Young People Hate Baby Boomers

[The Barbarian]

Given the above, I feel confident in saying -- with no hate directed towards anyone of any group -- that solutions to today's problems or pieces of advice that are predicated on the experiences of Boomers of this sort of background are going to be less than effective in really tackling today's problems.

The one constant is change. And there's a deep crisis in America. Even the privileged have to come to terms with the fact that if young adults today can't afford kids, an education, or a house, then that privilege will go away for a lack of people to fund it.

As a wise man once said, it's difficult to get someone to see the truth, if his profits might be reduced by seeing it.

 

[RDKirk]

From where I'm sitting, it's not about blame -- it's about effectiveness. If all you have to say "work for it", then that tells me a few things about where you are likely coming from:

(1) You likely became established in a previous iteration of the economy where a man or woman could get a job, stay with the company some number of years/decades, and be rewarded for their loyalty and hard work with fair and appropriate compensation, and use said compensation (perhaps combined with loans from parents or others) to buy a fine home with comparatively little trouble.

(2) Your fine employment was likely not predicated on having an advanced degree, and with few exceptions likely provided on-the-job training, rather than unpaid or underpaid internships.

(3) Since you really did work for all of these things (nothing in the previous two points is about you being 'lazy' or otherwise not working to your potential), you see work as the self-evident answer to the problems of others who exist in a completely different economy (I'm tempted to say different world/different society, but I don't want to overstate the case concerning how different things were during a time when I was either not alive or a very young child), wherein it is literally not possible to 'out-work' the reality of life within modern capitalism, since, e.g., real wages in the USA have barely budged since 1978 (before any Millennial was even born).

Given the above, I feel confident in saying -- with no hate directed towards anyone of any group -- that solutions to today's problems or pieces of advice that are predicated on the experiences of Boomers of this sort of background are going to be less than effective in really tackling today's problems.

As a Boomer with a Millennial daughter, I have to agree with this. We can see first hand how things are not for her as they were for us.

 

[shineyourlight]

I feel like there has been some type of dislike for a variety of generations.

I'm sorry you have felt hurt by the younger generation. <3

 

[iarwain]

From where I'm sitting, it's not about blame -- it's about effectiveness. If all you have to say "work for it", then that tells me a few things about where you are likely coming from:

No, that's not what I am saying at all. I'm not saying that work is the solution to the problems. I'm simply saying that if you find yourself in a bad spot, you have no choice but to do whatever you have to do to survive, until which time the situation changes (IF it ever does). You can still try to enact policy changes that you think are going to be effective, but those things take time. In the meantime, you are going to have to work. The Bible says "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat" (2 Thessalonions 3:10).

I understand y'all are angry because you are growing up in a time when things are not as good as they used to be. If you have a solution, try to get it implemented.

You make the point that wages have not really changed since 1978 (as measured in purchasing power). As I pointed out before, this says to me that the real culprit here is inflation, plus the fact that there are more things needed to live a normal lifestyle today. So the real villain is whatever has and is contributing to inflation, which I'm sure is a messy discussion.

 

[Paidiske]

Look, I don't know how to turn the clock back to 1982 or 1957 or wherever people think it should be.

Nobody wants to turn the clock back. But we want to work on changing things now, and we'd like to see folks who are more mature in age working with us on that.

I only know that on a personal level, if a person gets into a tough spot, that individual has to try to work his way out of it. You can wait for government policies to come around to your liking, but that is liable to be a long wait.

Sure, and we're all working with what we have. But in the meantime, can we work together on making positive changes on policies, social structures, etc? Because the "long wait" will only be the longer, the more people refuse to support change.

If you want to blame everything on the old people, fine, we're not blameless. But when we're gone and the world is still a mess, who are you going to blame then?

It's not about blame. It's an appeal to help make a difference, now.

 

[The Barbarian]

I feel like there has been some type of dislike for a variety of generations.

I'm sorry you have felt hurt by the younger generation.

I personally don't see a lot of resentment. But then, when I'm talking to younger adults, I don't deny that my generation had it a lot better than they have it. Mostly, I think they just want us to recognize that it's harder for them than for some previous generations.

 

[dzheremi]

No, that's not what I am saying at all. I'm not saying that work is the solution to the problems. I'm simply saying that if you find yourself in a bad spot, you have no choice but to do whatever you have to do to survive, until which time the situation changes (IF it ever does).

How exactly is this not saying "you have to work for it"? Also, what you've expounded upon here not something that any Millennial I've ever known is in denial about. Except for one couple, every single one of my peers -- all in our late 30s -- lives in a two-income household, and several have one or both partners working multiple jobs. There are very few homeowners among them. From what I've seen of reporting on Millennials' supposed work crises (a.k.a., not wanting to work forever for basically nothing at jobs where we are treated and valued like chattel because the job market that gave our Boomer parents such an advantage has never existed for us), this doesn't seem like an unusual situation for a group of older Millennials to find themselves in.

You can still try to enact policy changes that you think are going to be effective, but those things take time.

Okay. I mean...I'm going to be 40 next year...how much longer should I wait?

In the meantime, you are going to have to work.

Nobody in this conversation is denying this. No one has said "We don't feel as though we (should) have to work", or anything along those lines. This is not responding to any point in the post you are replying to.

I'm sorry, I know you're trying to clarify what you mean, but it really doesn't seem like we're understanding each other. This conversation might in fact instead serve as a very good example to others of why Millennials and Boomers often don't see eye to eye.

The Bible says "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat" (2 Thessalonions 3:10)

The Bible also says "For whatsoever you do unto the least of my brothers, that you have done unto me", and many other similar things. Rather than make this into a 'Bible-off', though, I'd much rather that we actually attempt to continue to discuss what can be put in place to help those younger than you who are struggling in a very different economy than the one that you likely got your own life set up in.

I understand y'all are angry because you are growing up in a time when things are not as good as they used to be. If you have a solution, try to get it implemented.

This is already happening on many fronts, and is stymied on many fronts by the intractable positions of people of your age cohort. Not all of them by any means, but the stereotype unfortunately exists for a reason.

You make the point that wages have not really changed since 1978 (as measured in purchasing power). As I pointed out before, this says to me that the real culprit here is inflation

As tempting as that is, I'm not so sure that's the case. Or rather, it is likely only one variable of many.

The purchasing power of a dollar increased by $0.45 between 1950 and 1968. Between 1982 and 2000, it increased $0.78. (I chose those particular years because that compares my own Boomer father's life from 0-18 years with my own life over that same span of time. If anyone wants to, you can do similar comparisons using your own timespans at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis' inflation calculator.)

So, yes, inflation has been greater at points during my life than it was for some previous generations (and, obviously, seeing as how this covers mostly my child and teenage years, it was more of a benefit to my Boomer parents who actually had jobs across that whole period than directly to me; hmmm), but not by a staggering amount, and anyway a person born in 2000 (I believe that would be Gen Z?) and maturing to adulthood and first entering the labor market would see virtually the same level of inflation as the boomer born in 1950 had seen over the same time period (between 2000 and 2018, the increase was $0.46).

Given the variability here, I'm not willing to put things down solely or even primarily to inflation. Granted, I'm no economist, so I'm not in the position to say what else is going on, though to respond to the other part of your post, I would note that these "more things" needed to live a 'normal' life are often consumer electronics, which tend to be poor examples to go to in order to make any point about the economy, as they drop precipitously in cost at a time when things that are actually needed to live any kind of life -- like housing and health care -- rise tremendously. Check out this chart from the American Enterprise Institute, which covers 1997-2017.

 

[iarwain]

I'm sorry you have felt hurt by the younger generation. <3

I don't think I feel hurt exactly, most generations have their differences. I am a little surprised at the ferocity of the hate from some of the younger people like I noted in the original post.

But in the meantime, can we work together on making positive changes on policies, social structures, etc?

I don't know of anyone who doesn't want to make positive changes. But we have to agree that those changes will actually be positive. If you want to turn everything into a socialist cancel culture paradise, I very much doubt things are going to work out well. I'm not saying that's what you want, I'm just saying we have to agree on what would actually do some good.

I'm sorry, I know you're trying to clarify what you mean, but it really doesn't seem like we're understanding each other.

I feel like I understand what you're saying. I'm just viewing things as more of a survival situation. When life gives you lemons, you make lemonade. That's not saying you don't have it tough - that's what life giving you lemons means. For what it's worth, a lot of older people are struggling financially too, a lot of older people have not prepared for retirement age, and I've seen many work until they drop dead.

As tempting as that is, I'm not so sure that's the case. Or rather, it is likely only one variable of many.

Most of the complaints here are that the cost of education is too high, the cost of housing is too high, the cost of living is too high, the cost of health care is too high, and that's why we can't have nice things. It's not that wages have gone down, it's that it costs more to live. That's inflation.

 

[Paidiske]

Most of the complaints here are that the cost of education is too high, the cost of housing is too high, the cost of living is too high, the cost of health care is too high, and that's why we can't have nice things. It's not that wages have gone down, it's that it costs more to live. That's inflation.

No, it's not just inflation. There have been policy and social changes which have affected the price of education beyond inflation. The same with housing and health care. And employment conditions have changed drastically, so the same amount of work doesn't produce the same level of buying power, and working situations are often much more precarious and less healthy overall.

I have no interest in a "socialist cancel culture paradise" ( ) but I'm very interested in how we can improve those basics.

 

[dzheremi]

I feel like I understand what you're saying. I'm just viewing things as more of a survival situation.

What about what you understand me to be saying makes you think I'm not viewing things as "more of a survival situation"?

When life gives you lemons, you make lemonade. That's not saying you don't have it tough - that's what life giving you lemons means.

For what it's worth, a lot of older people are struggling financially too, a lot of older people have not prepared for retirement age, and I've seen many work until they drop dead.

I'm well aware of that, but this isn't a competition. Again, the point isn't "you older people are all living on easy street", but rather "we'd like things to be less bad than they currently are, and the dismissive nature of the responses of many older people and their unwillingness to support initiatives to address the reality of life as it is today is actively harming/blocking that effort."

Most of the complaints here are that the cost of education is too high, the cost of housing is too high, the cost of living is too high, the cost of health care is too high, and that's why we can't have nice things. It's not that wages have gone down, it's that it costs more to live. That's inflation.

I know what inflation is, and that's why I phrased it as I did -- that the purchasing power of wages has not budged (read: not gone up to any significant degree) since before anyone of the Millennial generation was born. I did not claim that wages have decreased.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Look, I don't know how to turn the clock back to 1982 or 1957 or wherever people think it should be. I only know that on a personal level, if a person gets into a tough spot, that individual has to try to work his way out of it. You can wait for government policies to come around to your liking, but that is liable to be a long wait. If you want to blame everything on the old people, fine, we're not blameless. But when we're gone and the world is still a mess, who are you going to blame then?

You're falling into a trap that I've witnessed a lot of people (especially older people) fall into: conflating good personal advice with sound policy.

Advice that works on a personal level often makes for poor policy and vice versa. "Work hard and don't be lazy", for example, is great personal advice but lousy policy, because as a policy, it essentially throws people to the wolves and lets large numbers of people fall through the cracks of society. The very nature of an imperfect market economy (e.g. one run by fallible people who don't price everything perfectly) means that, absent any countermeasures, wealth will concentrate in the hands of a few - it's mathematically inevitable.

OTOH, "lean on the government and handouts from the rich" is probably poor advice for a lot of people since it incentivizes them to not reach their full potential. But it's better policy because it corrects some of the imbalances caused by market economies and better enables the most people to live fullilling lives.

I understand y'all are angry because you are growing up in a time when things are not as good as they used to be. If you have a solution, try to get it implemented.

We're trying. It's often the case that old people are standing in our way.

You make the point that wages have not really changed since 1978 (as measured in purchasing power). As I pointed out before, this says to me that the real culprit here is inflation, plus the fact that there are more things needed to live a normal lifestyle today. So the real villain is whatever has and is contributing to inflation, which I'm sure is a messy discussion.

No, the problem is not inflation. Some positive amount of inflation is required to keep an economy growing because it encourages spending, which drives business. And inflation, as it's currently measured, has been pretty low for the last 30 years. One could argue that our measures of inflation don't adequately weight certain expenses that have grown at a rate far outpacing inflation, like education, housing, and health care. But those are mostly driven by other policies, not the federal reserve.

I don't think I feel hurt exactly, most generations have their differences. I am a little surprised at the ferocity of the hate from some of the younger people like I noted in the original post.

I don't know of anyone who doesn't want to make positive changes. But we have to agree that those changes will actually be positive. If you want to turn everything into a socialist cancel culture paradise, I very much doubt things are going to work out well.

Your complaints about inflation, socialism, and cancel culture are good examples of the sort of nonsense that seems to take root in older generations, but that the rest of us know are nonsense. It's hardly the first time that an older generation has overreacted to something the kids are doing, but it's not helpful. You may think you're trying to work towards your own idea of positive change, but you're oblivious to the influence that profiteering right-wing fearmongers have had over you. Those guys are not trying to work towards positive change - they're trying to pad their own bank accounts by leaching off the rest of society.

 

[iarwain]

No, it's not just inflation. There have been policy and social changes which have affected the price of education beyond inflation.

If prices are going up, I'd say that's inflation. Obviously there are various things causing it.

Again, the point isn't "you older people are all living on easy street", but rather "we'd like things to be less bad than they currently are, and the dismissive nature of the responses of many older people and their unwillingness to support initiatives to address the reality of life as it is today is actively harming/blocking that effort."

Okay, it is not my intent to be dismissive of the challenges faced by young people today.

And if you are talking about the "unwillingness to address the reality of life as it is today", you would have to be more specific about just what it is that you are proposing. Then I could consider whether I would be interested in blocking it or supporting it. My guess is that if it something that would help younger people, it would likely help older folks as well. A rising tide lifts all boats.

 

[Paidiske]

If prices are going up, I'd say that's inflation. Obviously there are various things causing it.

Between 1974 and 1989, a university degree in Australia was free; paid for by the government. Today it is not (although our system is still much more equitable than yours). That is not "inflation."

 

[dzheremi]

Okay, it is not my intent to be dismissive of the challenges faced by young people today.

I feel like you're saying this, but then what you are offering is empty platitudes like "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade."

And if you are talking about the "unwillingness to address the reality of life as it is today", you would have to be more specific about just what it is that you are proposing.

Was the chart at the AEI not specific enough? Are things like housing, health care, etc. not specific things? I don't know what you're seeing in this thread, but I'm seeing a lot of specific things being referenced. As far as policy proposals are concerned, there have been many made just recently to deal with student debt and predatory practices related to that, some of which have been quite stiffly opposed by the GOP. I don't know that this thread is really meant to be for discussion of specific policies, though, especially since it concerns more people than just Americans.

My guess is that if it something that would help younger people, it would likely help older folks as well. A rising tide lifts all boats.

I should hope so. I know that I don't want to prosper by leaving Boomers out in the cold.

 

[iarwain]

Between 1974 and 1989, a university degree in Australia was free; paid for by the government. Today it is not (although our system is still much more equitable than yours). That is not "inflation."

I suppose technically that's not inflation. But I didn't say it was ALL inflation, I said it was mostly inflation. I'm not that familiar with Australia, but I know what's happened in the US, and college costs have skyrocketed.

A lot of this is blamed on government funding of financial aid. The unfortunate phenomenon we see a lot in the US is that if the government funds something, businesses take advantage of this by increasing the costs. Because in a way it's "invisible money", because it doesn't come directly out of a person's pocket. So hey, who's going to notice? Well, people are noticing now.

I can't help but wonder if the same thing happened in Australia. The government was paying the bill, so were universities jacking up the price on the government dole? And now that the government isn't paying the bill anymore, low and behold, the costs are prohibitive.

I feel like you're saying this, but then what you are offering is empty platitudes like "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade."

That is not an empty platitude to me. I think that particular saying has very deep meaning.

Was the chart at the AEI not specific enough? Are things like housing, health care, etc. not specific things? I don't know what you're seeing in this thread, but I'm seeing a lot of specific things being referenced.

When I was talking about specifics, I was talking about solutions. I wasn't talking about problems, I know a lot of the specific problems and complaints have been laid out. In any event, yeah the thread has become much more political than I intended.

 

[Paidiske]

A lot of this is blamed on government funding of financial aid. The unfortunate phenomenon we see a lot in the US is that if the government funds something, businesses take advantage of this by increasing the costs. Because in a way it's "invisible money", because it doesn't come directly out of a person's pocket. So hey, who's going to notice? Well, people are noticing now.

I can't help but wonder if the same thing happened in Australia. The government was paying the bill, so were universities jacking up the price on the government dole? And now that the government isn't paying the bill anymore, low and behold, the costs are prohibitive.

Not so much with university, because what the government has done instead now is put in place a government loan scheme. So my university fees were paid by the government, and I pay the government back on very favourable terms (eg. I don't have to make payments in years I don't earn above a certain threshold amount). Also, our universities make their money by taking large cohorts of international students, who pay full fees.

We do see that problem with our NDIS (national disability insurance scheme). The government started paying, for example, for speech therapy; and lo and behold the price of speech therapy shot through the roof. What the government should have done is paid the speech therapists a set rate rather than reimbursing whatever they'd charge.

It's generally a mistake for a government to pay private enterprise to deliver a service; it's better if the government runs the service directly (as they do with most of our hospitals).

 

[iarwain]

Not so much with university, because what the government has done instead now is put in place a government loan scheme. So my university fees were paid by the government, and I pay the government back on very favourable terms (eg. I don't have to make payments in years I don't earn above a certain threshold amount)

Well, that doesn't sound so terrible.

 

[Paidiske]

Well, that doesn't sound so terrible.

No, I consider it quite reasonable (although the amount of debt has climbed steeply over the years; in the early years you'd come out with debt similar to that for a car; today it's more like a mortgage). Very different to your system, though.

I think the bigger problems we are having here are to do with other kinds of education - vocational education or apprenticeships - apparently we are facing an eventual shortage of workers in the trades because fewer are becoming apprentices.

 

[RDKirk]

Not so much with university, because what the government has done instead now is put in place a government loan scheme. So my university fees were paid by the government, and I pay the government back on very favourable terms (eg. I don't have to make payments in years I don't earn above a certain threshold amount). Also, our universities make their money by taking large cohorts of international students, who pay full fees.

I don't know how that is run in Australia, but in the US "...don't have to make payments in years I don't earn above a certain threshold amount" is how students who borrowed $15,000 wind up with debt balances of $60,000.

For instance, a student may get a $15,000 grant--not a loan--based on an obligation to teach in a school in a low-income neighborhood for five years after graduation. The "catch" is that each year the young teacher must certify that she taught in the acceptable low-income neighborhood, and the certification procedure is arcane and fraught with tangles of complex requirements and rules (not to mention having to be completed during the summer when most of the people who must sign it are unavailable). And if the teacher gets any one iota of the process wrong, even in the last year of the obligation, that "grant" suddenly turns into a "loan" with interest having compounded from the date it was tendered, and there is no way to correct the mistake. That's basically loan-sharking done by the government.

We do see that problem with our NDIS (national disability insurance scheme). The government started paying, for example, for speech therapy; and lo and behold the price of speech therapy shot through the roof. What the government should have done is paid the speech therapists a set rate rather than reimbursing whatever they'd charge.

It's generally a mistake for a government to pay private enterprise to deliver a service; it's better if the government runs the service directly (as they do with most of our hospitals).

I'd have a problem with that. I'd rather the government not own the facilities, but set re-imbursement rates. Essentially, I'd rather a universal healthcare system in the US be more like "Medicare for All" than "Veteran's Administration for All."

 

[Paidiske]

I don't know how that is run in Australia, but in the US "...don't have to make payments in years I don't earn above a certain threshold amount" is how students who borrowed $15,000 wind up with debt balances of $60,000.

No, that doesn't happen here. Interest is not charged on the loan (although the amount is indexed to the CPI).

For instance, a student may get a $15,000 grant--not a loan--based on an obligation to teach in a school in a low-income neighborhood for five years after graduation. The "catch" is that each year the young teacher must certify that she taught in the acceptable low-income neighborhood, and the certification procedure is arcane and fraught with tangles of complex requirements and rules (not to mention having to be completed during the summer when most of the people who must sign it are unavailable). And if the teacher gets any one iota of the process wrong, even in the last year of the obligation, that "grant" suddenly turns into a "loan" with interest having compounded from the date it was tendered, and there is no way to correct the mistake. That's basically loan-sharking done by the government.

I know less about this. There are schemes which involve, say, obligation to work rurally for x number of years, but I've never participated in them and I don't know a lot about how they are administered. My friends who've done that, though, haven't complained of overly onerous processes.

I'd have a problem with that. I'd rather the government not own the facilities, but set re-imbursement rates. Essentially, I'd rather a universal healthcare system in the US be more like "Medicare for All" than "Veteran's Administration for All."

Either could work. I have no real problem with the government running the facilities, from my experience of them, but the point is more that a scheme which funds private providers and lets those providers set their prices is just crying out for becoming a problem.