Boomers: The Evil Generation!

[civvver]

Well I suppose I could probably afford one in Peoria or something, but no one is going to pay me enough money to do stuff in Peoria to afford a mortgage there so it doesn't matter.

I live in the District of Columbia.

So you can't afford to own a house in one of the most expensive urban areas in the country. I don't think that has much to do with what generation you were born in. Peoria is a straw man. There are a lot of places where jobs are plentiful and housing is cheap. Texas, michigan, minnesota, montana, maybe parts of arizona and colorado.

Being in tech, thank god I don't life out west where I probably still couldn't afford to buy a decent house.

Same. You are paying for the weather.

Money is basically free at the moment. We got a mortgage with my wife with an interest of 0.95%. My boomer parent's mortgage was around 15%. Of course this is country specific, I guess.

Totally agree. My house is much bigger/nicer than my parents at my age due to how cheap mortgages are. Mine from 2015 is 3.75% and that's not even the lowest. If you had more money down or shorter term they were under 3% for a bit. In the peak in the 80s they were 15% for a couple years, but around 10% in 1990. Historical average is like 7-8% I believe.

 

[civvver]

Before anyone thinks I'm a shill for people in their 60s, I completely agree most of the issues of today stem from Reagan's presidency and decisions made in the 80s with regards to economic and geo political policy. I have no idea why many people think he was one of the best presidents ever. I just don't blame all of that on a whole subset of people, that just seems silly. Saying boomers took advantage of the good economic conditions they had... well duh? You're saying you wouldn't have taken a good paying job available to you at that time either?

It's like saying engineers today shouldn't take good paying software jobs that are available. I mean why wouldn't they?

 

[Lexicus]

Who enabled these destructive classes of people to put the American dream out of reach for most people?

I think this sort of begs the question. Did they need to be enabled?

See, this is where I absolutely am in favor of generational agitation. This stuff didn't just happen, it was the product of concerted political effort which enabled it. Enabled by people who believe that it is hard work, and not a robust system of public spending and regulation, that provides a lifetime of opportunity for people.

It is not an exaggeration to say that there was a vast and well-funded business-class conspiracy to change the framing of virtually every issue in American life to a pro-business one. This was accompanied by a "long march through the institutions" - public schools, universities, entertainment, news media, and so on to actually introduce and push these ideas. The Federalist Society is the result of this project as applied to the law and the legal profession.

This may seem like a change of subject, but it's not. There's imo an important sense in which intergenerational politics is essentially blaming the victims. I mean, I wish the Boomers had been good socialists and seen through this nonsense too but it's too late for that. And if you want to talk about falling for "elite messaging" (propaganda) our own generation has to behold the mote in its eye. After all we voted for Barack Obama and think "activism" is posting on Twitter.

My parents lived that way, and you won't hear me complaining about them.

I think we're not going to hear you complaining because you just don't have much to complain about.

So you can't afford to own a house in one of the most expensive urban areas in the country. I don't think that has much to do with what generation you were born in. Peoria is a straw man. There are a lot of places where jobs are plentiful and housing is cheap. Texas, michigan, minnesota, montana, maybe parts of arizona and colorado.

Peoria was a stand-in, not a strawman. You didn't get the point and I don't feel like explaining it, but I guess I should have just typed "inb4 civver implies my not being able to afford a mortgage is my own fault for not moving somewhere else"

 

[metalhead]

Then complain about your parents and not an entire generation that didn't live that way.
My parents lived that way, and you won't hear me complaining about them.

Your parents' generation ensured that the world they left for their children was one where people could still live that way, even if you personally did not. And it sounds like you did personally live that way, it just took you a little longer to get there.

People my age and younger have no chance of ever getting there. EVER. Do you know why that is? Because that lifestyle has more than doubled in price while nominal individual earnings for the middle class have remained the same. Which means what 1 full time income bought you for housing in 1970, you need 2 full time incomes to buy now.

But! Even having a middle class income in many places means you're paying off your college education. It means you're paying for child care because, 2 full time incomes. It means you CANNOT AFFORD the middle class American dream that was readily accessible to the average middle class family in the 1960s and 1970s, and on one or maybe 1.5 incomes. The math for it simply does not work.

 

[Lexicus]

And let's also be clear: this lifestyle was attainable to people without high school degrees. You could drop out of high school and go to work and make the equivalent of 23 or 24 dollars an hour today.

 

[rah]

Your parents' generation ensured that the world they left for their children was one where people could still live that way, even if you personally did not. And it sounds like you did personally live that way, it just took you a little longer to get there.

People my age and younger have no chance of ever getting there. EVER. Do you know why that is? Because that lifestyle has more than doubled in price while nominal individual earnings for the middle class have remained the same. Which means what 1 full time income bought you for housing in 1970, you need 2 full time incomes to buy now.

But! Even having a middle class income in many places means you're paying off your college education. It means you're paying for child care because, 2 full time incomes. It means you CANNOT AFFORD the middle class American dream that was readily accessible to the average middle class family in the 1960s and 1970s, and on one or maybe 1.5 incomes. The math for it simply does not work.

Whine whine whine.
I was 16 years old in 1970, I was not buying a house. I waited till closer to 1990 and it did take 2 full time incomes just like it does now.

My daughter is probably younger than you and will finish paying off her loans this year. She'll probably end up more successful than I am.
Sometimes it's all about the choices you make.

 

[Peuri]

Your parents' generation ensured that the world they left for their children was one where people could still live that way, even if you personally did not. And it sounds like you did personally live that way, it just took you a little longer to get there.

The way people are generalizing in this thread about boomers, it could be said that the generation before the boomers created a world that teetered on total destruction of almost all life on the planet in a cataclysmic nuclear war. I think the boomers are an improvement to that.

 

[civvver]

Peoria was a stand-in, not a strawman. You didn't get the point and I don't feel like explaining it, but I guess I should have just typed "inb4 civver implies my not being able to afford a mortgage is my own fault for not moving somewhere else"

I mean, yes? It basically is? I get moving sucks and am not saying you should move, but there's a reason I've never wanted to look for work in the san francisco bay area even though I'm in tech. I guarantee you if I took a job there I'd be renting.

People my age and younger have no chance of ever getting there. EVER. Do you know why that is? Because that lifestyle has more than doubled in price while nominal individual earnings for the middle class have remained the same. Which means what 1 full time income bought you for housing in 1970, you need 2 full time incomes to buy now.

But! Even having a middle class income in many places means you're paying off your college education. It means you're paying for child care because, 2 full time incomes. It means you CANNOT AFFORD the middle class American dream that was readily accessible to the average middle class family in the 1960s and 1970s, and on one or maybe 1.5 incomes. The math for it simply does not work.

Idk man, I'm 35, 1 income household with all that middle life lifestyle you are talking about. It does work, you just have to 1) not live in insanely expensive cities, 2) get a degree in a high paying field or work really, really hard to make your own business or something. It might be harder today that it was 50 years ago but it's still quite possible. And my parents didn't pay anything towards my college. I choose a school that gave me a scholarship and lived at home the whole time and commuted. While I would've have loved to go to a big fun state university and lived on campus but I sacrificed that for financial reasons. I'm happy with my decision.

And let's also be clear: this lifestyle was attainable to people without high school degrees. You could drop out of high school and go to work and make the equivalent of 23 or 24 dollars an hour today.

You can't expect to just walk out of high school into a high paying manufacturing job any more but that has more to do with technology than politics. But there are still certain jobs that don't require college and pay in those realms. Any kind of trade like plumbing or electrical or hvac or something like that will pay between 40k-80k a year after just a year or so of training to get licensed. There is also huge demand in trucking right now which obviously doesn't take a four year degree and you can make 65k starting. Not that I'd ever want to be a trucker, but compared to working on an assembly line it's probably about the same level of miserable.

 

[metalhead]

I was 16 years old in 1970, I was not buying a house. I waited till closer to 1990 and it did take 2 full time incomes just like it does now.

Sometimes it's all about the choices you make.

OK, so just because you made a lot of bad choices and missed out, doesn't change the fact that the world around you was vastly different and offered significantly more opportunity at significantly less cost than what is available to people now.

 

[Birdjaguar]

i understand that. im just saying that i dont think you can attribute the entire tea party movement to republican boomers who are retired, bored and now need something to do.

hh

You'd be surprised. Boomers are now 55-73. Most are still working because they cannot afford to retire. I retired at 68 and went back to work part time to not be bored. I'm pretty typical in that. The political world is full of old people volunteering to work for candidates. Next time you vote take a look at who's manning the polling stations. Retired people and college students are the folks who have both the time and the inclination to be active in political causes.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Whine whine whine.
I was 16 years old in 1970, I was not buying a house. I waited till closer to 1990 and it did take 2 full time incomes just like it does now.

My daughter is probably younger than you and will finish paying off her loans this year. She'll probably end up more successful than I am.
Sometimes it's all about the choices you make.

no, it absolutely isn't.

real wages have objectively fallen with every year.

wealth inequality has objectively increased with every year.

housing has objectively gotten more expensive with every year.

land ownership has objectively concentrated towards fewer and wealthier people.

and you can list off endless anecdotal evidence and it will mean absolutely nothing.

it's all about choice, yeah?

try telling that to the literal millions of people living in abject poverty because big corporations can choose to have them work for disgustingly low wages and make a profit off of it.

try telling that to the literal millions of people who are mistreated, killed, or expelled due to their sexuality, ethnicity, religion or affiliation.

choices matter when you have an apartment, when you have parents that are paying for your education, when you have skills that you can market, when you're able-bodied and have key social competences and have connections. I was glad to be blessed with all of that. most people weren't. even in the "first world".

you know what I think? no amount of wealth disparity, homeless students and other factors will make you admit that

your choices might have been bad, because they've let us to a terrible situation

aight ill stop posting now

 

[Lexicus]

I mean, yes? It basically is?

You people are like windup toys, but sadly, also like windup toys, you bore me quickly.

You can't expect to just walk out of high school into a high paying manufacturing job any more but that has more to do with technology than politics.

On the contrary, this is all solely determined by politics. One-word difference between then and now: unions. Ironically the trades you mention are mostly union jobs (which is also why it's difficult for just anyone to get into those trades, since the unions control the apprenticeship programs in classically nepotistic fashion).

 

[metalhead]

And you can try to exonerate Boomers all you want, but a huge part of the Reagan con was convincing people that union workers were undeserving of decent wages plus benefits. Human beings, undeserving of basic economic security. That's pretty hard to defend.

You'd be surprised. Boomers are now 55-73. Most are still working because they cannot afford to retire.

They should learn to code.

 

[El_Machinae]

You'd be surprised. Boomers are now 55-73. Most are still working because they cannot afford to retire. I retired at 68 and went back to work part time to not be bored. I'm pretty typical in that. The political world is full of old people volunteering to work for candidates. Next time you vote take a look at who's manning the polling stations. Retired people and college students are the folks who have both the time and the inclination to be active in political causes.

The first Boomers did have a significant advantage over the later Boomers. Part of that is simple demographics, if there's a population surge coming oh, you want to be first. And some of that is the unmasking of the systemic problems.

But even a population surge can only work out if those new people are lucky. The parents have to be able to afford to build the new school houses. There's a sweet spot. You don't want to be the kids that are crammed into temporary shelters in order to be schooled. But when the new facilities are built, you want to be the first kids that get to use it

 

[Birdjaguar]

...fundamentally disagree. philosophy always creeps into action in the most fundamental ways. aristotle shaped science more than any other person on earth did by setting the framework for the scientific method. enlightenment era philosophy led to both the buildings of nations states and the era of scientific and practical racism as we now know it. utilitarianism as a philosophy was probably one of the single biggest reasons why the US decided to nuke Japan instead of continuing the firebombings. philosophy is concerned with "how the world actually works", as is physics, chemistry and biology. you either have to be wilfully blind or in denial to pretend that philosophy, at literally any point in time, was confined to classrooms instead of being part of the nucleus of societal and cultural change.

you are opening a completely wrong dichotomy about "doing and thinking", as if a person could possibly do something without thinking, or think and somehow do nothing. we are always acting and we are always thinking. philosophy influences both our thoughts and our actions. it is not possible to do nothing, it is not possible to think nothing.

what do you think it is that politicians, executives, business magnates, CEOs, activists, professors and terrorists do?

do they not plan? do they not put it into action?

the thinkers of today don't exclusively live in barrels or throw around plucked chickens, but they haven't suddenly vanished from the face of the earth. they're just wearing different garnments.

Sure philosophy creeps n and when it does the thinking changes because it has to actually work. Much of what people think is rooted in some philosophy, but the implementation always looks different. Philosophers have described how things work in many different and conflicting ways. But to make changes, you have to deal with the reality of people and what drives their actions. Marx's classless wonderland is nice and all, but it is irrelevant when you have to find ways to reduce income inequality without going to war. Sure you can begin with some philosophical position, but the next step is to rethink it in the reality of where you live. Then you can figure out how to plan what you do. I see little point in arguing the philosophy. I'd rather argue the goals and desired outcomes in real terms.

 

[Lexicus]

Sometimes it's all about the choices you make.

In the United States today, many life outcomes are substantially determined by the zip code you are born in. Globally it is even worse: someone born in Zimbabwe has a drastically different life trajectory than someone born in France.

Do you think that people choose where they are born? Or is it that you believe that even when we look at someone born in France and someone born in Zimbabwe, the differences in their life outcomes are more due to their choices than the circumstances of their births?

 

[Birdjaguar]

And you can try to exonerate Boomers all you want, but a huge part of the Reagan con was convincing people that union workers were undeserving of decent wages plus benefits. Human beings, undeserving of basic economic security. That's pretty hard to defend.

They should learn to code.

I agree with you thoughts on the Reagan con. He convinced a lot of people. He was an actor after all....

There are lots of coding options in NM, its just that for most boomers it is an alien practice the transition to it a challenge. I think most older folks see it as "something for the kids".

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Sure philosophy creeps n and when it does the thinking changes because it has to to actually work. Much of what people think is rooted in some philosophy, but the implementation always looks different. Philosophers have described how things work in many different and conflicting ways. But to make changes, you have to deal with the reality of people and what drives their actions. Marx's classless wonderland is nice and all, but it is irrelevant when you have to find ways to reduce income inequality without going to war. Sure you can begin with some philosophical position, but the next step is to rethink it in the reality of where you live. Then you can figure out how to plan what you do. I see little point in arguing the philosophy. I'd rather argue the goals and desired outcomes in real terms.

you're not wrong, but I think you're using inappropriate terminology. for example "Sure you can begin with some philosophical position, but the next step is to rethink it in the reality of where you live." basically what you mean by "reality" is one's individual, heavily specific situation. the concrete, rather than the abstract. but the concrete is not anymore real than the abstract is. an apple is not anymore real than the idea of an apple, or the word "apple", or the signifier apple. I think you're making a division where I wouldn't, but you're not necessarily wrong in that anyway thanks for the nice response and staying so calm in this heated debate, appreciate it

pragmaticism is a philosophical stance, too, even if you're not aware of it. and you're a pragmaticist by heart.

I agree with you thoughts on the Reagan con. He convinced a lot of people. He was an actor after all....

There are lots of coding options in NM, its just that for most boomers it is an alien practice the transition to it a challenge. I think most older folks see it as "something for the kids".

it's also probably increasingly hard to learn with higher age, compared to other activities.

 

[rah]

And you can try to exonerate Boomers all you want, but a huge part of the Reagan con was convincing people that union workers were undeserving of decent wages plus benefits. Human beings, undeserving of basic economic security. That's pretty hard to defend.

Reagan was not a boomer. Blame the greatest generation.

And yes, learning to code worked for me. My department hired one the other day for almost 80k. Not that experienced either.
Choices.

 

[Birdjaguar]

you're not wrong, but I think you're using inappropriate terminology. for example "Sure you can begin with some philosophical position, but the next step is to rethink it in the reality of where you live." basically what you mean by "reality" is one's individual, heavily specific situation. the concrete, rather than the abstract. but the concrete is not anymore real than the abstract is. an apple is not anymore real than the idea of an apple, or the word "apple", or the signifier apple. I think you're making a division where I wouldn't, but you're not necessarily wrong in that anyway thanks for the nice response and staying so calm in this heated debate, appreciate it

pragmaticism is a philosophical stance, too, even if you're not aware of it. and you're a pragmaticist by heart.

OMG! Can I say that at my age?

I certainly can eat a real apple, but I have found the idea of an apple much less filling and hardy nutritious. We could argue your points for a long time and have a wonderful discussion about reality. This thread is not the time or place. The connection, if any, between the abstract and the concrete is pretty interesting.