- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Are Boomers to blame for the current state of the country?
Posted on 4/2/25 at 2:57 pm to LSUGrrrl
Posted on 4/2/25 at 2:57 pm to LSUGrrrl
quote:
Too large of a generation that has continued to work longer into older age and not selling their homes for retirement living.
So I understand - those are criticisms of boomers?
1
Posted on 4/2/25 at 2:58 pm to DrrTiger
quote:
I blame millennials, the most left-leaning generation of all time.
Gen X is the only reason Trump is in the White House at present.
What generation has put in policies and been in charge for the last 20-30 years?
I mean we can sit here and shite talk all the generations. The greatest generation were a bunch of racists who put in racist policies, and fought against the civil rights act. They also raised the boomers.
Boomers took a really great economy post WWII and have been selfish with it ever since. They don't care about what happens in the next 50 years becuase they wont be here to see it.
Millenials are just now starting to work their way into policy making. We can't be blamed for what happened before. I mean lets think about it.
Patriot act - Not millenials
2007 Recession - Not millenials.
last admin - not millenials
current prices...no millenials
but we could also look at standard of living for each generation. Boomers were able to pay for college and buy a house off of 1 income. While the cost of living and inflation have sky rocketed, wages have not. Why is that? The gap between the 1% and everyone else has grown to the point the middle class doesnt really exist anymore. That isn't millenials faults.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 3:01 pm to David_DJS
quote:
So I understand - those are criticisms of boomers?
Yes and no. They can’t help the size of their generation and I can sort of understand the fear of financial instability and the want to hang onto their homes. However, their solipsistic inability to see how those fears, combined with their large numbers, has created issues for every generation behind them.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 3:02 pm to The Scofflaw
quote:
It's the entire concept of "screw you, I got mine" and pulling up the ladder behind them. Now, we're desperately trying to cut spending by the skin of our teeth, just so we can a country that can continue.
First of all, not all Boomers feel that way. I don't nor does my 89 year old Silent Generation father. Fact of the matter is while Generation X has more debt than the generation ahead of them, they also have more debt than the generation behind them. So Generation X being the most generous age group in that original post is either wishful thinking or just more poor financial management skills of that generation.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 3:03 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
- Lower-middle class, or comfortable working class, was a thing then. I just don't think it really is now in any practical sense. Many boomers lived through a period where a working class guy could raise a family of four in a modest SFH in a place where you could send your kids to school in a very modest area without significant safety/behavioral/etc. concerns and where they'd get a reasonably decent education because of the nature of the community around them. I just don't think that exists, and it's a major disconnect.
Why do you believe any of the above? That's an honest question because I just don't see it in the real world.
I wonder if part of the disconnect here is some "romanticized" version of life 50 years ago. I'm willing to bet that the lifestyle my wife and I had the first ten years of marriage - she's an x-ray tech, I'm an engineer - is well within reach of that couple today. In fact, I'm willing to bet today's lifestyle for that couple is better in a lot of respects.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 3:04 pm to The Scofflaw
You're a shallow person.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 3:06 pm to LSUGrrrl
quote:
However, their solipsistic inability to see how those fears, combined with their large numbers, has created issues for every generation behind them.
Specifically, what would boomers be doing to meet your expectations and not be subject to this criticism?
Posted on 4/2/25 at 3:07 pm to GamecockUltimate
quote:
uh...you don't actually believe this do you?
Whatever boomer
Posted on 4/2/25 at 3:13 pm to RollTide4547
quote:
If you can't afford to live in the location you want to live, you need to move or do the work necessary to get a better paying job. I see lot's of people on here who want to complain that they can't have what they want, where they want it and exactly how they want it. I say, welcome to the real world.
Well, that's the disconnect I'm talking about. Candidly, my inner voice sounds like you. I'm just not sure it's really accurate anymore. Or at least that it's more complicated than I'd prefer.
I think tethering is a major problem - as in, you've done what you were told to do, pursued a profession, and it pays well, but now you're tethered to big cities/suburbs because you can't realistically do your job elsewhere.
But it's not just that, it's that moving to a pretty boring/unremarkable suburb of this city - one complete with an hour commute each way, might cost you 500k+. And the schools there are ok, not great. Your house is ok, not great. It cost some other dude 275k in 2010. He made 75k. You make 100k. The house cost you twice as much.
I don't see this as a blame game, if you're whining about your circumstances you're losing - but I'm not going to blame someone for being frustrated at how fast things are moving when they're being talked down to by a person who spent 40 years pushing paper and got a full pension, or by a person who remembers when a dad could work at a retail hardware store and own a SFH and raise a family of 4 on his wages, etc.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 3:17 pm to David_DJS
At 50, I’m at the younger end of Gen X. It’s only now that my generation is beginning to reach upper levels of business and government as Boomers finally begin to hang their hats.
Boomers are just holding onto their jobs and homes for too long. How many are still working bc they have to and how many continue due to habit or boredom? In my opinion, the vast majority fall into the latter categories. If their numbers weren’t so large it wouldn’t have the impact I currently has on the advancement of following generations.
Do they have a social responsibility to retire so that following generations have opportunities? With the size of their generation, they have an incredible opportunity to create a volunteer force that would meet their need to contribute while promoting opportunities for younger people.
That said, they certainly have no obligation to do such a thing and it’s unfair to judge people simply bc they want to work and stay in their homes. Again, none of this is even an issue but for the sheer size of their generation. I do hope they have the savings to pay for their own long term health and housing when their current lifestyle is no longer practical though bc their children and grandchildren may not be financially able to do so.
All this comes from someone in a long term marriage with very high end income, savings and investments, all earned without help from our parents or grandparents. My thoughts are purely observational and intellectual.
Boomers are just holding onto their jobs and homes for too long. How many are still working bc they have to and how many continue due to habit or boredom? In my opinion, the vast majority fall into the latter categories. If their numbers weren’t so large it wouldn’t have the impact I currently has on the advancement of following generations.
Do they have a social responsibility to retire so that following generations have opportunities? With the size of their generation, they have an incredible opportunity to create a volunteer force that would meet their need to contribute while promoting opportunities for younger people.
That said, they certainly have no obligation to do such a thing and it’s unfair to judge people simply bc they want to work and stay in their homes. Again, none of this is even an issue but for the sheer size of their generation. I do hope they have the savings to pay for their own long term health and housing when their current lifestyle is no longer practical though bc their children and grandchildren may not be financially able to do so.
All this comes from someone in a long term marriage with very high end income, savings and investments, all earned without help from our parents or grandparents. My thoughts are purely observational and intellectual.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 3:27 pm to David_DJS
quote:
Why do you believe any of the above? That's an honest question because I just don't see it in the real world.
I wonder if part of the disconnect here is some "romanticized" version of life 50 years ago. I'm willing to bet that the lifestyle my wife and I had the first ten years of marriage - she's an x-ray tech, I'm an engineer - is well within reach of that couple today. In fact, I'm willing to bet today's lifestyle for that couple is better in a lot of respects.
Because a lot of us lived it or heard about it from those who did? Yes, I admit there is a romanticization of the past, and I'm a traditionalist so it comes naturally/too easily for me.
But it's also true in many ways. The modest close-in burbs my dad grew up in, where communities were fairly substantive and safe even though people were living very modest existences - those places are ghetto now. The equivalent simply does not exist. Southern small towns where our parents and grandparents fondly remember their childhoods are dead or dying in many cases.
I do agree with you that there is a rise in the baseline that should be accounted for in some ways (but not others). Say in the 80s you went to PCB and Daytona as a kid and had a great time. You take your kids there today, because it's far less expensive, and it fails to impress.
Is it because your kids are snobs? Yes, partially. All their friends go to Cayman or 30A or whatever, so sure. Their quality of life is different, the standard has changed. But is that all of it? Not exactly. When you went to Daytona, other wholesome middle class families were doing the same. Now? Less so. Is your kid a snob because they want other kids who act and look like them to play with? Or if you and your wife want a little space, fewer tatted people drunk and blaring music, etc.? Is that a luxurious expectation? Yes. Is it understandable? Also yes.
That goes for everything. We can control our expectations within reason, but we can't necessarily control that to recreate the environment (and I don't just mean luxury) and standard of living, we've got to move to the level everyone who wants the same stuff and thinks the same way has moved to. I think this is a stratification issue that spans a ton of topics - from vacations to weddings to travel baseball to neighborhoods. Yes, plenty of it is pure keeping up with the joneses, but I don't think it tells the full story.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 3:32 pm to LSUGrrrl
quote:
Boomers are just holding onto their jobs and homes for too long. How many are still working bc they have to and how many continue due to habit or boredom? In my opinion, the vast majority fall into the latter categories. If their numbers weren’t so large it wouldn’t have the impact I currently has on the advancement of following generations.
You posted that you realize boomers have no obligation to retire on your timetable, so take the following simply as a different way to look at it.
Maybe what you're seeing is more about changes in life expectancy and recognized retirement age. I'm no expert, but I bet if you look at retirement age in reverse - look at the typical number of years living post-retirment - that it's much higher for boomers than generations before them. So if that's true, boomers are retiring earlier relative to life expectancy than generations before them.
And you make a good point about wanting to work. That's me. I'm 64 and have never had a desire to "retire". I like working. But for the record, I don't stand in the way of anyone as I haven't had to work for anybody in twenty years. I work with a couple of my kids in businesses I helped them start.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 3:43 pm to David_DJS
quote:
You posted that you realize boomers have no obligation to retire on your timetable, so take the following simply as a different way to look at it.
Maybe what you're seeing is more about changes in life expectancy and recognized retirement age. I'm no expert, but I bet if you look at retirement age in reverse - look at the typical number of years living post-retirment - that it's much higher for boomers than generations before them. So if that's true, boomers are retiring earlier relative to life expectancy than generations before them.
And you make a good point about wanting to work. That's me. I'm 64 and have never had a desire to "retire". I like working. But for the record, I don't stand in the way of anyone as I haven't had to work for anybody in twenty years. I work with a couple of my kids in businesses I helped them start.
Longer life expectancy is a good point. The issue is that the window for achieving wealth hasn’t really changed. Prime wealth generating years remain in the mid 30s through 50s. What happens to later generations who weren’t able to advance to higher positions during that time and capitalize on those earnings? Will they even have the option to retire without that income generated and invested in those prime years?
And what you’re doing with your kids is excellent. It’s an active investment in the success of later generations. I know you’re likely doing it for the success of your children but it will also help many others with employment and income.
My husband and I are already confronting differing opinions on when he should retire. Our son enters TCU this Fall and the tuition is obscene. My husband feels like he should add at least 4 years onto his working years to make up for the next 4 years where tuition will replace all the dollars we typically save. I, pretty hard set on him retiring some time between 60-63 bc I want us to be young enough to enjoy many years of travel.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 3:45 pm to JiminyCricket
quote:
That point loses its steam when boomers are collectively blaming young people.
This pretty much describes every group of people. Young individuals rarely admit their screw ups of their own generation and blame old people. Old individuals do vice versa. Insert any individual from any group and they likely do they exact same. This is the human condition. We are hypocrites and find it much easier to blame other tribes. You are never going to be satisfied asking any single person to admit the faults of that person's group while you witness them blame other groups. It's a waste of time.
quote:
Why is it wrong to point at shitty parenting among boomers because "broad brush" but it's okay for boomers to shite on younger generations?
I didn't make any claim it is OK. I just stated how humans in all groups are quick to deflect blame and equally quick to blame others.
quote:
Like I said, it's not the fact that boomers did well that angers people. It's the arrogant down the nose approach they take to everyone else, refusing to admit they made mistakes and got fortunate along the way.
Well get angry at the specific boomer that does that. Most of the boomers I know have better things to do than get in the back and forth on who is to blame for the ills of the country. Most I know are busy playing with grandkids. Possible I am lucky. Maybe if I asked (which usually comes across as a demand) that they admit their generation screwed up the country, they might get defensive for laying the faults of boomers at their individual feet. I'm not asking anyone for some generational act of contrition and tend to ignore anyone who lays the blame on any general group of people.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 3:47 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
Pettifogger
I appreciate your post because you're insightful and open to different ways to look at things. My .02 -
I think it's easy to confuse different for worse (or in some cases, better). I grew up in the sole breadwinner lower middle-class family you posted about but understand, that was six kids, two parents crammed into 1200 ft2. Three bedrooms - mom/dad, two sisters and four brothers. I didn't pay attention to such things as a kid, but my mom was pretty bright and I bet very employable, so she could have worked and the family standard of living would have been a bit better - but my parents chose not to do that.
I'm not arguing that couples today that choose for both to work to better their standard of living are wrong or making bad decisions. I think it's just different. We didn't have much but I was never hyper aware of "things" and I had friends growing up in similar circumstances and also friends from families with generational type wealth. It didn't matter much back then. I'm not sure that's the case today. Better or worse, or just different?
By the way, "close in burbs" is a) region or city specific, and b) hasn't been a thing for a while in many major cities. First home my wife and I bought involved a 75-minute commute for me and 45-minute commute for her.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 3:52 pm to David_DJS
quote:
I think it's easy to confuse different for worse (or in some cases, better). I grew up in the sole breadwinner lower middle-class family you posted about but understand, that was six kids, two parents crammed into 1200 ft2. Three bedrooms - mom/dad, two sisters and four brothers. I didn't pay attention to such things as a kid, but my mom was pretty bright and I bet very employable, so she could have worked and the family standard of living would have been a bit better - but my parents chose not to do that.
I will say my 1600square foot home is comparable in my neighborhood to homes that have gone for 250k...in West Columbia SC. My grandparents bought that house for 14k in 1954. that is the equivalent of 133k according to google. Also that house was brand new then, for me and everyone in my neighborhood that means another 30k plus in renovations.
Also it was pretty easy in 1960 to get by without a landline, no computers needed, one car or even no car. Now everyone has to have transportation, a computer, a cell phone just to be employable. add in internet bill, rising water and power bill costs and it does quickly add up.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 3:54 pm to 110andneveragain7
quote:
Actually they’re godless demons forget roses
RED Demons
vs
BLUE Demons
Biblical sporting event, I like the way you think!
Posted on 4/2/25 at 3:55 pm to 110andneveragain7
quote:
I think everyone pretty much is to blame. People took it for granted that we’d always be a free country and always have prosperity and the bill of rights and elections that matter. And now that it’s gone everyone’s been trying to pretend they’re still in Kansas
we let reactive policies take away our freedoms and erode our rights. The patriot act was a response to 9/11, as was TSA. Now we are looking at eroding due process of law because of reaction to a few violent gang members. While the reaction is fair to those POS, it's unfair to all of our citizens who came here legally to potentially lose rights. We blame democrats for being too emotional and eroding freedoms based on reactions (gun control debates after every mass shooting) but republicans have been equally as bad (patriot act and AEA).
Posted on 4/2/25 at 3:56 pm to LSUGrrrl
quote:
Boomers are just holding onto their jobs and homes for too long.
So boomers are a bad generation because they choose to continue to work and own homes. What should boomers do iyo? As a boomer I love these bashing threads that try to come off as comedy.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 4:00 pm to LSUGrrrl
quote:
Longer life expectancy is a good point. The issue is that the window for achieving wealth hasn’t really changed. Prime wealth generating years remain in the mid 30s through 50s. What happens to later generations who weren’t able to advance to higher positions during that time and capitalize on those earnings? Will they even have the option to retire without that income generated and invested in those prime years?
Wouldn't everything shift? If senior leadership was typically 45-65 and is now 55-75, wouldn't all the levels see similar shifts?
I just think it's people are working more years because they're living more years.
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News