5 ms·

The sooner the Baby Boomer stop being consumers, the better, in regards to the rest of society. As a voting block and as a consumer group they've been large eno

by Mtinie 8y ago

The sooner the Baby Boomer stop being consumers, the better, in regards to the rest of society. As a voting block and as a consumer group they've been large enough to completely reset the status quo. I love my Baby Boomer parents, my aunts and uncles, and their friends -- but from a purely economic standpoint they've had their way for too long (extending to politics and societal-norms) and ultimately have hurt those of us in the later generations more than they've helped us.

bredren 8y ago
I feel the same way. There is a fair amount of stigma that boomers also look down on millennials. As a result, I think there is a bit of a dim view the opposite way: seeing a generation that has been able to take and control so much while resenting the one coming next.
- WalterBright 8y ago
  I've seen this all before, in the 1970's. Nothing new here. Just the name changed, then it was the "Establishment" instead of the "Boomers". You can see it in the movies of the time, too, starting with "A Summer Place".
wycs 8y ago
>The sooner the Baby Boomer stop being consumers, the better, in regards to the rest of society. To make your comment explicit, you are cheering on the death and decrepitude of millions of people. I hope your children are kinder to you.
- Mtinie 8y ago
  Not at all—morally and with a humanistic-bent—I don’t cheer for the deaths of my loved ones or their peers. But like taxes, death is inevitable. Economically, I’ll consider it from a Machiavellian perspective: The sooner limited, choice, resources are freed up for the younger generations the better. The Old were useful because they spawned, and raised, the young. As replacements, knowingly.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - wycs 8y ago
    >But like taxes, death is inevitable. Taxes yes, but I am not so sure about death.
    - Mtinie 8y ago
      Sidebar: Are we about to venture into a trans-humanist discussion, or a spiritual one? I’m open to either, but I’d like to set the preliminary scope to narrow the available attack surface.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Are we about to venture into a trans-humanist discussion, or a spiritual one? They aren't mutually exclusive.
    - quickthrower2 8y ago
      Well your comment has been immortalised in hall of infame: https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitHNSays/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitHNSays/
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    You’re being downvoted, but I agree with you. Having a system where the old benefit at the expense of the young is a shit way to organize things.
- snuxoll 8y ago
  I hope I’m not telling my child they are lazy, entitled, or other generally ignorant statements about their generation and the society I hand down her.
  - nradov 8y ago
    Older generations have always made those same complaints about younger generations since humans first evolved. We like to think that we'll act better than our parents, but in the end it's just human nature.
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      It’s unusual for one generational cohort to control so much for so long though, so a lot of what we’re seeing with Boomers is new. Boomers are an unusually large cohort that arrived basically at once. They are a much larger group compared to their parents and children. That alone guarantees economic and political distortions, as it means that an unusually high percentage of the population would be in a very narrow range of ages. They also lived unusually longer than their parents too, by about 20 years so far. Their parents had to share power with the Boomers because they started to die out, with the Boomers this hasn’t happened at all. This means they took the mantle of power in unusually large numbers, didn’t need to share with their children, and lived so long that they’ve stunted the political and economic growth of younger generations. That Boomers are still clogging up the lower rungs of power is literally stunting the growth of Gen X and Millenials, which will be a problem when that cohort is forced to take over due to mortality. Under normal circumstances no generation is ever in the majority, and the mortality of their parents and themselves ensures that they cycle into and out of power smoothly. This gives every generation the ability to transfer social and economic power smoothly, as well as maintaining a good worker to retiree ratio. The Boomers however have basically upset that balance by existing in a tight cohort and living unusually long. So yes, parents shitting on “kids these days” is as old as humanity, but what we’re seeing with Boomers is actually quite new.
      - enraged_camel 8y ago
        Don't forget their most important advantage: they grew up and came of age during the post-WWII boom period, and therefore enjoyed unprecedented rates of wealth and standard of living increases. You know, in direct contrast to Millennials, whom they enjoy criticizing so much.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
simonh 8y ago
That's tantamount to saying that life now is on balance worse than it was in the pre-boomer period. Personally I'm pretty happy the societal and technological advances of the last 50 years have happened. The idea of living in the 1950s doesn't particularly appeal.
- psergeant 8y ago
  > That's tantamount to saying that life now is on balance worse than it was in the pre-boomer period I don’t follow your logic there at all
  - simonh 8y ago
    On this point: >...ultimately have hurt those of us in the later generations more than they've helped us. That seems to be saying the things they have done have made the world a worse place to live in.
- pwagland 8y ago
  Yes and No. The trick is that "as a whole" people change attitudes through life. In general, as you get more wealth, you become more conservative, as you get older, you generally end up with more wealth, so in general people become more conservative as they age. The trick is that the baby boomers made a lot of progressive changes when they were younger, and we shouldn't take that away from them. However those changes were largely made since they benefitted the younger baby boomers. As they get older, they are still influencing society in a way that largely benefits them over others, and sine they are wealthier, that tends to be in the direction of wealth creation. Of course, every generation does this, the baby boomers just have an oversized representation, they have a better ability to "distort" the market/political landscape. Of course this is all about generalisations, there are plenty of anecdotes that will refute parts of these stories, but anecdotes are not trends.
  - tomp 8y ago
    > Yes and No. The trick is that "as a whole" people change attitudes through life. In general, as you get more wealth, you become more conservative, as you get older, you generally end up with more wealth, so in general people become more conservative as they age. You make it sound as being conservative is a bad thing. Alternatively, you could phrase it as, people become more conservative as they gain more responsibilities and experiences. Overall, I think it's a good thing, because it means that change happens slowly, which makes it easier to undo bad changes.

by Mtinie 8y ago

bredren 8y ago

I feel the same way. There is a fair amount of stigma that boomers also look down on millennials. As a result, I think there is a bit of a dim view the opposite way: seeing a generation that has been able to take and control so much while resenting the one coming next.

WalterBright 8y ago
I've seen this all before, in the 1970's. Nothing new here. Just the name changed, then it was the "Establishment" instead of the "Boomers". You can see it in the movies of the time, too, starting with "A Summer Place".

wycs 8y ago

>The sooner the Baby Boomer stop being consumers, the better, in regards to the rest of society. To make your comment explicit, you are cheering on the death and decrepitude of millions of people. I hope your children are kinder to you.

Mtinie 8y ago
Not at all—morally and with a humanistic-bent—I don’t cheer for the deaths of my loved ones or their peers. But like taxes, death is inevitable. Economically, I’ll consider it from a Machiavellian perspective: The sooner limited, choice, resources are freed up for the younger generations the better. The Old were useful because they spawned, and raised, the young. As replacements, knowingly.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- wycs 8y ago
  >But like taxes, death is inevitable. Taxes yes, but I am not so sure about death.
  - Mtinie 8y ago
    Sidebar: Are we about to venture into a trans-humanist discussion, or a spiritual one? I’m open to either, but I’d like to set the preliminary scope to narrow the available attack surface.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Are we about to venture into a trans-humanist discussion, or a spiritual one? They aren't mutually exclusive.
  - quickthrower2 8y ago
    Well your comment has been immortalised in hall of infame: https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitHNSays/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitHNSays/
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  You’re being downvoted, but I agree with you. Having a system where the old benefit at the expense of the young is a shit way to organize things.
snuxoll 8y ago
I hope I’m not telling my child they are lazy, entitled, or other generally ignorant statements about their generation and the society I hand down her.
- nradov 8y ago
  Older generations have always made those same complaints about younger generations since humans first evolved. We like to think that we'll act better than our parents, but in the end it's just human nature.
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    It’s unusual for one generational cohort to control so much for so long though, so a lot of what we’re seeing with Boomers is new. Boomers are an unusually large cohort that arrived basically at once. They are a much larger group compared to their parents and children. That alone guarantees economic and political distortions, as it means that an unusually high percentage of the population would be in a very narrow range of ages. They also lived unusually longer than their parents too, by about 20 years so far. Their parents had to share power with the Boomers because they started to die out, with the Boomers this hasn’t happened at all. This means they took the mantle of power in unusually large numbers, didn’t need to share with their children, and lived so long that they’ve stunted the political and economic growth of younger generations. That Boomers are still clogging up the lower rungs of power is literally stunting the growth of Gen X and Millenials, which will be a problem when that cohort is forced to take over due to mortality. Under normal circumstances no generation is ever in the majority, and the mortality of their parents and themselves ensures that they cycle into and out of power smoothly. This gives every generation the ability to transfer social and economic power smoothly, as well as maintaining a good worker to retiree ratio. The Boomers however have basically upset that balance by existing in a tight cohort and living unusually long. So yes, parents shitting on “kids these days” is as old as humanity, but what we’re seeing with Boomers is actually quite new.
    - enraged_camel 8y ago
      Don't forget their most important advantage: they grew up and came of age during the post-WWII boom period, and therefore enjoyed unprecedented rates of wealth and standard of living increases. You know, in direct contrast to Millennials, whom they enjoy criticizing so much.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

simonh 8y ago

That's tantamount to saying that life now is on balance worse than it was in the pre-boomer period. Personally I'm pretty happy the societal and technological advances of the last 50 years have happened. The idea of living in the 1950s doesn't particularly appeal.

psergeant 8y ago
> That's tantamount to saying that life now is on balance worse than it was in the pre-boomer period I don’t follow your logic there at all
- simonh 8y ago
  On this point: >...ultimately have hurt those of us in the later generations more than they've helped us. That seems to be saying the things they have done have made the world a worse place to live in.
pwagland 8y ago
Yes and No. The trick is that "as a whole" people change attitudes through life. In general, as you get more wealth, you become more conservative, as you get older, you generally end up with more wealth, so in general people become more conservative as they age. The trick is that the baby boomers made a lot of progressive changes when they were younger, and we shouldn't take that away from them. However those changes were largely made since they benefitted the younger baby boomers. As they get older, they are still influencing society in a way that largely benefits them over others, and sine they are wealthier, that tends to be in the direction of wealth creation. Of course, every generation does this, the baby boomers just have an oversized representation, they have a better ability to "distort" the market/political landscape. Of course this is all about generalisations, there are plenty of anecdotes that will refute parts of these stories, but anecdotes are not trends.
- tomp 8y ago
  > Yes and No. The trick is that "as a whole" people change attitudes through life. In general, as you get more wealth, you become more conservative, as you get older, you generally end up with more wealth, so in general people become more conservative as they age. You make it sound as being conservative is a bad thing. Alternatively, you could phrase it as, people become more conservative as they gain more responsibilities and experiences. Overall, I think it's a good thing, because it means that change happens slowly, which makes it easier to undo bad changes.