dagblog - Comments for "Baby Boom Goes the Dynamite: The Generation's Lasting Legacy "

Oh, and generations aren't

ftks45 — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:58:40 +0000

Oh, and generations aren't really considered 18-20 years anymore. From what I've read, the general thinking among experts is that generations are shorter now, partly because of the acceleration of culture. Most analysts now say generations are approximately 10 to 15 years. I'm talking here about cultural generations (familial generations are still around 20 to 25 years because that's around the age that most people reproduce).

To me, it's obvious that

ftks45 — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:54:09 +0000

In reply to Technically, I am not a

To me, it's obvious that Obama is a member of Generation Jones. You don't have to be an expert in generations to realize this guy really isn't a Boomer nor is he a Generation X'er. I was born in 1961, the same year as Obama, and from the first time I heard about Generation Jones, I intuitively knew that's where I fit.

I think it's very telling that people my age apparently strongly agree: Third Age did a poll of this specific question with a nationally representative poll of 500 people born in 1961, who resoundingly self-identified as GenJonesers, not Boomers or X'ers.

The differences between Boomers and Jonesers aren't small. They are quite dramatic. Look, for example, at how these two generations vote. Boomers are usually the most Dem-voting generation, while Jonesers are usually the most GOP-voting generation. How could it make sense to lump together the two opposite generations in the electorate?

Technically, I am not a

acanuck — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:13:07 +0000

In reply to Baby Boom Goes the Dynamite: The Generation's Lasting Legacy

Technically, I am not a Boomer. When I was born, Adolf Hitler still ruled Europe and no atomic bombs had been dropped. So I'm a member of the previous generation, whatever the hell its name was.

Did it in fact have a name? The only identifying cultural feature I recall was that teenage girls wore crinolines under their dresses. And the facial hair I grew in college led relatives to call me a beatnik, not a hippie. Culturally, however, I embraced the ethos of the coming generation: peace protests, pot, rock music, rebellion. San Francisco. Woodstock.

So let me state unequivocally: In no way is Barack Obama a Boomer. For one thing, I am old enough to have fathered him. More crucially, he was born too late to experience the assassination of JFK. Yes, he would have been vaguely aware of the deaths of RFK and MLK, but -- coming afterward -- they did not carry the same cultural shock. What shaped the Boomer mentality was a childhood that promised prosperity, hope and security, and a world event that exposed it all as a deception. What followed were years of war, riot and political instability.

Generation Jones may have gotten the tail end of that, but to call yourself a Boomer you had to be sitting in a classroom as the teacher announced the president had been shot. Disillusionment led some into revolution or political action, some into self-indulgence, greed and political apathy. But disillusionment was the common thread.

On the actual topic of entitlement and Social Security, it's interesting that the States came early to the concept, under the New Deal, got the funding wrong, made it worse lumping it in with the general budget, and now lacks the political will and resources to fix it. Canada got around to creating a mandatory pension plan only in 1965, but set up the fund as a stand-alone entity, basically free from government meddling. It's not fully funded, but should be financially sound through most of this century. Payroll contributions are just under 5 per cent for both workers and employers.

i agree. good luck getting

Deadman — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:28:49 +0000

In reply to I have to tell you that I

i agree. good luck getting any substantive reform accomplished with AARP as powerful as it is however. The only ways significant changes will happen i fear is if we're staring down the barrel of a gun - scratch that, we are staring down a barrel of a gun right now so my guess is change won't happen til we take a bullet.

and social security SHOULD have been designed as a savings plan, where people put in money for their own use in later years. Of course, that was close to unfeasible since it would have taken many years to fund social security to the point where it would be useful.

As it stands now, assuming shifting population trends, it's basically a ponzi scheme that works only when the current generation of workers is large enough to support the retired folks. and the tragic part is how we have tried to mask the liabilities from social security by moving them off budget. As large as our deficit looks now, it'd look almost twice as big if we included the actual present value of future liabilities from social security. of course, theoretically, the government could curtail or stop those payments at any time, but we know how likely that is.

as i said, generational

Deadman — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:11:42 +0000

In reply to I don't there's much value to

as i said, generational labels and characterizations are probably by their very nature somewhat unfair. I guess I just find it a bit disappointing that the Baby Boomers started out as such a progressive, dynamic group and then collectively pretty much dropped the ball looking out for their own narrow interests (again, obviously plenty of exceptions to the rule, but overall they just passed the buck too often).

I have to tell you that I

Anonymous — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 01:37:10 +0000

In reply to Baby Boom Goes the Dynamite: The Generation's Lasting Legacy

I have to tell you that I really work hard to prevent myself from getting worked up about the entitlement mentality of the Boomers. It is tough when you have 100K in student loans (that your parents didn't have), you have to dedicate 10-15% of your salary to 410K contributions (your parents had pensions), you have to pay $25K to send 2 kids to daycare for a year (your parents had a chance of having one person work - almost impossible today), you have to save $10K/year/kid for any meager HOPE of paying for a fraction of their education, your healthcare premiums eat up 5% of your salary or more...I could go on and on, but suffice it to say it's tough out there and it's only going to get worse.

And the Boomers have this unbelievable "I deserve it...I paid for it..." mentality with absoutely no basis in fact. They paid for the previous generation - That's something that needs clarification - The social security system was NEVER designed as a savings plan - the current generation pays for the previous. The "Boomers" paid for "The Greatest Generation" - and they did so with a ratio of about 14 Boomers to 1 Retiree. If they didn’t feel it was fair at the time, they should have said so. But the pinch was almost nothing b/c the ratios were so low…not so anymore. All the excess was NOT saved - it was spent on guess who? THE BOOMERS. And why was that? Because the Boomers wanted it and they elected EVERY politician since the day I was born! If I hear one more Boomer whine about the fact that the govt pillaged their SS money, I’m gonna puke. You live in a representative democracy…accept some collective responsibility for YOUR collective decisions!

I agree however, that these are our parents. Here’s the thing, though…While I don’t want to be cruel or rob them of a retirement I don’t want to trade winters in FL for them for my own destitution in old age…and that’s what the trade-off may very well be. We are staring down the barrel of a HUGE PROBLEM. I am NOT unwilling to do what’s needed to spare my kids, but it seems that the Boomers look at the facts and shrug them off, saying, “I don’t care…I paid my dues and I want mine!” It’s like a 3-year old refusing to look at the logic of a problem and repeating over and over some illogical mantra. We all (ALL GENERATIONS) need to work together to look HONESTLY at the issue and decide on a solution that’s fair to all and doesn’t sacrifice one generation for the other…which is what is happening now.

I don't there's much value to

Rita — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:45:20 +0000

In reply to Baby Boom Goes the Dynamite: The Generation's Lasting Legacy

I don't there's much value to bashing baby boomers. Boomers are as mixed in character as any generation.

The direction of the country goes with the political party in charge. Everyone votes for the president and members of congress, so we are the government and we get the quality of officials that we elect. The George W. Bush years are an example of that. I think that the corruption of his administration will continue to be revealed.

I think the generations need to work together in the workplace and in government to being people together and to move the country forward. Generatin wrangling doesn't solve anything.

As for how baby boomers are defined, it's being born between 1946 and 1964. President Obama is a baby boomer, although he has said that he doesn't consider himself a boomer. Michelle Obama is a baby boomer, too.

Rita

You can't just park a

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:10:27 +0000

In reply to I don't know but I'm

You can't just park a registered trademark like a domain name or a patent. You have to actually use it in commerce. You can register an intent to use a trademark to secure the filing date, but it expires after six months.

So maybe it's time to start selling Twitter Generation coffee mugs. Of course, you might run into some legal trouble with Twitter for trademark infringement.

Why 18 years? In terms of

DF — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:53:00 +0000

In reply to thanks for the comment.

Why 18 years? In terms of the numbers, all of this seems a bit odd to me. People are discrete, but birth rates can be represented continuously. However, we then turnaround and pick a figure, maybe 18 years, to put them back into a seemingly discrete group. But isn't this arbitrary?

These represent attempts to identify a generation by quantity, but they're poor attempts IMHO. Examining the formative experiences of a generation allows for qualitative identification, which seems far more appropriate in this case. If there's nothing cohesive about the shared experiences of a generation, then why bother talking about it in the first place?

My parents are solidly Boomers. They were old enough (and young enough) to be the right age for the British Invasion, Woodstock, Vietnam, the sexual revolution, etc. Obama wasn't old enough to really experience any of these events. In 1969, he turned eight years old. In 1975, when the Vietnam War ended, he turned 14. By contrast, my father had a draft card. Both of our last two Presidents, though they didn't go, were eligible.

So, we could stick Obama in the same group because we've married ourselves (at least somewhat arbitrarily IMHO) to a number, but does that really tell us anything about him or about generational membership in general? I don't think so.

FWIW, I share you sentiment here to a certain extent. I've even had similar conversations with my mom. It's definitely easy, from my perspective, to look at the Boomers as a generation that started with much idealism, but ended up as self-indulgent as any that came before. I think that there's some truth to this narrative, but I also recognize that it's easy to point the finger.

Even so, I think that the legacy of the Boomers is pretty well written at this point, at least if we're primarily talking about their time at the wheel. They're still highly influential in the Congress, and will continue to be for a while longer, but it seems unlikely that we'll see another Boomer President. Is Obama the last Boomer President or the first post-Boomer President? Rather than focusing on his age, perhaps the answer lies in determining whether his presidency has more to do with answering the question of what the Boomer legacy is or what the beginning of the next era will look like. Personally, I believe he is much more closely related to the latter question than the former.

Finally, I think it's important to note that casting aspersions on the Boomers, which may be due, significantly raises the bar for we who must follow them.

I don't know but I'm

Deadman — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:56:42 +0000

In reply to How does one become an expert

I don't know but I'm interested in applying. Like i said last year, I really want to trademark The Twitter Generation to describe our current batch of teenagers. it fits so perfectly (I dont know if they've already acquired the Gen Y moniker, but that's a lame one anyway).