Baby Boomers - Greatest Victims

[Jay_Gatsby]

Bloomers had good opportunities growing up. Dirt cheap college tuition, low housing prices and booming domestic economy in the 80s and 90s. Yes there is rampant age discrimination but I'm not so sure that it's any different than in the early 80s when I got hired in. And this talk about ones 401K getting hit by the stock market crash is simply an excuse to hide the fact that one failed to fund their 401k and/or kept taking out loans. The simple truth is that the average 401K was small even before the crash and most folks didn't have all their money in stocks. That said I do have sympathy for those laid off and unable to find another job. There are not too many good options if you're in that situation.

The situation is what it is. There have always been booms and busts, and every generation has enjoyed one or more of each at some point in their lives. My grandfather enjoyed the Roaring 20s as a kid, then the Great Depression, then the Post-WWII Boom, etc... Society will have to make some adjustments to care for its soon-to-be elderly, as it always has throughout history. The young support the old, no matter how spendthrifty the latter may have been at various points in their lives.

Generational warfare won't solve the problem. Trying to punish an entire generation for allegedly being fiscally irresponsible also won't solve the problem (as if this were even possible). Both "sides" must work together to find a solution; shared sacrifice and shared gain. Some of the the older generation will need to relinquish dreams of a gold-plated retirement (e.g., cruises, golf course condo, etc...), while some of the younger generation will have to relinquish dreams of a gold-plated working life (e.g., BMW and a McMansion). Balance is the key to happiness.

 

[ziggy29]

Some of the the older generation will need to relinquish dreams of a gold-plated retirement (e.g., cruises, golf course condo, etc...), while some of the younger generation will have to relinquish dreams of a gold-plated working life (e.g., BMW and a McMansion). Balance is the key to happiness.

Well said. And if we keep distrusting each other's motives and trying to shove all the pain on "other people," it's only going to get worse until we are forced into draconian reforms that devastate almost everyone. I for one would rather not go there.

It's much easier to take some necessary foul-tasting "medicine" if you don't feel like the entire burden of the pain is being put on your shoulders.

 

[haha]

It's been said that the boomers spent their parents retirement and their children's inheritance.

I think that's a bit harsh, but not without some truth to it. Expanding on Ziggy's point, its the generation(s) after them that will bear the brunt of the fiscal excesses for which the boomers were/are the primary beneficiary.

Right, enormous benficiaries. Like fighting Viet-Nam, working our asses off, paying taxes at high rates for our whole lives.

If there truly were any benficiaries, they are the politicians that foisted all this stuff on us. Voters were no smarter then than they are today, ie. not very smart. Do you think that the Great Society did anything for Boomers who work? How about the Viet-Nam war? Boomer engineers were too young to get much out of this, and boomer infantry got to get shot at in Viet-Nam. Medicare? Boomers are just getting there, and it appears that the goodies are running out.

I had lunch with a Gen-X guy today. Super nice guy, but although he is a doctor his main interest in life is driving out to the coast and surfing. And he isn't the only one. He works so little that he often struggles to make his rent. Compared to any Boomer I ever knew, he is an essentially useless human being, except to himself.

Young middle class people today can't even manage to maintain the replacement birthrate.

 

[brewer12345]

<generational stereotype screed snipped>
Young middle class people today can't even manage to maintain the replacement birthrate.

I think this is going to be a huge problem over time. There have been massive disincentives put in place to have kids today and so people my age and younger have responded as rational economic actors generally do. Of myself and my 3 siblings, I have two kids, my younger sister has one and will probably have a second (and suffer dearly for it money-wise). My other two siblings and their spouses/SOs will have zero. That is half the replacement rate, not including premature deaths. DW and her sisters have done better, but between 3 sisters they only have one surplus kid in excess of the number of parents. None of us feel like we can afford more than one or two kids and the sister with 3 is stretched, to put it lightly.

 

[haha]

I think this is going to be a huge problem over time. There have been massive disincentives put in place to have kids today and so people my age and younger have responded as rational economic actors generally do. Of myself and my 3 siblings, I have two kids, my younger sister has one and will probably have a second (and suffer dearly for it money-wise). My other two siblings and their spouses/SOs will have zero. That is half the replacement rate, not including premature deaths. DW and her sisters have done better, but between 3 sisters they only have one surplus kid in excess of the number of parents. None of us feel like we can afford more than one or two kids and the sister with 3 is stretched, to put it lightly.

I completely agree with what you say. We have put into place an essentially anti-natal program. And clearly young people today are no more to blame for this than boomers should be blamed for Viet-Nam or all the money wasting crap the corporate state engaged in. None of us are citizens, we are subjects of a corporatized monarchy.

Ha

 

[jon-nyc]

1. Who is "we"?

2. A LOT of people do it. Read the insipid and venomous comments under a news article some time and you'll see it's not just an isolated thing.

1. You and I, as established in posts 17-18.

2. I see your point.

 

[youbet]

Do you think that the Great Society did anything for Boomers who work?

Yes, yes I do.

Without the Great Society, I would have no doubt spent money on wild women, gambling, fast cars and booze leading to my demise. This way, I spent my life working in factories, nose to the grindstone, from afternoon to dawn. No time to stray. No money to waste. Pay the taxes and be glad to have left what I do...........

Thank you Great Society.

 

[ejman]

I completely agree with what you say. We have put into place an essentially anti-natal program.

Ha

What would a pro-natal program look like?

 

[haha]

What would a pro-natal program look like?

I don't want a million arguments with people who may consider children to be burdens placed on them as taxpayers by other people.

You can solve it yourself, just figure out why regularly employed, taxpaying Americans are not having many children today, and reverse engineer to what might make them able to have more.


Ha

 

[ejman]

I don't want a million arguments with people who may consider children to be burdens placed on them as taxpayers by other people.

You can solve it yourself, just figure out why regularly employed, taxpaying Americans are not having many children today, and reverse engineer to what might make them able to have more.


Ha

Thank you for a very illuminating answer. Kind of reminds me of the answer Harry Belafonte got to his question.

Man Piaba- Harry Belafonte. - YouTube

 

[Tadpole]

I don't want a million arguments with people who may consider children to be burdens placed on them as taxpayers by other people.

You can solve it yourself, just figure out why regularly employed, taxpaying Americans are not having many children today, and reverse engineer to what might make them able to have more.


Ha

Ha, I'm going to weigh in because I think your answer is pure genius and right.

 

[rodi]

I agree completely Zig. And I'd like to additionally point out the analytical mistake involved with characterizing the population into distinct groups. For example, I'm at the leading edge of the so-called "boomers." When I look at economic and social conditions over my life, they seem very different than for folks born at the trailing end of the so-called "boomer" generation. Yet we're all slapped with the same label.

Boomers are supposed to be the generation born when soldiers returned from WWII.

I always find it odd to get the boomer label applied to me. (Born in the early 60's.) My husband (almost 10 years older than me) and his siblings, sure... His dad served in WWII, came home, got hitched, and started having babies. My dad was too young for WWII - but served during the Korean conflict. And I'm the youngest of my family. How am I boomer?

But the label is there and I guess it fits.... It's that or Gen X. for a while there was a sub-label of tweeners... between Boomers and Gen X.

I don't want a million arguments with people who may consider children to be burdens placed on them as taxpayers by other people.

You can solve it yourself, just figure out why regularly employed, taxpaying Americans are not having many children today, and reverse engineer to what might make them able to have more.


Ha

I've heard the argument that the solution to the declining birth rate is increased immigration. But that's a topic sure to bring on bacon.

 

[kyounge1956]

Timely article. Good, good friend, a single mom, just got caught in a company-wide layoff at age 61 1/2. Kid about to go to college. New (refinanced to 30 year) mortgage. Planned to work until age 66 or, at most, 65. Will try to find a needed job.

I obviously don't know the specific circumstances of your friend but it seems to me that taking out a 30 yr loan when you are over 60 is not good planning for the future retirement. Who wants a mortgage during retirement?

Well, as demonstrated by the outcome, it was a risky thing to do, but perhaps not as imprudent as it may sound at first hearing. Perhaps, like me, EveryLady's friend was planning to sell her house and downsize when she retired. I refinanced to a 30 year ARM with a 5-year lock. I didn't really care what the rate did after that, because I was planning to sell the house in less than five years anyway. A smaller monthly mortgage payment meant I could put more into my retirement account. In the friend's case, she'd have more available for her child's college expenses.

 

[marko]

I don't want a million arguments with people who may consider children to be burdens placed on them as taxpayers by other people.

You can solve it yourself, just figure out why regularly employed, taxpaying Americans are not having many children today, and reverse engineer to what might make them able to have more.


Ha

There was a time when "if you want to play you have to pay"...Now you pay while others play. The "great society" reverse engineered it brilliantly.

 

[ziggy29]

Boomers are supposed to be the generation born when soldiers returned from WWII.

I always find it odd to get the boomer label applied to me. (Born in the early 60's.) My husband (almost 10 years older than me) and his siblings, sure... His dad served in WWII, came home, got hitched, and started having babies. My dad was too young for WWII - but served during the Korean conflict. And I'm the youngest of my family. How am I boomer?

But the label is there and I guess it fits.... It's that or Gen X. for a while there was a sub-label of tweeners... between Boomers and Gen X.

The pop culture media definition of "Boomers" looked at a birth rate rather than a generally shared social, cultural and economic experience.

Thus, the "Boomer" definition that the media use is defined as being born between 1946 and 1964 (inclusive, as are all date ranges here). That was the period of abnormally (and mostly unsustainable) increases in birth rates beyond the norm.

But others who look at things from cultural or sociological viewpoints don't agree. A pair of prominent sociologists and cultural observers, Neil Howe and the late Bill Strauss, consider the Boomers (as a more cohesive generation) as being born between 1943 and 1960. To them, 1960 roughly marks the date when children grew up with different cultural identities and different social and economic expectations. They use that as the dividing line between Boom and X.

As for the "tweener" generation, you may be thinking of the so-called "Generation Jones", usually defined as those born from about 1955 to 1965. They include younger Boomers and older Xers as having many shared experiences and expectations. I grew up in a Joneser household, one of five children born between 1957 and 1965. We have a lot more in common with each other in many ways -- social, cultural, economic -- than we have with "core" Boomers or "core" Xers. As I recall, "Generation Jones" got the name because they were said to be "Jonesing" for the same deal their parents and older siblings got, but demographics were starting to make it harder on them. Some would say this was the first cohort which could expect to not be better off than their parents on average.

 

[growing_older]

I always thought I was a poor fit for the Boomers, who I identified as WWII babies, ten or more years older than I was and who grew up in a substantially different world. I haven't seen this Generation Jones idea before, but it fits very nicely.

 

[antmary]

Makes me realize how bad things could have been. Rather than resenting what anyone may or may not have, I feel so bad for all, no matter what their age, whose hopes and dreams are dashed. I know, that is so corny but that is how I feel about the article.

I feel no joy when I see or hear of the suffering of others. I live in an "affluent" community, and I know of many people (some personally) who are struggling financially.

 

[comicbookgujy]

Every generation have their own problem. I was born in the early 70's and finished college in 1994 when the economy was going through a recession. I had 7 jobs during that period and didn't have a full time job till 1997. I had 2 jobs in 1998 and ended up being layoff 1 year later during the crazy Financial company merger days of the late 90's. From the period of 1994 to 1999, the 9 jobs that I had, no a single one of them still exist. Everyone off them have been elimated due to mergers/consolidated/or out of business. The current position I am in for the past 13 years, I started out at $30k and now making over $100k.

I have been to many retirement parties for co-workers in their 60's and they all tell me this story: graduated from Law school in the 70's. Couldn't find a job. Would have taken anything. Couldn't find any work for 2 years. 3 decades later.... made SVP and $5 million in their bank account.

Which generation haven't had to deal with crap? Seems like every generation is worse. I'm working with kids in their 20's and they all give me this sad story about their 100K student loan and having to marry someone with money because they worry about their debt. All these newbies with their Master degrees and making $50k and saddled with student loans in 6 figures. They have to deal with outsourcing and no mobility because people in their 50's and 60's didn't bother to save so they can't retire.

 

[donheff]

To you population worriers, that seems to be an issue with all affluent countries. Doesn't the USA's favorable position with respect to immigration choices leave us ahead of the game? It seems to me that state policy choices to increase birthrate are fraught with all the problems of central planning that you all decry with respect to our social safety net programs. State choices about immigration are unavoidable so let's give them some rational attention and stay out of the bedroom.

 

[brewer12345]

What would a pro-natal program look like?

France used to be the poster child for this and they had about the best birth rate in the first world. I don't know what has happened to all of that since the wheels came off the Euro economic bus.

Like Ha said, if you wanted to do something about it you would have to look at the causes of the problem and try to solve them. This is miles (light years?) away from being on the radar of anyone in power, so anything I say would amount to public mental masturbation. That said, if we ever wish to influence the birth/population rate we basically have two choices: incur the costs related to programs that would reduce the (huge) disincentives for educated, middle class Americans to have more kids, or incur the costs of integrating relatively uneducated immigrants (since the doctors and lawyers and whetever coming from overseas tend to react like educated Americans when they hit the wall of disincentives to have kids that exist here). Or we can do nothing and eventually look like Japan. I'd guess we will do nothing and either morph into Japan or we will bear the costs of integrating fecund immigrants because we do nothing about immigration control.

 

[Stanley]

I am a baby boomer. I do not consider myself a victim. However, age discrimination does exist. Thankfully, I was not a victim of it myself (at least not that I know of) but I do know a number of people in their 50's and early 60's who have been told a younger person is wanted for a certain position. If they had it on tape, they could probably sue for a small fortune.

If any generation was a victim of their time, I think it would be my grandparent's. They endured the Great Depression and TWO World Wars.

 

[EveryLady]

I obviously don't know the specific circumstances of your friend but it seems to me that taking out a 30 yr loan when you are over 60 is not good planning for the future retirement. Who wants a mortgage during retirement?

Due to renovation costs it would be many years before she could hope to pay off the mortgage. Refinancing at a lower interest rate reduced the payment increasing her chances of keeping the house should the feared layoff occur.

Its interesting how differently folks evaluate decisions. Her new mortgage payment is equivalent to the current cost of renting an apartment. Her positive analysis is that she's now living in a nicely renovated home for the same "price" as an apartment.

 

[ejman]

France used to be the poster child for this and they had about the best birth rate in the first world. I don't know what has happened to all of that since the wheels came off the Euro economic bus.

Like Ha said, if you wanted to do something about it you would have to look at the causes of the problem and try to solve them. This is miles (light years?) away from being on the radar of anyone in power, so anything I say would amount to public mental masturbation. That said, if we ever wish to influence the birth/population rate we basically have two choices: incur the costs related to programs that would reduce the (huge) disincentives for educated, middle class Americans to have more kids, or incur the costs of integrating relatively uneducated immigrants (since the doctors and lawyers and whetever coming from overseas tend to react like educated Americans when they hit the wall of disincentives to have kids that exist here). Or we can do nothing and eventually look like Japan. I'd guess we will do nothing and either morph into Japan or we will bear the costs of integrating fecund immigrants because we do nothing about immigration control.

I'm not sure any country has succeeded for very long at implementing a program to increase birthrates. There are currently incentives in the US tax code that seem to have very little effect. It's interesting to note that the huge decrease in birth rates is happening in many countries, not only in the developed world. Practically all of Asia (excluding Muslim countries) and most of Latin America are now barely at replacement or below rates.

 

[brewer12345]

I'm not sure any country has succeeded for very long at implementing a program to increase birthrates. There are currently incentives in the US tax code that seem to have very little effect. It's interesting to note that the huge decrease in birth rates is happening in many countries, not only in the developed world. Practically all of Asia (excluding Muslim countries) and most of Latin America are now barely at replacement or below rates.

The tax incentives are laughable in the face of the other impediments.

 

[bld999]

Video urges Singapore couples to make babies – like, now – What's Next - CNN.com Blogs

Singapore has policy tools that would not pass muster here, but they apparently try other tacks as well.