4 ms·

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 lar

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.
- j7ake 8y ago
  Millenials have also enjoyed a decade of economic boom 2008-2018, so it's not a specific advantage that boomers had that millenials did not have.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Millenials have also enjoyed a decade of economic boom 2008-2018 Both the expansion after the 2001 recession and the one after the Great Recession were strong in aggregate terms but unimpressive unless you were in a narrow slice at the top when you look at distribution; this is very different from the post-WWII expansion (even the 1980s and 1990s expansions were better distributionally than the later ones, though worse than earlier ones.) The expansion that centered the Boomer experience and provides the experiential basis for the belief that effort is sufficient for success was different than anything Millennials (and even, to a lesser extent, Gen X) experienced.
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    And quite a few of them have had their economic outlook badly damaged by the crash preceding 2008. Millenials who graduated before 2008 still have a lower salary on average than the younger members of their cohort. In inflation adjusted terms, Millenials are far poorer than their parents for their phase in life on average. The latest number I can find is 20% less earnings than their parents at a comparable age. Now Forbes argues that that’s because Millenials are extremely educated, their parents were working 4-8 longer than they were in their late 20s, giving Boomers more time to earn wealth. While that’s certainly part of it, I don’t think it explains it all. The social contract around who gets the spoils of a growing economy seem to have shifted significantly since the 1980s. That an uneducated factory worker Boomer earned more in inflation adjusted money than a colleges educated Millenial indicates that something is up.
- WalterBright 8y ago
  > unprecedented I don't think so: https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543 https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543 https://www.nber.org/chapters/c1565.pdf https://www.nber.org/chapters/c1565.pdf The most spectacular rise in the standard of living in the US was in the 19th century.
WalterBright 8y ago
> They also lived unusually longer than their parents too, by about 20 years so far. Life expectancy hasn't increased by 20 years. Maybe 1 year.
- danaris 8y ago
  Their parents fought in WWII. That's enough to cause some distortions in life expectancy.
  - WalterBright 8y ago
    The Boomers' parents didn't die in WW2, as Boomers were born post-war. Baby booms after terrible wars are common. I read that when the end of WW1 was declared, people were copulating in the streets of London.
- testrun 8y ago
  Depends on the country: The USA: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.MA.IN?locations=US https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.MA.IN?locat...
- village-idiot 8y ago
  Life expectancy in 1946 was 64.4 for men and 69.4 for women for an average of 66.9. Now it’s an averages 78.6, 12 years longer. And US life expectancy has dropped 1.5 years recently due to opioid deaths. Drop that from the equation and you’re looking at nice even 80. I’m sure there’s a lot of legitimate quibbling to be done over my numbers. Obviously 20 wasnt the right number, but also obviously the general point stands: Boomers have lived a lot longer than anyone expected them to. If they lived as long as their parents had on average, we would be running out of them already. As an aside. The above numbers really explain why social security and other pensions are in so much trouble. The greatest generation expected to receive only a few years of benefits on average, 1.4 for men and 4.4 for women. A tiny proportion of a worker’s lifetime wages would be required to cover these costs, better still since multiple workers would exist per retiree. Boomers on the other hand are legally entitled to a solid decade or more worth of benefits, an increase of an order of magnitude in time, not to mention increasing health costs. This combined with the unusually high ratio of retirees to workers, again caused by the unusual size of the Boomers, is a recipe for disaster.

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.

j7ake 8y ago
Millenials have also enjoyed a decade of economic boom 2008-2018, so it's not a specific advantage that boomers had that millenials did not have.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Millenials have also enjoyed a decade of economic boom 2008-2018 Both the expansion after the 2001 recession and the one after the Great Recession were strong in aggregate terms but unimpressive unless you were in a narrow slice at the top when you look at distribution; this is very different from the post-WWII expansion (even the 1980s and 1990s expansions were better distributionally than the later ones, though worse than earlier ones.) The expansion that centered the Boomer experience and provides the experiential basis for the belief that effort is sufficient for success was different than anything Millennials (and even, to a lesser extent, Gen X) experienced.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  And quite a few of them have had their economic outlook badly damaged by the crash preceding 2008. Millenials who graduated before 2008 still have a lower salary on average than the younger members of their cohort. In inflation adjusted terms, Millenials are far poorer than their parents for their phase in life on average. The latest number I can find is 20% less earnings than their parents at a comparable age. Now Forbes argues that that’s because Millenials are extremely educated, their parents were working 4-8 longer than they were in their late 20s, giving Boomers more time to earn wealth. While that’s certainly part of it, I don’t think it explains it all. The social contract around who gets the spoils of a growing economy seem to have shifted significantly since the 1980s. That an uneducated factory worker Boomer earned more in inflation adjusted money than a colleges educated Millenial indicates that something is up.
WalterBright 8y ago
> unprecedented I don't think so: https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543 https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543 https://www.nber.org/chapters/c1565.pdf https://www.nber.org/chapters/c1565.pdf The most spectacular rise in the standard of living in the US was in the 19th century.

WalterBright 8y ago

> They also lived unusually longer than their parents too, by about 20 years so far. Life expectancy hasn't increased by 20 years. Maybe 1 year.

danaris 8y ago
Their parents fought in WWII. That's enough to cause some distortions in life expectancy.
- WalterBright 8y ago
  The Boomers' parents didn't die in WW2, as Boomers were born post-war. Baby booms after terrible wars are common. I read that when the end of WW1 was declared, people were copulating in the streets of London.
testrun 8y ago
Depends on the country: The USA: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.MA.IN?locations=US https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.MA.IN?locat...
village-idiot 8y ago
Life expectancy in 1946 was 64.4 for men and 69.4 for women for an average of 66.9. Now it’s an averages 78.6, 12 years longer. And US life expectancy has dropped 1.5 years recently due to opioid deaths. Drop that from the equation and you’re looking at nice even 80. I’m sure there’s a lot of legitimate quibbling to be done over my numbers. Obviously 20 wasnt the right number, but also obviously the general point stands: Boomers have lived a lot longer than anyone expected them to. If they lived as long as their parents had on average, we would be running out of them already. As an aside. The above numbers really explain why social security and other pensions are in so much trouble. The greatest generation expected to receive only a few years of benefits on average, 1.4 for men and 4.4 for women. A tiny proportion of a worker’s lifetime wages would be required to cover these costs, better still since multiple workers would exist per retiree. Boomers on the other hand are legally entitled to a solid decade or more worth of benefits, an increase of an order of magnitude in time, not to mention increasing health costs. This combined with the unusually high ratio of retirees to workers, again caused by the unusual size of the Boomers, is a recipe for disaster.