Boomers vs Millennials

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

As far as discrimination goes, I'd argue that Boomers aren't being discriminated against because of their age in any way. They aren't being judged as being inferior because they are old, nor have they ever been denied any kind of services or rights that other groups enjoy (quite the opposite, in fact). They are being judged negatively for deliberately and systematically hoarding power and resources at the cost of two entire generations. Trying to paint that as analogous to racism is a painfully long stretch.

Probably a good thing that I said nothing about racism whatsoever then, isn't it? The obvious evidence, well-established and widely-accepted as you state, is not at all convincing to me. And even if it was, it still wouldn't justify throwing the entire generation under the bus. There are many examples on these forums of people (rightly-so) criticizing certain groups or regions for large numbers of them believing in manifest, provable false-hoods. Something being widely-accepted doesn't make it true.

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Certainly the folks in power and making influential decisions are only a tiny fraction of the generation in question, and of course I don't feel like Hispanic grandmothers are personally oppressing me, I'm just not sure why those clarifications are necessary.

Would you find such clarifications necessary if someone said blanket things about the poor/underclass, women, or other groups? Certainly most in this forum would, and if they were offered after the fact they'd be viewed with a great deal of suspicion. Why are boomers different?

Originally Posted by thesloppy

The slow disintegration of Social Security, Pensions, home ownership and any kind of retirement is hardly underground news. Some manner of conflict between the generations & transitions is surely constant and inevitable, as you have suggested, but the boomers' parents left them a world of financial opportunity & relative privilege, and they did not secure the same for the generations that followed. … "Roughly 80% of S&P 500 companies have baby boomer CEOs and approximately one-third of that group is 65 or older.....Eighty percent of the U.S. House of Representatives and 86% of the Senate are aged 50 or older (this also includes the approximately 15-20% who are older than the baby boomers). In the White House, baby boomers have served as president since 1993, when Bill Clinton took office"

Here's the most succinct statements of the previously-mentioned evidence I can find in this thread, and I salute you for them. Here's the thing: I don't think any of it is compelling at all in terms of backing up the stated position.

** % of people elected to high office. As mentioned before, boomers have been a minority of the electorate the entire time. Therefore other generations have mostly put this group of people in power. What matters is those voting for them, not those in office, because the power belongs to the people who utilize it through action or inaction, as they choose. If any of the things that were done were things they didn't like, they had the choice to replace them with other representatives. That hasn't happened, which means they are either in favor of or apathetic towards those policies. If the two generations coming after boomers have been oppressed, it has been an oppression literally of their own making.

** Disintegration of any kind of retirement: hardly. The average retirement age rose from 57 in the early 90s to 62 in recent years. Over the same time period, life expectancy rose from approx. 75 to 79 years, an extremely similar increase. On average, people continue to have a typical expectation of 15-20 years of retired living.

** Pensions are indeed largely a thing of the past, but that has more to do with globalization and larger economic forces. There's no reasonable set of policies that I know of that would have stopped this from happening. People don't stay at the same job nearly as long as they used to. We're transitioning from an industrial to an information-based economy, and that's the main why here. That genie isn't going back in the bottle no matter what anyone does. The world has/is changed/changing, and we have to change with it. Major transitions like this always cause problems. It's also true that the total value of compensation to employees has continued to rise even while wages have stagnated, with the rising cost of healthcare outpacing standard-of-living increases being the main reason.

** Home Ownership is actually not down all that much at all. It peaked at about 70 percent in 2005 and the latest numbers I've seen are 63 percent. This is also at least primarily a self-inflicted wound; people are marrying in fewer numbers and at later ages, removing one of the primary incentivizers to home ownership and of course single people generally have less buying power than married couples. There are many economic disruptions prompted by the breakdown of the family, this is just one of them but other than arguably not doing a great job raising their children, I don't see how this is the fault of boomers.

** Social Security has a some truth to it, but it's also long been known that simply by virtue of existing, boomers were going to cause pressure on the system. The generations that outnumber them have had every opportunity to put people in power that would raise taxes, stop raiding the trust fund, make other kinds of reforms, etc. They've chosen not to be that forward-thinking. The majority of the blame for that falls on them, not the boomers who have just as much right to the benefits of SS as anyone else.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Is there a similar Boomer vs Millennials dynamic going on in Netherlands?

I honestly had no freaking clue what you were talking about, I had never heard of this until this thread. Yes, I'm aware of the post WWII baby boom. I had trouble finding any articles from Dutch sources with a journalistic background, it failed. As a result, I'd like to say "no", but I can't be bothered to check or use hype internet media that are polluted with silliness and at some point it might fly over, if it hasn't already.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Would you find such clarifications necessary if someone said blanket things about the poor/underclass, women, or other groups? Certainly most in this forum would, and if they were offered after the fact they'd be viewed with a great deal of suspicion. Why are boomers different?

Why in the world would you think blanket things said about the rich and powerful are in the same class about blanket things about the poor and marginalized? And why would you think discrimination is bad all the time, especially when it may be the rich and powerful who may be discriminated against? I just find this 'both sides' nonsense unreal.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

I honestly had no freaking clue what you were talking about, I had never heard of this until this thread. Yes, I'm aware of the post WWII baby boom. I had trouble finding any articles from Dutch sources with a journalistic background, it failed. As a result, I'd like to say "no", but I can't be bothered to check or use hype internet media that are polluted with silliness and at some point it might fly over, if it hasn't already.

Thanks for letting us know. Interesting there isn't at least "some" level of angst between the generations.

Must be more of a US thing.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Why in the world would you think blanket things said about the rich and powerful are in the same class about blanket things about the poor and marginalized? And why would you think discrimination is bad all the time, especially when it may be the rich and powerful who may be discriminated against? I just find this 'both sides' nonsense unreal.

I do not put "blanket things said about the rich and powerful in the same class about blanket things about the poor and marginalized".

I do put "blanket things said about an entire generation in the same class about blanket things about the poor and marginalized".

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I do not put "blanket things said about the rich and powerful in the same class about blanket things about the poor and marginalized".

I do put "blanket things said about an entire generation in the same class about blanket things about the poor and marginalized".

A generation that has a lot of the wealth and power in our society, as others have pointed out. I don't think blanket things said about a privileged generation are even close to the same class as blanket things said about others. thesloppy's posts in thread, in particular, shed some light on the things said of 'boomers'. Especially considering the same clarifications were never put on criticizing 'millennials' (did anyone really ask if those people were criticizing Hispanic or East Asian millennials, for instance?).

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Would you find such clarifications necessary if someone said blanket things about the poor/underclass, women, or other groups? Certainly most in this forum would, and if they were offered after the fact they'd be viewed with a great deal of suspicion. Why are boomers different?

Shrug. That's demographics for you. Would you bristle at the thought of judging the collective politics of 18-35 year olds? The argument that we should never ever judge Boomers collectively in a thread explicitly titled 'Boomers vs.Milenials' is less than compelling.

That said, it's certainly more compelling than your secondary argument that Boomers have always been a powerless minority.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

** Disintegration of any kind of retirement: hardly. The average retirement age rose from 57 in the early 90s to 62 in recent years. Over the same time period, life expectancy rose from approx. 75 to 79 years, an extremely similar increase. On average, people continue to have a typical expectation of 15-20 years of retired living.

I took "Retirement" to not mean # of people entering retirement or length of retirement. I took it to mean that many more people now are not going to have comfortable retirement due to likely SS cuts and possible other entitlement cuts due to "boomer irresponsibility, negligence etc."

There are many articles out there that says people have not saved enough to enjoy a comfortable retirement. Although boomer "rich & powerful" do play a role here, there are many other factors that have impacted this.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Shrug. That's demographics for you. Would you bristle at the thought of judging the collective politics of 18-35 year olds? The argument that we should never ever judge Boomers collectively in a thread explicitly titled 'Boomers vs.Milenials' is less than compelling.

Indeed. I mean how many times have people talked about "The Youth Vote", without specifying which youth they mean. If we were to be utterly pedantic about every discussion then it'd be a debate about terms. Of course when those in privilege criticize those without, then we don't have to differentiate, as opposed to vice-versa.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

A generation that has a lot of the wealth and power in our society, as others have pointed out. I don't think blanket things said about a privileged generation are even close to the same class as blanket things said about others.

The boomer wealth and power was focused on a minority (I'm swagging 10%, feel free to disagree) that could effect change. Call it pedantic to try clarify but I think this is a key data point if you are trying to get to a root cause(s).

My guess is you are not really talking about the boomer generation, you are really accusing the rich and powerful, white, male boomers/silent. If stated in this way, I would actually agree with you that much of the blame (but probably not as much as you would like to place on them) rests with of them.

thesloppy's posts in thread, in particular, shed some light on the things said of 'boomers'. Especially considering the same clarifications were never put on criticizing 'millennials' (did anyone really ask if those people were criticizing Hispanic or East Asian millennials, for instance?).

Whereas we can find multiple example of board member's vitriol against boomers, can you share examples of same/similar vitriol against millennials from board members? I honestly do not remember reading anything that would be equivalent but am ready to be corrected.

If I say negatives about millennials, I would hope it was accurate in the sense it did apply to a good a majority of them, or that I would have qualified my answer in some appropriate way.

[thesloppy]

I think this is still an issue of semantics. I don't directly 'blame' every member of the boomer generation for the changes that have taken place while folks from their generation was in control, but I do 'blame' them for not acknowledging their collective & unique (economic) privileges whenever they talk about the generations.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Shrug. That's demographics for you. Would you bristle at the thought of judging the collective politics of 18-35 year olds? The argument that we should never ever judge Boomers collectively in a thread explicitly titled 'Boomers vs.Milenials' is less than compelling.

Not sure if "bristle" is the right word but if I heard this level of generalization, I would know I'm missing a lot of context/accuracy. I've read enough Pew research articles to try understand more demographics about them - their ethnicity, educational level, gender, possibly wealth etc. comes to mind.

That said, it's certainly more compelling than your secondary argument that Boomers have always been a powerless minority.

I like the re framing attempt but the contention is that a minority of rich and powerful Boomers could effect the changes that you believe screwed up the country.

The slow disintegration of Social Security, Pensions, home ownership and any kind of retirement is hardly underground news.

Of the above, I don't see how you can blame the boomer generation of those ailments (you can blame the rich and powerful, white, male boomers though for some).

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Issidiqui

Why in the world would you think blanket things said about the rich and powerful are in the same class about blanket things about the poor and marginalized?

Basic logical consistency. If it's wrong to judge by the group, it's wrong no matter how one defines the group. Otherwhise we're into special pleading territory, in which case the question must be asked; what criteria are to be used to decide whether it's ok to judge by the group or not? It's even more obvious than usual that this is a bad idea in this particular case, because we're using a generational bound here. Any class we might wish to single out for special protection is going to be present, whether that's done by economic status, race/ethnicity, gender, religious identification, you name it - there are boomers by all of those stripes. If it's wrong to throw ANY of those groups under the bus, then it's also wrong to do so generationally since you're going to hit some of the same people.

Originally Posted by thesloppy

The argument that we should never ever judge Boomers collectively in a thread explicitly titled 'Boomers vs.Milenials' is less than compelling.

That said, it's certainly more compelling than your secondary argument that Boomers have always been a powerless minority.

That's a nice little straw man at the end there; I never said powerless. On the first part there, the whole point is that I reject the premise of the thread that it is ok to judge people in such manner. As to whether it'd be ok to judge 18-35 year-olds? That's exactly the same issue, yes it's just as wrong.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Whereas we can find multiple example of board member's vitriol against boomers, can you share examples of same/similar vitriol against millennials from board members? I honestly do not remember reading anything that would be equivalent but am ready to be corrected.

If I say negatives about millennials, I would hope it was accurate in the sense it did apply to a good a majority of them, or that I would have qualified my answer in some appropriate way.

Vitriol is a response to condescension. And this board has been condescending at times to millennials (sometimes pitying them) and have lumped them all in together. Here is one thread that shows some of those perspectives: Millennials struggling to find their financial footing - Front Office Football Central

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I think this is still an issue of semantics. I don't directly 'blame' every member of the boomer generation for the changes that have taken place while folks from their generation was in control,

Would you care to state a approx % of boomers you do blame?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Basic logical consistency. If it's wrong to judge by the group, it's wrong no matter how one defines the group. Otherwhise we're into special pleading territory, in which case the question must be asked; what criteria are to be used to decide whether it's ok to judge by the group or not? It's even more obvious than usual that this is a bad idea in this particular case, because we're using a generational bound here. Any class we might wish to single out for special protection is going to be present, whether that's done by economic status, race/ethnicity, gender, religious identification, you name it - there are boomers by all of those stripes. If it's wrong to throw ANY of those groups under the bus, then it's also wrong to do so generationally since you're going to hit some of the same people.

No. As pointed out consistently, we know who we are talking about and it is only when barbs are thrown at the priviledged do folks step back and say, wait, wait, wait, you can't judge by groups. Even though it's done plenty to those who are marginalized. For example, we've talked about millenials plenty and no one as far as I can remember has done a "Not ALL millenials" type of thing. In the thread I linked for Edward64 - we didn't have a discussion of which milennials we are talking about here. No one said that only applies to X% of millennials.

Why is that, I wonder?

[ISiddiqui]

Actually I did a search of posts with "boomer" on them and aside from this thread there is very little vitriol towards boomers on this forum. Here and there, but sparingly at best. And then some posts about Boomer Esiason.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Vitriol is a response to condescension. And this board has been condescending at times to millennials (sometimes pitying them) and have lumped them all in together. Here is one thread that shows some of those perspectives: Millennials struggling to find their financial footing - Front Office Football Central

Thanks for the link. I'll read it through more carefully and respond later.

Good to see that Brian and I are not in that thread so we can't be accused of accusing/generalizing millennials out of context (or at least in that thread).

[Brian Swartz]

It's just as wrong with Milennials obviously, but nothing in your statement addresses the fact that there are a lot of Boomers who aren't privileged. I don't think I posted anything in the thread you linked, probably becasuse I wasn't active on the board at the time.

Originally Posted by Issidiqui

it is only when barbs are thrown at the priviledged do folks step back and say, wait, wait, wait, you can't judge by groups. Even though it's done plenty to those who are marginalized

Yeah, that's just not true as I referenced in my first statement on this subject and have alluded to since. When you say something about the unprivileged, women, certain ethnic or religious groups, etc. the call goes out repeatedly and predictably. I have no objection to that at all - I'm just saying let's use it equally. I'm not sure in what universe it is true that blanket statements about unprivileged groups go unchallenged in general, but it sure as shootin' isn't this board.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Actually I did a search of posts with "boomer" on them and aside from this thread there is very little vitriol towards boomers on this forum. Here and there, but sparingly at best. And then some posts about Boomer Esiason.

I was thinking I needed to dig some up and quote them. Will respond later but might be another one of those Malala vs Greta where we'll just have to agree to disagree on "vitriol".

Here's the definition of vitriol

vitriol - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com

vitriol

abusive or venomous language used to express blame or censure or bitter deep-seated ill will

[thesloppy]

I really don't know what to tell you guys that are railing against the entire concept of demographics and/or how they have been used to drive politics & economics.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I really don't know what to tell you guys that are railing against the entire concept of demographics and/or how they have been used to drive politics & economics.

It only seems to be an issue when it applies to privileged groups. We hear plenty about how millennials are into x, y, and z; how certain regions like this or that; how certain genders or ethnicities are into various entertainment/vote certain ways/like x or y brands. And there is very little push back into that unless it tends to false stereotypes rather than a utilization of demographic data.

[Chief Rum]

Brian, I walked away from a similar fight with a few of the pisters here just a few days ago. It's not worth it.

Some people will do anything they can to keep the ability to call others out for mass statements about groups while not seeing how they rationalize away themselves doing the same thing.

Most of these posters are to the left of the aisle.

[thesloppy]

Would you all be similarly offended if I started talking about judging the Khmer Rouge (purely to avoid invoking Godwin's law for once) collectively, or is the idea that groups of people necessarily can't be judged ridiculous?

If the root of your argument is actually that is more socially acceptable to judge some groups than others, and some heavy nuance is required, than I will certainly agree with you, but it's still a looooong way from the supposed point of this discusssion.

For what little it is worth, you are certainly free to judge Gen Xers collective political history, as far as I am concerned.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Would you all be similarly offended if I started talking about judging the Khmer Rouge (purely to avoid invoking Godwin's law for once) collectively, or is the idea that groups of people necessarily can't be judged ridiculous?

If the root of your argument is actually that is more socially acceptable to judge some groups than others, and some heavy nuance is required, than I will certainly agree with you, but it's still a looooong way from the supposed point of this discusssion

I make a distinction between societal (?) or generational differences vs blame. Sure its okay to have a conversation and say "Millennials start families later in life" and then I would hope we would explore "is this real, what are possible reasons, future implications" etc.

When you place blame all (seemingly) woes of the country on a generation, there needs to be a higher level of rigor.

Khmer Rouge is a good example. I visited Cambodia and had many conversation with locals and inevitably the question came up about how they can live with people that were former Khmer Rouge. The answer was "Khmer leadership was very bad. Most of the Khmer soldiers had to do what they did otherwise they would be killed." So just an example of how we need to put things in context and not over generalize.

For what little it is worth, you are certainly free to judge Gen Xers collective political history, as far as I am concerned.

Thanks. I will try to do it in proper context and supporting research.

I would appreciate an answer to this?

Would you care to state a approx % of boomers you do blame?

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Would you care to state a approx % of boomers you do blame?

I do hesitate to answer this because I still think we're defining 'blame' differently. I think a percentage much less than one point actively implemented changes that were explicitly meant to enrich themselves and ignore other people. I think 10% might be an accurate number in regards to people that actively % knowingly supported those policies, and I think 100% of the boomers were privileged, in some manner, to grow up under those conditions.

For example the fact that an individual,, poor boomer could never afford to buy a house does not affect the fact that houses were drastically more affordable during that Boomer's life.

[thesloppy]

I still tink it goes back to privilege. If this thread were just entitled 'Boomers' rather than "Boomers vs. Millenials' I think the conversation would be less of a conflict. The latter implies the two groups are being compared on equal ground and as such it seems completely germane to point out that it isn't a fair comparidon whenever applicable.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And then some posts about Boomer Esiason.

I think we can all agree THAT Boomer is fair game!

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I was thinking I needed to dig some up and quote them. Will respond later but might be another one of those Malala vs Greta where we'll just have to agree to disagree on "vitriol".

Here's the definition of vitriol

vitriol - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com

Here's a sampling in Trump Presidency, Democratic and this thread. I did a search on "boomer" and also "generation". The results below are from 7 different posters.

Quote #1

I mean I live in a state that boomers destroyed. Gave themselves all sorts of goodies. Didn't bother paying into the pensions either. Now they're living the good life or moved down to Florida and the rest of us are stuck footing the bill.

My favorite is when they lecture those millennials about how lazy they are. The generation that has accomplished nothing besides giving themselves free shit at the expense of their children talking about laziness.

Quote #2

That generation needs to be shown the door in the most expedient way possible.

Quote #3

This is why baby boomers are the worst generation this country has ever had.

Quote #4

Holy shit YES!!!

Quote #5

The Baby Boomers have been spectacular in this regard.

Quote #6

They cry about their SS after crying about paying for it. It's no secret that the trump tax cuts expire after all boomers have left the workforce, and why no congressional leadership will touch the reduction in benefits necessary to fix SS until everyone has gotten into it. The year 2030 will be landmark year and the cherry on top for all the ways the boomers fucked us.

Quote #7

Boomers added life expectancy and refusal to retire, remain in power has really fucked everyone else. They just clog the pipeline. They were able to move up the chain faster with a greatly expanding economy, rode out the downturns with those positions and now, thanks to the last recession refuse to leave.

Quote #8

I wonder if enough boomers have died in the last 4 years to make a noticeable difference in the outcome of the election.

Quote #9

Yeah, it is hurtful and that's the fucking point. They've built an entire party around being against minorities and "outrage culture" etc., so they can fuck off with being offended by jack shit

Quote #10

I don't agree with Pete on everything, but you know what? He's from my generation, and that puts him ahead of the oldsters. Bernie and Liz Have Plans. Cool. They can shape the legislation, Pete can sign it, and the boomers can fuck right off into political retirement as far as the White House goes

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I do hesitate to answer this because I still think we're defining 'blame' differently. I think a percentage much less than one point actively implemented changes that were explicitly meant to enrich themselves and ignore other people. I think 10% might be an accurate number in regards to people that actively % knowingly supported those policies, and I think 100% of the boomers were privileged, in some manner, to grow up under those conditions.

I agree with your swags. I'm sure you are struggling on why your POV is not getting through to me and I am wondering the same.

At work, emails chains often gets lost in translation. We need to do a FOF meetup and hash out all our differences in person from the past 20 years.

For example the fact that an individual,, poor boomer could never afford to buy a house does not affect the fact that houses were drastically more affordable during that Boomer's life.

I do think Boomers were privileged compared to the generations before.

With that said, I actually think Millennials and Gen Z are more privileged now than Boomers. I don't mean it in a spoiled kid sense but in opportunities. So many more opportunities (and traps to take one down the wrong path) now than ever before. The biggest counter is amount of debt which I do agree can be attributed, in a large part, to the subset of boomer "rich and powerful".

[molson]

Originally Posted by Edward64

With that said, I actually think Millennials and Gen Z are more privileged now than Boomers.

Ya, I was posting about that in the thread ISiddiqui posted earlier. I'm maybe behind where my parents were at my age in some traditional metrics, but my standard of living is vastly better. I've been to 18 countries and all over this one - my parents only got our station wagon to Pennsylvania from Massachusetts when I was growing up. I enjoy conveniences of technology that they could only dream of. I have easier access to healthier and more varied food. My beer selection is exponentially better than my father's was. I have the ability to connect with the world in an instant and find new personal and professional opportunities - I think it's easy to underestimate the vast difference between that and say, being stuck in a small town in the 50s and facing what you had to do to expand your horizons then. Plus, when I was making my way to stability, they gave me a social safety net - I was never going to end up sleeping in my car or something if I lost my job or a risk didn't work out. They didn't have the same security net in place. Maybe that made them more conservative and better savers, contributing to the evils their generation gets blamed for.

Though, now, through saving and being frugal, they're doing really well. It is odd to think of "blaming" them for any way they've lived their life. The articles posted in that thread posited that as a terrible thing, that these awful boomers are hogging all these resources. But it's just hard to see the moral blame when you look at people at individual levels like my parents. They're liberal, they donate money, they've become a economic safety net for a few people at their church when their children didn't need that anymore. But yes, they paid off their house and built a solid nest egg.

We're seeing a pretty huge anti-boomer sentiment developing in Boise. It's getting a lot of coverage in the news now. Boise has long been a very inexpensive place where you can have a great quality of life. People are starting to figure out that, particularly retirees from wealthier states. So there's a huge backlash against people retiring, selling their California homes, moving here, driving up housing costs, and not otherwise contributing much. But are they supposed to stay where they, struggling with property taxes and reduced income, etc, just to be fair to the people in Idaho? If Boise becomes Portland or Seattle Jr. in the next 20 years, I'd certainly consider moving somewhere cheaper when I'm not bringing in full-time work income. I have no entitlement to things being the way they are now forever, and neither do the people in the cheaper area I may move to then and screw things up for those long-term residents.

We should all strive to be more generous, but it seems that people are judged more harshly for life decisions depending on what year they were born. But the needs and wants and desires for a good life and for stability and security are all the same. What did my parents and the millions like them so different than people in any other generation if faced with the same opportunities and challenges? Why wouldn't a millennial also want to move somewhere more desirable and less expensive to have a better life? Or put money away? A Boomer would probably be much more connected to important issues at a younger age if they could have just clicked a few buttons and connected with charities and social opportunities, and read different perspectives from around the world.

I'm very skeptical of the whole concept of generations. People born in different times obviously have different experiences, and the number of people born in each year can impact how a country and economy churn ahead. I just think it's a lot more fluid, that the people are more a product of their time than the other way around, and that generations are a pointless mechanism to evaluate people. I think of them more like waves, we all get picked up by one that we didn't choose, and we have to find our own way to not drown and make it to shore.

[ISiddiqui]

I might argue that 10 posts from the two of the longest political threads on this forum (one with over 20,000 posts!) and a thread specifically about boomers is sparingly (without getting into which is vitriolic and which is not). Not to mention I'd guarantee the vast majority of those posts are from Gen Xers.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

We're seeing a pretty huge anti-boomer sentiment developing in Boise. It's getting a lot of coverage in the news now. Boise has long been a very inexpensive place where you can have a great quality of life. People are starting to figure out that, particularly retirees from wealthier states. So there's a huge backlash against people retiring, selling their California homes, moving here, driving up housing costs, and not otherwise contributing much. But are they supposed to stay where they, struggling with property taxes and reduced income, etc, just to be fair to the people in Idaho? If Boise becomes Portland or Seattle Jr. in the next 20 years, I'd certainly consider moving somewhere cheaper when I'm not bringing in full-time work income. I have no entitlement to things being the way they are now forever, and neither do the people in the cheaper area I may move to then and screw things up for those long-term residents.

That's just an anti-Californian backlash. I saw it in Montana when I visited a few years back (Whitefish/Kallispell area) - all the locals were sneering about Californians moving up or buying vacation homes. And how they didn't understand Montana and whatnot.

FWIW, no one protested that not all Californians are like that and only the richest ones were buying vacation homes .

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That's just an anti-Californian backlash. I saw it in Montana when I visited a few years back (Whitefish/Kallispell area) - all the locals were sneering about Californians moving up or buying vacation homes. And how they didn't understand Montana and whatnot.

FWIW, no one protested that not all Californians are like that and only the richest ones were buying vacation homes .

Haha, I think in Idaho, "Californian" has just become the term for any older people moving here, it doesn't matter where they're actually from (and the numbers show that people coming in aren't proportionally more likely to be from California than other places).

But one of my favorite things is people bitching about "Californians" when I know those people also moved here from somewhere else. It was OK for them to seek out a better life, but then they want to close the door behind them and judge others for doing the same. There's a Facebook/activist group called "Vanishing Boise" whose entire existence is bitching about this stuff - the head of it is from California.

[thesloppy]

I've lived in Portland for the last 40 years, so the anti-californian attitude is familiar, and probably does come from a similar place in emotion/mind.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I might argue that 10 posts from the two of the longest political threads on this forum (one with over 20,000 posts!) and a thread specifically about boomers is sparingly (without getting into which is vitriolic and which is not).

7 different posters out of approx 70 active posters (of which maybe 30 ? are interested in participating in political discussions). Ignore it if you wish but I believe I have answered your question with the requisite data.

Not to mention I'd guarantee the vast majority of those posts are from Gen Xers.

Agreed. After the polling, it became obvious it was more of Boomer vs Gen X (okay "vs" may not be accurate) than Millennials. But that was never the point of contention.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

7 different posters out of approx 70 active posters (of which maybe 30 ? are interested in participating in political discussions). Ignore it if you wish but I believe I have answered your question with the requisite data.

I didn't ask a question. I made a statement.

[JediKooter]

That's funny people bitching about blaming Californians for driving up housing prices...when it's the people selling the houses that are really the ones to blame. You don't want housing prices to go up...then don't sell the houses for more money then.

[thesloppy]

That's not entirely untrue, but in Portlands case, the city has been growing pretty consistently over the last 20 years and out-of-state developers are building & selling a lot of properties as well

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

There's a Facebook/activist group called "Vanishing Boise" whose entire existence is bitching about this stuff - the head of it is from California.

I'll chime in on this bit cause it seems relevant somehow to note that my once-rural / now-exurban hometown in north Georgia has a similar situation with northern transplants bitching about everyone who comes in behind them.
(the locals simply hate them all equally regardless of when they arrived)

So maybe transplants bitching about further transplants is "a thing" somehow.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

That's not entirely untrue, but in Portlands case, the city has been growing pretty consistently over the last 20 years and out-of-state developers are building & selling a lot of properties as well

Ah that definitely makes sense. I never really understood much about housing prices other than location, but, it seems like that doens't matter too much anymore. Well, here in southern california that is.

[thesloppy]

It's an interesting phenomenan. The growth rate in Portland has been pretty high over the last couple decades. It used to feel like Portland was kind of the refuge for folks with West Coast leanings that didn't identify with Hollywood style extroversion and couldn't afford Seattle...it was the weird, poor version of the West coast. Over the recent past Portland became a destination, and the personality flipped a bit....suddenly you had more mainstream, richer folks moving to Portland, yet chasing their translation of Portland attitude. The result is that the current interation of the city feels a bit like Portland cosplay.

[Edward64]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward64 View Post
7 different posters out of approx 70 active posters (of which maybe 30 ? are interested in participating in political discussions). Ignore it if you wish but I believe I have answered your question with the requisite data.

Fair enough, let me rephrase per the above

7 different posters out of approx 70 active posters (of which maybe 30 ? are interested in participating in political discussions). Ignore it if you wish but I believe I have rebutted your statement with the requisite data.

[Radii]

Baby boomers are more sensitive than millennials, large study finds - Insider

[Edward64]

To sum up 3 pages of discussions ... Shaft

(fun movie)