Austerity is an interesting point of divergence - go ask /r/neoliberal or any qualified economist and they'll tell you austerity is an unspeakably stupid solution to a recession. But in terms of the instincts behind neoliberalism, and to some extend the baked-in Hayekian thought, politicians find it a natural response. On the right it appeals to a hell-mend-it small statism, and on the centre-left it appeals to the need for "realism" even if all those realistic economists are saying it's bloody stupid. In this, and in considering the surveillance apparatus, and the various other unintended consequences, it is perhaps possible to see where the neoliberal revolution will collapse.
Also, I feel some history is useful in understanding the neoliberal mindset in the context of the 1970s. These were people who genuinely looked at business owners - and in some cases these were petit bourgs, and saw that workers were going on strike to force concessions from them and thought "The evil collective is bullying the poor individual". For all their economic arguments against unions (they cause unemployment/worsen inflation/are a monopoly on labour and therefore BAD), there's this kind of individualist argument emotional instinct against unions, or perhaps more accurately against effective unions. For the neoliberals this of course necessitated using the state to legally regulate unions into oblivion (without banning them), which is just what they went and did in the UK. Contrast ancaps, where we can assume a free market solution would be for anti-union employers to have workers sign no-union contracts, and if no workers will accept that, it's just what the market wants. Though of course many ancaps hate unions too.
Once neoliberalism passes, i think it may be possible to separate two or three stages of neoliberalism. /r/neoliberal in general seem more like Tony Blair/Bill Clinton types than Margaret Thatcher types, although they may feel cool and edgy for being able to speak positively of Thatcher. Perhaps it's that where Thatcher had small state instincts combined with the ability to pick her battles (i.e. she may have liked a private health system, but known this was not politically viable, so settled for market reform inside the NHS), Blair and Clinton truly adopted the state-market synthesis that defined "actually existing neoliberalism" (Blair launched like 5 reforms of the NHS, most with a mindset to more marketisation/efficiency), although this is a very UK centric look at things. (Reagan is a weird special case, with Carter or even Ford being a better origin point stateside, and in Australia/New Zealand the transition was governed by parties of the centre-left, with the centre-right taking power in the 90s, but I don't know very much about them so can't pin down what impacts that had.) Finally you have the post-2008 period, and (hopefully) the eventual death of neoliberalism to the ??? presently termed populism.
finally, /r/neoliberal self definition of neoliberalism, which takes a far more internationalist outlook than is normal for western politics (though perhaps Friedmanite "free to choose" thinking is the root):
We do not all subscribe to a single comprehensive philosophy but instead find common ground in shared sentiments and approaches to public policy
1; Individual choice and markets are of paramount importance both as an expression of individual liberty and driving force of economic prosperity
2. The state serves an important role in establishing conditions favorable to competition through preventing monopoly, providing a stable monetary framework, and relieving acute misery and distress
3. Free exchange and movement between countries makes us richer and has lead to an unparalleled decline in global poverty
4. Public policy has global ramifications and should take into account the effect it has on people around the world regardless of nationality