4 ms·

As I see it the baby boomers, rightfully worried about their retirement, are going to camp out in most top positions longer than we expected or was normal in th

by drats 15y ago

As I see it the baby boomers, rightfully worried about their retirement, are going to camp out in most top positions longer than we expected or was normal in the past. This will inhibit upward mobility of younger people for quite some time (retirement ages are creeping up all across the Western world). Additionally they are demanding loyalty and commitment in the workplace from the younger generation for part-time and casual jobs with no security which would have been more secure full-time jobs in the past. There is constant bellyaching from the baby boomers on this point about flighty millennials without recognizing it's far less secure and stable than when they started. All this combined with the student loans situation and the stagnant real wages since the 1970s is going to be a big problem. You can see it very starkly in the university system, but it applies everywhere. When the mass baby boomer retirement comes social security and health systems will be put into stress while the Western world is still in fairly deep debt. However, the baby boomers will still be dominant in politics as they will retire later there, and they will still be voting in retirement anyway. On the long horizon graduates will then be fighting with a new generation of kids with cheap online education and more modern skills and middle class BRIC teleworkers. Non-graduates will, as has been the case for a long time, also be competing increasingly with the rising BRIC workers. While there is potential for full-automation to bring a lot of manufacturing back to the West in the next few decades, that's not going to mean that many jobs. "Motherboards now made in the USA again!" will be the cry... but by an automated factory supervised by a handful of Ivy league engineers and some cheap maintenance workers and self-driving trucks bringing in supplies. Amazon, Walmart and the like will continue to clean up "mom and pop" shops, drugstores with skype video connections to pharmacists in India to confirm prescriptions, even some restaurants going for more automation. Farming is already down to a tiny percentage of the population and the rest will be immigrants (illegal and otherwise) and perhaps some robots too. In this situation it's insane to go into 60-100k commercial debt for a philosophy or fine arts degree given there are already distance and online study options for these at insanely low prices (the "hobby/cultural enrichment" argument is valid, I think society would be poorer without this influence, but it doesn't need expensive on-campus study or a brand-name). Those prices are only going to go down. Things are going to get tougher.

jiggy2011 15y ago
It might not be quite that bad, of course the competition for jobs will be higher but as more jobs move east then the wages in these countries will rise so westerners will be able to be more competitive again. Perhaps also with more automation it will get to the point where costs for a comfortable lifestyle become so low, that it is trivial for the government to support a huge welfare base.
InclinedPlane 15y ago
I don't buy into this logic. I'm sure it has an effect, but I don't see how a Baby Boomer working a job is worse for the economy than a Baby Boomer suckling on the government teat on retirement. It's not a zero sum game, if someone is doing productive work I think that's a net win for the economy.
- drats 15y ago
  I am just describing the situation as bleak, I am not saying they should retire and put even more pressure than they are going to on social security. In an ideal world these people would slip down a rung (just one, not to the bottom) and into part-time jobs and let fresh leadership take over and push innovation. But there is a more ideal world where they could retire now if they'd saved for it and hadn't run up so much debt. People don't just step down a rung though, it's not some ideal efficient labor market, they just use seniority to stay where they are. While it's obvious that a decade or two of experience can trump the 20-something hotshot more often than not - IQ peaks in the 20s and then declines but it's not as useful as people think versus experience - I am not so certain that the experience of someone in their late 60s or mid 70s can outweigh the cognitive decline they will experience (new medical research might hold some promise there I suppose).
- wonderzombie 15y ago
  Err, if you're referring to social security that's money that they've been paying into as part of their paycheck. But generally that's not the primary source of income AIUI. Most people were counting on their 401Ks which obviously took a hit by varying degrees. So there's a strong financial incentive for them to delay retirement as long as possible. Medicare may be considered suckling on the govt teat but uh getting old is ridiculously expensive. I expect it would still not be enough depending on age and severity of medical conditions.

by drats 15y ago

jiggy2011 15y ago

It might not be quite that bad, of course the competition for jobs will be higher but as more jobs move east then the wages in these countries will rise so westerners will be able to be more competitive again. Perhaps also with more automation it will get to the point where costs for a comfortable lifestyle become so low, that it is trivial for the government to support a huge welfare base.

InclinedPlane 15y ago

I don't buy into this logic. I'm sure it has an effect, but I don't see how a Baby Boomer working a job is worse for the economy than a Baby Boomer suckling on the government teat on retirement. It's not a zero sum game, if someone is doing productive work I think that's a net win for the economy.

drats 15y ago
I am just describing the situation as bleak, I am not saying they should retire and put even more pressure than they are going to on social security. In an ideal world these people would slip down a rung (just one, not to the bottom) and into part-time jobs and let fresh leadership take over and push innovation. But there is a more ideal world where they could retire now if they'd saved for it and hadn't run up so much debt. People don't just step down a rung though, it's not some ideal efficient labor market, they just use seniority to stay where they are. While it's obvious that a decade or two of experience can trump the 20-something hotshot more often than not - IQ peaks in the 20s and then declines but it's not as useful as people think versus experience - I am not so certain that the experience of someone in their late 60s or mid 70s can outweigh the cognitive decline they will experience (new medical research might hold some promise there I suppose).
wonderzombie 15y ago
Err, if you're referring to social security that's money that they've been paying into as part of their paycheck. But generally that's not the primary source of income AIUI. Most people were counting on their 401Ks which obviously took a hit by varying degrees. So there's a strong financial incentive for them to delay retirement as long as possible. Medicare may be considered suckling on the govt teat but uh getting old is ridiculously expensive. I expect it would still not be enough depending on age and severity of medical conditions.