3 ms·
This article is frankly kind of silly. Just because the boomers were alive and working during all these trends doesn't mean that they were responsible for them.
by lbarrow 13y ago
This article is frankly kind of silly. Just because the boomers were alive and working during all these trends doesn't mean that they were responsible for them.
- twelve40 13y agoAre you asserting that a generation of people alive and working during a certain period have no effect on most socioeconomic trends of their time?
- nodata 13y agoExplain how.
- loganfrederick 13y agoWhile Motley Fool articles are generally light, and this one only lightly connects the trends to its conclusion, it's not that big of a leap to complete the conclusion. Assuming everyone agrees that we want standards of living and the economy to improve over time (should probably go without saying), then the fact that the article outlines how this has not happened or has not happened to the extent that it could have over a period of time, and the future projections are pessimistic, means that some previous generation failed to improve the situation for the following generations. Considering the boomers were the generation working and aging at a time when these trends were occurring (from the article: decreasing household income, increase in debt), then the evidence is pretty strong the they are responsible. It's possible the cause of the trends stems from something or someone more specific than an entire generation of people. But if the generation before them was too old, and the one after them too young, to have influenced these trends, and the effects are too broad to have been caused by a specific subset of Boomers, then it's understandable how a conclusion like "Baby Boomers Destroyed America's Future" is reached.