In another closed thread,

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2266680

about why it takes so much longer these days to raise adults than it did in any past generation, the thread devolved into a discussion about the derogatory epithet, "OK Boomer" used to silence anybody over the age of 50.

Here's the problem with that derogatory epithet,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/11/13/problem-with-ok-boomer/

“boomer” isn’t always meant literally. It can mean anyone resisting change. We now use boomer two ways: as a term for someone born in a certain era, but increasingly as a stand-in for power, selfishness or comfortable cluelessness — traits found in people of all ages.

And it’s this usage — not simply one tied to age — that must guide our conversations. It may be cathartic to roll one’s eyes and utter “OK, boomer” over everything from telephone calls to retirement accounts, but it’s likely to end in the same place: distracting us from deeper conversations about what really divides us and the coalitions that might truly bring change. To paraphrase another ‘60s anthem, let’s hope that this time we won’t get fooled again."

Thank you for the link. Thank you for your last paragraph. Nice.

>> “boomer” isn’t always meant literally. It can mean anyone resisting change. We now use boomer two ways: as a term for someone born in a certain era, but increasingly as a stand-in for power, selfishness or comfortable cluelessness — traits found in people of all ages."

So lets see......

“Stupid” isn’t always meant literally. It can mean anyone resisting change. We now use stupid two ways: as a term for someone born in a certain era, but increasingly as a stand-in for power, selfishness or comfortable cluelessness — traits found in people of all ages."

I think I understand this whole issue now.

KAa-Ching!

That's the sound a Boomer makes when another child is born.

>> That's the sound a Boomer makes when another child is born.

Every time a child is born, jesus takes a dollar from a millenials account and deposits into a boomers account.

I didn't get to where I am now by hard work alone you know!

The Boomer umbrage is almost as large as its cohort.

Beth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Boomer umbrage is almost as large as its
> cohort.


Perfectly said!!!

Human, gen-xer

Well, this slacker has to go back to work so maybe I can retire when I'm 75.

Mudhoney is coming to the Croc in Seattle this May if anyone wants to come with. Lemme know. Tickets go on sale tomorrow. ;)

Would if I could; and please you did.

Lived on Thomas and Broadway ‘89-‘92 on Capitol (homo) Hill. Haven’t been back since but gather it’s changed.

Use to walk way down to Eliot Bay bookstore a few times a week. Now it looks like it’s just down the block.

Wonder if Dick’s is still there?

The Hurricane closed in 2014. I think Dick's is still around. I used to get my hair cut in Capitol Hill, but that place is a gentrified nightmare. I rarely drive in the city, but getting there by public transit sucks, too. Gotta admit I like the bougie Sun Distillery on Summit Ave. I think the Center for Sex Positive Culture is still around. You wouldn't recognize Fremont.

I live in Lewis County now, that's how expensive King, Pierce, and Thurston counties have become.

I've got room for you if you swing this way. :)

Ahoy, Puget Sounders! I grew up in Everett. My kids live in Kent. And......Mrs. Beesley's Burgers is a must stop on the drive up and back from Portland, OR where I live now.

Yep! Anytime. I love their regular cheeseburgers.

I lived in Auburn, and I'd take The Puppy Joy to Grandview every morning before work. It has beautiful views of The Mountain, resident bald eagles, coyotes, and fewer jerky people than Marymoor. Alas, ticky tacky condos were being built next to the park when I was last there.

Beth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I lived in Auburn, and I'd take The Puppy Joy to
> Grandview every morning before work. It has
> beautiful views of The Mountain, resident bald
> eagles, coyotes, and fewer jerky people than
> Marymoor. Alas, ticky tacky condos were being
> built next to the park when I was last there.

wow, so many hommies from the hood in here, I grew up in Auburn, well, unincorporated King Co. Dad was a Boeing Engineer and like the rest of Seattle, we flew out South East to the burbs. Now my little HS which was all white bread and Mayonaise back then, has 160 different nationalities that speak 100 different languages. You go to Lake Meridian and you don't hear anybody speaking English, it's like the friggin UN there now. I think it's pretty cool that so many different people get along remarkably well however. My old HS looks like a meeting of the UN, but it's known for being a really great school. People get along better than we did when it was all white. haha

Yes Dicks is still there on Broadway. Maclemore did a concert recently on the roof.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10159748777665268

Re: Amazon has taken over with lots of ticky tacky


Ya.

And only a ticky tacky million and a half needed to end a socialist these days...

...maybe we’ll be lucky at 80

Seriously - come baaaaaaack!

Mudhoney isn't coming until May! May! Bring your happy ass back!

I'm a "tweener", born in '63 after the boomers and before the gen-Xers.

Dear Gen-X, Gen-Y, Gen-Z,

You are not the first generation to experience resistance to change. Get over yourself.

Signed,

A Tweener

There once was a boomer named Roy
Who caught on to the mellenials ploy
I've accomplished so much
Yet I'm so out of touch
No wonder its them I annoy

ETA: Oh, SNAP! There is sooooo much wrong with your limerick. SMDH



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/14/2019 09:45PM by Beth.

All valid points. However, it's quite reasonable for young people to be angry and upset with Boomers and the consistently selfish things they have done which is leaving quite a mess for young people to clean up after. The Boomer's parents, the WWII generation, sacrificed to leave a better world behind. The Boomers have been guided by two simple values and principles: (1) ME; and (2) NOW. These Boomer values have left a wake of economic, social and environmental destruction.

Exactly the way the Boomers felt about the previous generation. Yes, the "Greatest Generation" won WWII, and brought prosperity to the USA in many ways. They also perpetuated a lot of inequality and fought hard against civil rights, womens rights, etc.

And they started the process of inter-generational transfers. The debt/GDP ratio and unfunded liabilities began their inexorably rise around 1980, which is when the Greatest Generation was running things politically.

That was also when the GOP started to move towards Jack Kemp's insane notion that if you cut taxes from already low levels, GDP would grow so fast that the national debt will shrink; matching in idiocy the (misunderstood) Keynesian idea Democrats cited to support running moderate deficits in the belief that that would produce ever faster GDP growth, likewise reducing the national debt. From that point onward, both parties embraced transparent beliefs that justified ever greater deficits and consumption at the expense of those future generations who could have to pay that money back through higher taxes, eventual inflation, and lower living standards.

These trends were in place before the Baby Boom Generation came to the fore. So to that extent the blame should be shared, as too should that for any failure by subsequent generations to redress the financial imbalance. But the fact remains that younger people's inheritance--their share of national wealth--has largely already been spent. That is simply a matter of numbers and arithmetic.

You got it. History is a strict task master. But those were the "good old days", provided you were part of the right demographic.

The boomers were hoodwinked and left holding the bag. The New Deal “screwed” the rich so they rolled back all of its innovations one by one. If they had to pay a “New Deal” level of taxes, millennials would have free healthcare, free higher education, and jobs that pay a living wage. Then they would be willing to buy homes and raise families.

But it didn’t matter how you voted. Both parties sold us out. Don’t blame the boomers.

Except that a lot of the egalitarian laws were passed not during the FDR period but after WWII, when governments in the US and most other countries, felt that they owed it to workers and warriors and also needed to prevent communism (especially in France and Italy) from gaining power. You'll recall that the top marginal tax rate in the Eisenhower years was 93%, which is roughly three times what it is today.

The infrastructure of equality was dismantled particularly from about 1980 onward. That was the point from which both parties were generally willing to borrow and spend whatever they wanted. So yes, the blame does fall disproportionately on the age cohort who were in control then.

What do you think made boomers so stupid? Was it the Ozzie and Harriet world of the 1950s (curiously what TSCC pushes)? John Nash’s paranoia-based game theory? The chickens of past atrocities coming home to roost? Drugs?

We become what we think, so this matters. Think stupid things, win stupid prizes. What good is crapping in your own bed if you have to sleep there?

This is where it would be great if reincarnation is a real thing. The people who messed it up are born into working class families and have to live with the consequences of their failed policies.

The problem is that if you think about their material interests, the Boomers (and the previous generation) did exactly what was most intelligent. They maximized their present living standards. So they did not "crap in their own beds."

What they did was "crap in their children's beds." Since most people love their children, or tell themselves they do, it took some serious voodoo to persuade them to run up the national debt and the unfunded liabilities. Here there were a few different myths that took hold. One was the notion that cutting taxes would produce more tax revenues; another was the sense of outrage the entitled felt whenever a politician advocated fiscal responsibility. That fury was, and is, particularly disturbing. It characterizes people who would never vote for socialists or socialism and yet feel that they are entitled to vastly more benefits than they pay for.

The bottom line, sadly, is that people are inclined to accept any religion or ideology that benefits them materially. When a pol advocates spending more money or cutting taxes because, well you deserve it, they quickly agree. Then they feign shock when they discover that someone defecated in their children's beds.

Rational self interest was the national religion. That’s why John Nash got a Nobel Prize. Didn’t anyone know it was a recipe for disaster? The Mormon bubble is puny compared to that one.

You have an overly romanticized view of "the Greatest Generation" -- the WWII generation. My parents were among them. Yes, they made a lot of sacrifices and won WWII. They were terrific in many ways. But they also knew an unprecedented prosperity. The soldiers who came back from the war benefited from cheap housing and the GI Bill, which paid for their college educations. Generally speaking, only one solid income (professional or trade) was needed to support a family. They could easily pay for their children to go to college, if they so desired. College did not cost a lot back then.

But they were *not* paying for big screen TVs, personal computers, laptops, gaming PCs, game systems such as Play Station, Xbox or Nintendo, or the latest I-phone. They did not go out for manicures. They didn't buy ridiculously priced makeup, or tons of candles and scent warmers. They didn't buy fancy supplements and shakes. They didn't buy athletic shoes -- they bought Keds. They didn't take fancy vacations. Las Vegas? They had more sense than to throw their hard earned money away. Considering their vast "wealth" they lived *very* modest lifestyles in comparison to today.

You have to remember that "the Greatest Generation" grew up during the Great Depression. They had known hard times. They knew how to pinch a penny. They saved rubber bands and string -- "waste not, want not."

As for the disrespect to the Boomers (of which I am one,) all I can say is, in terms of votes, the younger generations have been in charge for some time now. Look at the current political leadership -- the younger people put them in office. If you don't like what you see, then VOTE. Be the change that you want to see. YOU are in charge. Act like it!

I'm a tail-end boomer (1960) and have no issue with "OK Boomer."

The phrase/meme is used at a specific time, in a specific situation, against a specific person, as with the NZ lawmaker. She was responding to being heckled by an old guy legislator.

It's nothing more than the current version of, say, "Thanks Gramps" or an equally dismissive phrase. "OK Boomer" is no more an indictment of all boomers than "Thanks Gramps" is an indictment of all grandfathers.

Generational tension has always been with us. There is no shortage of super-crotchety old folks that in their day dropped acid, boinked everyone in sight, and didn't trust anyone over 30.

In 50-60 years, Gen Zers are going to be the ones yelling at the Cyborg Generation (or whatever) to get off their lawns. "We didn't have your fancy X-ray vision eye implants! We had to use our imaginations!"

To my fellow boomers offended by "OK Boomer," you can console yourselves with the purely objective fact that we got to grow up with what was indisputably the greatest music ever. No contest. (Cue response of "OK Boomer.")

> we got to grow up with what was
> indisputably the greatest music ever. No contest.
> (Cue response of "OK Boomer.")

Okay, Baroque-er.

Bam!

Yes I'm also a 1960 back-end boomer. I wouldn't mind if someone said 'OK Boomer' to me. My kids have already tried it on.

And I agree - we did get the best music. Being 16 in 1977 was pretty cool, except for the fashions and the glam rock.

There is an overused cliche in business that states:

The first generation employs, (The Greatest Generation)
The second generation enjoys, (The Silent Generation)
The third destroys. (OK...Boomers)

As a Gen Xer, I am sorry for the disaster the Boomers have left this country in.

The question i ask is do boomers take advantage of the younger generation on purpose for the almighty dollar because they have more life experience. Only they can answer this question. It seems they will take advantage of someone's stupidity if they can. Not all do this but i have seen it in the workforce.

Then there's the Baby Boomer Bounce - kids of Boomers, but not as large as the Baby Boomer generation.

I am GLAD that people were so optimistic that they popped out children like Pez dispensers.

I'm sure LW or someone more well-versed in economics than I am (my eyes glaze over when I see "Keynesian"), but WWII pulled us out of the Depression, and many people who suffered through the depression had hope. Hope is a good thing.

I think the problem is that while hope might spring eternal, the spring has run dry. But that's okay - we'll get it together.

As the Boomer Beatles said, "You say you want a revolution? Well, you know, we all want to change the world."

To those that are younger than so-called ‘boomers’:

Maybe a little less eye rolling and criticism of those who came before you and a whole lot more innovation, invention and fixing what’s broke...

But, what do I know? I’m an old boomer that was dumb enough to believe all the pie-in-the-sky dreams and promises our parents painted for us.

> Maybe a little less eye rolling and criticism of
> those who came before you and a whole lot more
> innovation, invention and fixing what’s
> broke...

There are a couple of problems with that. First, it's unreasonable to tell people to shut up and fix a problem that someone else caused. Young people will have to remedy that problem, but it's entirely understandable that they are upset about it.

Second, it is hard to fix a problem if you are born with debt of $120,000, rising by $10,000 (plus unfunded liabilities) per year, which is true of anyone born today or tomorrow. It is more than a good bet that when those children reach 18 years of age and can finally vote, their inherited debt will surpass 300,000 per capita. It's difficult to see how they will be able to afford the wrenches and screwdrivers necessary to fix the washing machine let alone the national economy.

What does this mean? It means that older people have a moral obligation to stop doing further harm. While many of young people's complaints may be unreasonable, they have every reason to be upset that their parents and grandparents have so insouciantly spent their future earnings.

“A moral obligation to stop doing further harm” — Okay.

How? What would you think would be a way to effectively oblige?

I agree that boomers have been and continue to be selfish. I agree that those that follow the boomers have a monumental task ahead of them in fixing the mistakes that were made.

But. Rather than accomplish nothing but animosity by blaming/pointing fingers, perhaps it is time to stop looking back and go forward. Like it’s been said! “It’s not over till it’s over”. We aren’t “over”. It is fixable.

I only point fingers in order to get people to focus on the problem.

What could voters and their representatives do to reduce the ongoing harm? Immediately cut back on the upper-class and middle-class entitlements that have ruined the country's finances. Simultaneously raise taxes as sharply as necessary to ensure that current generations are paying their own way rather than increasing the debts that they will bequeath to their children and grandchildren. In short, insist on responsibility.

That won't do anything to lighten the burdens that have already been imposed on young people and the unborn, but at least it will reduce the scale of future damage. To paraphrase Everett Dicksen, a trillion dollars in new debt this year, a trillion dollars in new debt next year, and pretty soon you're talking real money.

So, the issue is rooted in politics and the distribution of wealth? It’s a bit more than that.

Money controls everything in this world. Those that have the money shape the world we live in. Money and politics are attracted to each other.

What should be done?

IMO the problem transcends generational differences.

> So, the issue is rooted in politics and the
> distribution of wealth? It’s a bit more than
> that.
>
> Money controls everything in this world. Those
> that have the money shape the world we live in.
> Money and politics are attracted to each other.

Those two statements are contradictory. You first state that the problem is not "politics and the distribution of wealth," then you say the problem is precisely that.


----------------
> What should be done?

As I said above, people must change their priorities and behave ethically. You can try to pin the responsibility somewhere else, but in a democracy voters can and do adjust the balance between money and politics all the time.

Look up the data. The distribution of wealth and income in the US peaked in 1929, when the top decile of Americans earned half of all income. Voters changed policy in the 1930s and that number fell to about 32%. It started rising again when voters, disproportionately the Greatest Generation and the Baby Boom Generation, endorsing unfunded tax cuts and deficit spending in about 1980. By the early 2010s that had resulted in a return to 1920s inequality, and since the unfunded tax cuts of two years ago the percentage has moved well past the 1929 peak. In distributional terms, voters have put the United States squarely in Third World territory.

What is necessary now is for people to realize that the contraction of the middle class--the top one percent now possesses as much wealth as the entire middle class--is a disaster for democracy and that the impoverishment of subsequent generations is a moral atrocity.


------------------
> IMO the problem transcends generational
> differences.

Not generational differences? That is nonsensical. The national debt is by definition a measure of spending by those enfranchised now at the expense of those who will pay the debt down later. Unless you expect the older generations to pay $12 trillion immediately, welfare is being shifted between generations.

What we need is for people to stop throwing up their hands and pretending the sun rises in the West. The distribution of wealth is a dependent variable, dependent on voter will. The American people have changed fiscal policy several times before and can do so again.

They have to.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2019 05:34PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They have to.

History shows this is probably not going to happen.

EB,

I am skeptical, too. But bear in mind that the country has fought very successful wars against the maldistribution of wealth and income before--in the trust-busting era, in the 1930s, and then in the post-WW2 years. The rest of the world has done the same thing, including in virtually all of the OECD economies and particularly in Japan and Germany and Taiwan and South Korea in the years after 1945 when governments (and occupation forces) insisted on rebalancing wealth to sustain peaceful democratic government.

So there is reason for hope. It is, at the very least, time for people to recognize the magnitude of the problem and demand that pols act to redress the imbalance.

I favor an economic policy that benefits and furthers the middle class. My feeling is that if the middle class has money to spend, there will be no shortage of people who will want to help them spend it.

Maryland requires a balanced budget every year, and somehow the state legislature always gets it figured out. Taxes are not burdensome, and there is never any real feeling of privation when it comes to government services. I would like to see the U.S. adopt a similar policy. Have a balanced budget with X amount of dollars allocated to pay off the debt. Deficits would be allowed only for a declared war with the House, Senate, and Presidency all on board.

With a balanced budget, hard choices would have to be made, but at least as a country we would start to hold critical conversations about our priorities.

Two points.

A balanced budget should not, ideally, be legally mandated. In a recession, government should be able to run marginal deficits to stimulate growth; and in periods of growth, to run surpluses n order to pay down the past deficits. There should be flexibility--assuming, against most recent evidence, that politicians can be trusted to act responsibly.

Regarding the middle class, secondly, I would like to believe that supportive measures are not necessary; I'd like to think government could be neutral. But that is not at all realistic. Over the last few decades policy has been directed against the middle class and in favor of the uber-rich, which is why the distribution of wealth has grown so appallingly bad. This matters for a few reasons, including the reality that democracies only function well when there is a healthy middle class; and the fact that if the middle class doesn't have enough money to consume, the economy cannot grow.

What happens if you abuse the interests of the working and middle classes for too long? Politics polarize and democracies cease functioning smoothly. Also, anger at the rich intensifies and sometimes leads to political, or actual, revolutions that harm the wealthy and in some cases create all sorts of economic inefficiencies. That's why the Business Roundtable and a number of billionaires are now advocating higher taxes on themselves. Some of those people are socially aware, but a lot of them are afraid of what will happen if current trends persist.

The trouble with allowing the government to run deficits is that you run into the problem that we have today. Perhaps laws could be created to put strict controls in place, i.e. during a recession with X parameters the government can run up X % deficit. During growth times the deficit must be fully repaid at a rate of X % per year.

Maryland has had a balanced budget during good times and bad. As I said, when the legislators *must* keep their spending in check, they do.

Yes, that is a problem. And yet there is no easy way out of the dilemma. Consider these two points.

One. If a government enacts a rule banning deficits or limiting them to a certain size, that government can either change the law when under duress to allow deficits or simply lie. Since budgets depend on predicted GDP growth rates, the government can simply adopt a forecast with a higher growth rate as part of its new budget plan. A year later the truth will be revealed, but then it's too late to enforce the rule. This has happened many times in countries that have budget limits (the EU and EZ have seen national budget projections that everyone knows are false many times.

Two. What would a strictly enforced budgetary limit produce? It can make a recession much worse. A major factor in the Great Depression was the widespread belief in balanced budgets and the consequent decision by governments to react to falling GDP by cutting spending and even hiking taxes. Not a good situation.

So ultimately there is no alternative to self-restraint on the part of politicians and voters. For better or worse, democracies depend fundamentally on popular responsibility.

“It is, at the very least, time for people to recognize the magnitude of the problem and demand that pols act to redress the imbalance.”

I think in this respect, Trump is a blessing in disguise. More the central banks than him, but he’s a better focal point. Between cartoonish inequality, the next downturn, and more people getting their news from the Internet, I think voters really will wake up.

Americans always pull together in hard times. Maybe the coming years will be the best thing that’s happened here in a long time.

> Americans always pull together in hard times.
> Maybe the coming years will be the best thing
> that’s happened here in a long time.

I hope that's true. It's been a long time since Americans "pulled together in hard times" but ideally the country hasn't lost that strength.

Don’t be shocked if things keep getting better ——-

Things are going great, right? The national debt is rising at a trillion dollars a year and unfunded liabilities are even greater. But if you die before markets force a resolution, you get to enjoy the benefits without any cost to you.

With that mentality, I hope for your sake that you are elderly. Then things may well keep getting "better."

I don't mind if people say "OK boomer" to me as long as they then STFU like they are supposed to.

OK Boo--

I mean, Dave

I'm impressed they didn't need use a meme to convey the idea . . . . .

There is no problem with "OK Boomer". Considering the level of condescension heaped on Millennials, I think they have pretty good reason to be annoyed. The main problem I see is with skins, and the thinness thereof.

am not the description given such as "(1) ME; and (2) NOW. These Boomer values have left a wake of economic, social and environmental destruction."

That is far from most boomers I know, if not all boomers I know since I'm in the lower middle class and we fought and worked hard for everything we have, which isn't all that much if you were to look around and find out the truth about the majority of boomers.

I've never gotten handouts. I've never expected anything free from the government or anywhere else. I worked 2 jobs to raise 2 kids to pay for my smaller house. I drive an Aveo for hell sakes. It is 9 years old and has 81,000 miles on it. I drove a Chevette. ha ha ha And a USED mini van. I only had 2 children. I shop at Walmart.

I was raised by a farmer and started working on the farm at age 10. I don't have a college degree and I don't earn all that much money. I get by.

I just don't get where the attitude comes from.

I grew up in a time when we used paper bags, not plastic. We had glass milk bottles and soda bottles that we reused. So many things that we did that the following generations do not.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2019 01:16PM by cl2.

I feel the same, cl2. I've worked extremely hard for a *very* modest prosperity. I feel that I've earned what I've got.

At the last Union meeting I attended, we were offered a raise for ourselves ... OR... those funds would be set aside for new hires to have health insurance.

We AAALLLLL voted down our own raises.

in b 4 ~ OK OPie ~

I'm a proud boomer. Now, get off my lawn.