You got to elaborate on this. I'm going to guess that you're objecting to the way that the article seems to treat the number of jobs as a zero sum game, where

You got to elaborate on this. I'm going to guess that you're objecting to the way that the article seems to treat the number of jobs as a zero sum game, where boomers have to leave to "open up" one of a finite number of jobs for younger people (or anyone else, for that matter)? This was the first reaction I had to the article as well. Thing is, it is actually debatable, or at least more nuanced than this. I lean toward the belief that relatively free markets and a robust entrepreneurialism can provide a huge amount of flexibility, to the point where discussing who "gets" a job may miss the point. Certainly young people who prefer to create startups are demonstrating that there's no need to try to climb a ladder, or at least that there are all kinds of options for creating your own job. That said, I think there's enough friction and inertia in society and markets that a younger generation can be meaningfully stymied by an older one hanging on to the reigns. Anyway, I'm not sure I've responded to your objection to this article - I'm really just responding to my own.