Boomers: The Evil Generation!

[El_Machinae]

How did the boomers fail to prevent the wealth disparity more than the people before and after them. You are concentrating wealth yourself.

Because, as the problem was presenting itself and aggravating, they were the most powerful voting block. The inflection point literally occurred as they were leaving school and starting work and has only gotten worse. Look, if there's a problem on your watch, and it gets worse when you're capable of stopping it (and you don't) then we ascribe blame*. It's not individual wealth concentration that matters, it's the greater trend of wealth concentrating upwards. I've written that more than once in this thread. In Canada, with $1,000,000, I can permanently retire. With $11,000,000 I can permanently retire and have my income grow faster than wages grow. I am not complaining that someone can earn enough to retire. I am not even complaining that someone can permanently retire (that's our longterm goal for everyone). I'm not even terrifically 'anti-Boomer' on this topic, and I have written that more than once. I'm not even blaming the person who tries to accumulate over $11 million. It's not the accumulation that really matters, it's the creation and perpetuation of the system that is the problem. Are you not believing me? Should I write it more often? Use block capitals? The problem is if an 'elite' get richer as the workers and citizens get poorer.

BJ points out that Boomers weren't capable of being politically dominant until now. Okay, then I guess I can start the clock on the above issue now. And then while Rah says "have you considered voting???", we will see if BJ confronts him or likes his posts.

When the boomers were growing up and having children climate change was not a widely known thing.

'We' found out about Climate Change in 1992 and for the less-informed subset it was 1997. (well-past when Boomers did most of their child-bearing, btw) At the time, the Boomers were the most powerful economic and political block. They outnumbered me, and were vastly more wealthy than I was in 1997. There was nothing economically that I could do to reverse the trendline of Boomer's having their footprint grow during that period. And, part of the blame is mine, because I failed to convince people more powerful than me that they were aggravating a problem. But I cannot help but notice that I was capable of having a lower footprint than the average Boomer the entire time I knew about the problem. And they were richer than I.

*Think about the Bystander Effect. No individual person is 'to blame', but 'the group' is to blame for responding less quickly than an alone-person would. It's not so much a moral damnation as an observation. But we shouldn't call the Bystander Effect 'acceptable'. We try to prevent it through innoculation-by-exposure. But if people are crowding around a pool when a child is drowning, the person who has to physically shove through the crowd in order to jump in can blame the crowd for aggravating the issue.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You got an entire system where you could exchange the simple willingness and ability to "work hard" for enough money to buy a house, go to college, provide for all your family's needs. Also known here in the U.S. as "The American Dream." This was given to you by the people who came before you, who made deliberate political choices that established that order for you.

Was it perfect? Far from it. But prosperity was nevertheless very broad-based. However, due to deliberate political choices made by your cohort, the same Dream was made unavailable to most people who have come after. The opportunity you had to trade your hard work for economic security has been destroyed, to the point it is completely inaccessible now to broad swathes of Americans.

Thanks. What do you see as the political choices and actual decisions that made the AD unavailable to you?

 

[Lexicus]

Your generation is expecting more for less effort.

I get that you're trying to counter-generalize because you feel offended by the anti-Boomer ranting, but this is just...really wrong. This is the essence of what we youngsters are complaining about, that the Boomers got handed an economy where you could work 55 hours a week and then afford a decent house and even support a family on a single paycheck. Most people cannot do that today.

I am economically better off than probably 90% of my generation and these things are a joke for me. I will probably never be able to afford a mortgage.

And this even though I make a salary and have no student debt.

The attitude that people of my generation saying we want a housing market, a job market, that actually works for us, and claiming it is "wanting more for less effort," is exactly the sort of attitude that gets people pissed off about the Boomers. I don't really believe in generational politics (despite some statements I made in this thread): I'm first and foremost anti-capitalist, not ant-Boomer. But I do think that people's politics tend to reflect their class position, and (pending exact figures on stuff like real estate ownership) I believe it's a true statement that Baby Boomers tend to have a greater degree of investment in the status quo than subsequent generations do. Getting offended when people rant about Boomers does nothing (no more than ranting about Boomers does, in fact).

The next time someone says something about Boomers and you get offended, try saying something like "I understand why you're angry, but you should be angry at landlords/student debt servicers/your bank/your employer, not Boomers"

 

[rah]

This is the essence of what we youngsters are complaining about, that the Boomers got handed an economy where you could work 55 hours a week and then afford a decent house and even support a family on a single paycheck. Most people cannot do that today.

Excuse me. My wife had to work a full time job for equally long hours, and we limited ourselves to one child because we couldn't afford to have her/or me not work or afford the cost of child care for more than one. You can keep complaining and I'll keep laughing.

But yes, you are correct and the whining should be pointed elsewhere.

 

[Birdjaguar]

i donno, can the whole tea party movement really be attributed to that? i mean, i didnt realize that this forum is mostly old white liberal dudes until this thread and theres just as many of them, if not more, than there are republicans. i look at the democratic leadership and its all old white boomers. it sure explains a lot, especially why the democrats are so reluctant to change and embrace new ideas from the younger minority voices in the party like ilhan omar and aoc.

hh

The Tea Party movement was a February 2009 response to the election of Obama and their call for lower taxes and a balanced budget were the core of what it wanted. It was mostly right wing Republicans and Libertarians based. They opposed any sort of government sponsored universal healthcare.

Several polls have been conducted on the demographics of the movement. Though the various polls sometimes turn up slightly different results, they tend to show that Tea Party supporters tend more likely, than Americans overall, to be white, male, married, older than 45, regularly attending religious services, conservative, and to be more wealthy and have more education. Broadly speaking, multiple surveys have found between 10% and 30% of Americans identify as a member of the Tea Party movement. Most identify as Republicans

 

[El_Machinae]

Excuse me. My wife had to work a full time job for equally long hours, and we limited ourselves to one child because we couldn't afford to have her/or me not work or afford the cost of child care for more than one. You can keep complaining and I'll keep laughing.

But yes, you are correct and the whining should be pointed elsewhere.

Another thing I can blame Boomers for. They failed to convince each other that there's a systemic problem. There is nothing I can say to describe the problem that you won't just ignore and redefine as 'complaining'. Your peers have failed to explain the problem to you. I blame your entire cohort. You're just a product of their failure.

TL;DR grow up.

 

[rah]

We did grow up. We're just waiting for the next generation to do so also.

Sorry if we take offense to having people tell us we didn't work hard because we had it so easy.

Just look at how you're reacting thinking we're telling you the same.

 

[civvver]

I am economically better off than probably 90% of my generation and these things are a joke for me. I will probably never be able to afford a mortgage.

In what area?

 

[El_Machinae]

Sorry if we take offense to having people tell us we didn't work hard because we had it so easy.

You had to have two income earners in order to afford to buy a house. But you're only a portion of 'we'. Some of 'you' were able to do this on one income. It's a percentage.
Do you think that the percentage has gotten better for the later generations? Or will you reframe all descriptions of the problem as 'complaining'?

Should I just reply to everything you say with 'neener neener'? Might speed up the conversation.

 

[Lexicus]

Excuse me. My wife had to work a full time job for equally long hours, and we limited ourselves to one child because we couldn't afford to have her/or me not work or afford the cost of child care for more than one. You can keep complaining and I'll keep laughing.

But yes, you are correct and the whining should be pointed elsewhere.

Your specific experiences are not particularly relevant to the conversation. The fact, which cannot be dispelled by any number of stories about how hard you had it, is that it was easier to own a house and support a family in 1960 than it is today. It took fewer hours of less-skilled, less-credentialed work than it does today.

You guys are literally called the Baby Boomers because the economy was so good, there was a baby boom. Now the opposite is happening - a baby bust - I guess because we are a generation of whiners and not because the economy has changed such that many of us can't afford to support families.

In what area?

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.

 

[rah]

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

 

[Peuri]

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.

 

[rah]

Your specific experiences are not particularly relevant to the conversation. The fact, which cannot be dispelled by any number of stories about how hard you had it, is that it was easier to own a house and support a family in 1960 than it is today. It took fewer hours of less-skilled, less-credentialed work than it does today.

Considering I'm considered a successful boomer, I think my specific experiences are relevant.

And for the record those buying a house in 1960 were not boomers. They were my parents. But I will agree that it was easier then it is today.

 

[El_Machinae]

The fact, which cannot be dispelled by any number of stories about how hard you had it, is that it was easier to own a house and support a family in 1960 than it is today. It took fewer hours of less-skilled, less-credentialed work than it does today.

If you're discussing with Boomers, 1960 isn't particularly relevant. Their formative working experiences were starting in the late 70s, and those years were bonkers in a way that we don't have much experience with today.

 

[Lexicus]

Considering I'm considered a successful boomer, I think my specific experiences are relevant.

Repeat to yourself three times: systemic problem....systemic problem...systemic problem

If you're discussing with Boomers, 1960 isn't particularly relevant. Their formative working experiences were starting in the late 70s, and those years were bonkers in a way that we don't have much experience with today.

I'm not really discussing the Boomer specifically, I'm talking the mid-20th century US economy.

 

[rah]

yeah, i would have killed for today's mortgage rates back then

Repeat to yourself three times: systemic problem....systemic problem...systemic problem

When the thread stops sounding like a personal insult, I will.
The name of the thread kind of sums it up.

 

[metalhead]

When I graduated from school, I started for under 9 thousand a year and usually worked over 55 hours a week. I had to live with two friends an hour away from work to afford it. I couldn't afford to get married for almost 7 years after that and didn't buy (give the bank) a home for over a decade.

I also have an anecdote! My Boomer parents bought a 4 bedroom house in the suburbs on one salary when in their 20s (in the 1970s), raised 3 kids in that house comfortably, and my dad got a college degree on his employer's dime. They owned 2 cars and I even grew up with a swimming pool in my back yard. Every kid in my neighborhood just about had similar life parameters.

That life is absolutely unthinkable now. Middle class people cannot live this way. Can't even come close to it.

The next time someone says something about Boomers and you get offended, try saying something like "I understand why you're angry, but you should be angry at landlords/student debt servicers/your bank/your employer, not Boomers"

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

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.

 

[Hamid.H]

The Tea Party movement was a February 2009 response to the election of Obama and their call for lower taxes and a balanced budget were the core of what it wanted. It was mostly right wing Republicans and Libertarians based. They opposed any sort of government sponsored universal healthcare.

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

 

[rah]

I also have an anecdote! My Boomer parents bought a 4 bedroom house in the suburbs on one salary when in their 20s (in the 1970s), raised 3 kids in that house comfortably, and my dad got a college degree on his employer's dime. They owned 2 cars and I even grew up with a swimming pool in my back yard. Every kid in my neighborhood just about had similar life parameters.

That life is absolutely unthinkable now. Middle class people cannot live this way. Can't even come close to it.

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.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Sure, the number of men cooking in the kitchen is increasing, as women aren't stay at home moms anymore. I cook more meals than my wife does, but she's still the better cook. The article even states most women still say they are a better cook than their partners (the 'trend' is merely a 5% increase of men being the better cook....20-25%). It's unclear if the 'gastrosexual' is a significant group, just that it's growing in size.

It's hard to wrap my head around 'Organic' (double, triple the price) food being bought up by 'poor' people, even if there is some truth to it.

You're American, no? Just to preface my post.. Organic food in America and organic food in Europe are different and I wouldn't conflate them. I actually don't know much about the process of certification in the US and I prefer not to talk about things I don't know hoot about. But I can talk about organic food in Europe.

1) Organic food is not necessarily more expensive than non organic food, especially produce and legumes. With meat, however, the prices of organic may be up to four or five times higher than non-organic, because fulfilling the conditions is nearly impossible to do on an industrial scale.

2) Organic food has an official certified label, which is put out by a commission. In order to get this label you have to pay big bucks. Many small farmers in Europe fulfill the conditions of organic food but cannot afford to be certified. The food they produce still is organic. As a consumer, you have to be informed.

3) Organic food is found everywhere, from the cheapest discounters like Penny, Lidl, Aldi to the more premium supermarkets, and prices vary accordingly. Buying organic zucchini from Lidl is probably cheaper than buying non organic zucchini from Edeka or Tegut, just as an example. Might not be true.

4) I over exaggerated on my point that poor people often buy organic food. That is simply not true. If I may reframe: A surprising amount of people with low disposable income, mainly students, buy organic and local food even though it hurts them economically, while a surprisingly big group of people that are well off simply don't give a damn.

And yeah, I do think the trend of men cooking more often is exaggerated by the media. For every food-conscious man out there there's also that one a-hole who has a lifetime subscription for "beef magazine" and says stuff like "salad makes your biceps shrink" (literal quote) and only cooks to the extent that putting low quality meat on a grill can be considered cooking.

for the most part philosophy and strictly intellectual approaches operate within a confined and controlled fence of prescribed rules. tht fine for those who are not very practical or interested in how the world actually works.

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.

I see little evidence of your deep thinkers actually presenting plans or carrying them out.

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.