old cohort bothered to vote.
But according to them, it's not their fault they're absenting themselves from the democratic process.
They blame old people. Politics is, like, boring, man. Politicians are uninspiring. The system is rigged. It's like The Dude, Jeff Bridges wonderful character from the movie The Great Lebowski, has infected young voters with a terminal case of lethargy.
The system sucks and the man oppresses but, hey, light a joint and let the Dude abide.
I'm not even sure a $200 a week Universal Basic Income will be enough to motivate young New Zealanders. Countless political parties have tried to woo these voters with little success.
Parties offer up groovy, hip, young candidates only to see the young candidates roundly rejected. Which stands to reason because what a 67-year-old electorate chairman sees as young and relevant is almost certainly not what a 21-year-old sees as being relatable.
Besides, it's incredibly patronising to believe that young people will vote for a politician simply because they're contemporaneous.
Look at Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn - young voters loved them, despite their advanced years.
If a politician has a message worth hearing, young people will heed it. It's not the age of the candidate - it's the rage of the candidate.
Gareth Morgan claims the payment he's offering to youth is no more ridiculous than the universal pension paid to superannuitants. But most superannuitants have paid taxes for decades in the expectation of receiving a pension at the end of their working lives.
Young people, for the most part, have just left their (taxpayer funded) schools and have yet to contribute anything towards the country's upkeep. (But, just for the record, I don't believe in universal superannuation either - it should be means tested).
As was to be expected, there've been accusations that young people will only blow their money on fripperies. I sure as heck would have. But even if they don't - even if there are sensible young ones out there who will save their money or use it to improve their bodies and their minds - what about the kids who will have the money extorted from them by vile family members and/or partners?
It happens with the DPB; why wouldn't it happen with the UBI?
But the most compelling reason I see against a no strings attached handout is that you don't appreciate something for nothing.
It's part of the human condition. Unless you earn a reward, you don't value it. So fine. Set the kids to work as volunteers cleaning up parks or planting natives or killing cats, if you want to give them money, Mr Morgan.
There are plenty of young people already giving their time and talents to charities and good causes - this might encourage a few more of them to follow suit.
But for heaven's sake, don't ruin their lives by making them state dependents before they've had the opportunity to forge their own destinies.