CuppaJoe
Moderator Emeritus
I have a little pet peeve about the years used to denote "Baby Boomers." I was born in 1946, my dad was released from the Army on the very day I was born, after having been drafted for WWII. I feel more a part of the wartime babies generation for other reasons also: 1) my HS class (of 1964) drew from a particular geographic area (no one was bussed, if you went to public school, you had no choice), class size was 147. The size of graduating classes jumped to over 200 starting in 1966 with those born in 1948. 2) I was required to stay in a dorm my freshman year (1964) at college because: they had finished building preparations to accommodate the baby boomers two years early and needed to fill the rooms. We students protested! and what do you know the requirement was lifted for those students starting in 1966 (born in '48!
Some time ago I saw an article saying the boomers should be defined as being born from 1948-64 but I wonder what happen to that opinion? Not PC?
Anyway, my point of bringing this up is that my recent efforts to liquid some stock funds for retirement are only the tip of the iceberg. It will be interesting to see what happens to the market when the babies of '48 start liquidating.
Some time ago I saw an article saying the boomers should be defined as being born from 1948-64 but I wonder what happen to that opinion? Not PC?
Anyway, my point of bringing this up is that my recent efforts to liquid some stock funds for retirement are only the tip of the iceberg. It will be interesting to see what happens to the market when the babies of '48 start liquidating.
Last edited: