Comments on: Revenge of the ‘baby doomers’

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:20:20 +0000

Brian H, I have agree with you on the technology hopping – we just don’t know what leaps may take place to help the many problems raised in the article. But for the rest, I’d say we’re a few decades apart.

By: Brian H

Brian H — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:12:28 +0000

Demographics always seems to catch people unaware. No one can actually anticipate what conditions will be like for the next generation(s).

As for “less well than their parents”, all young start out with less, unless there is a huge silver-spoon surplus to batten off. In any case, the economic and technological developments and environment of the next 20-30 years are going to be in rapid change and will keep everyone hopping.

The boomers’ worst legacy is actually the mush-minded Aquarian dreams and delusions they thought and still imagine will suffice to keep peace and prosperity advancing. Green delusions head the list. Consider the Spanish experiment with green-jobbing; each new g-job cost the rest of the economy 2.2 jobs. Sound like a viable trade-off to you? If so, I have a nice bridge in New York I’d like to sell you …

By: Declan

Declan — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:33:43 +0000

great article..

Throw in the cost of property (renting or buying) into the mix and the “baby doomer” doom is future defined .. with the hope of any inheritance relieving the strain undermined by the the baby boomers living well into their 80s.

The education levels of the doomers adds to the ennui as opposed to helping them escape as it:

1. Creates expectations of career satisfaction and reward with a balanced life of travel and family that are unsustainable.

2. Enables the “doomer” to see the big (dark) picture and understand in economic and social impact of their position in relation to society and of course their darned parents who created the unholy mess in the first place.

Oh joy!

By: Jackie Jukes

Jackie Jukes — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:45:54 +0000

Loved this article… being a baby doomer,I would wouldn’t I…

By: The Chronikler

The Chronikler — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 13:49:21 +0000

sorry, … I meant ‘if it can’t take care of you…’

By: The Chronikler

The Chronikler — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 13:48:03 +0000

I see your point… having the choice at that time was an important step, freeing up more women to enter the workforce, raising household incomes, living standards, etc. But the whole point is, this model of ‘progress’, as it were, (the Washington Consensus or market fundamentalist)is a babyboomer inc. product. If it can’t take of you, I’m not sure what can. Surely, you don’t want a porta cabin in your 1.2 kids’ back yard?

By: Baby Boomer

Baby Boomer — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 09:56:29 +0000

Yes, we baby boomers had fewer children. But we didn’t see it as being selfish. It was a rebellion against the whole procreation gig. Actually, the old idea of having lots of children to take care of you in your old age is what’s truly selfish.

By only having a couple of kids, we could raise them so much more comfortably. Is it too much to ask them to repay the compliment in our old age and take care of us?

By: Generation XY

Generation XY — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:05:04 +0000

It’s just incredible how the baby boomers have dominated things for the past 50 years. When they were young, they started a youth revolution. As they age, they’ve got another silver revolution up their sleeves.

But there is a weird paradox. We should actually not have any baby doomers. An ageing population, resulting in a smaller labour pool, should mean higher employment, yet it is the ranks of the unemployed that are swelling.