Washington Post Writer Calls 2019 'The Year of OK Boomer', Calls for Inter-Generational Kindness (sfchronicle.com) 515
"It was the year of 'OK boomer,' and the generations were at each other's throats," argues the national features writer for The Washington Post, starting with a quote from New York University's Michael North, who studies ageism in the workplace.
"Age-based prejudice is the last acceptable form of prejudice. People are making age-based generalizations and stereotypes that you wouldn't be able to get away with about race or background..." People are getting away with it. This year, the baby boom was blamed for almost everything: the fate of the planet, Congress, college debt, plastic straws, the ending of "Game of Thrones." An entire generation was perceived to be operating as a giant monolith, mind-melded in its intention to make young people miserable for the rest of their long lives. Never mind that old people were once young, struggling, loaded with debt, facing a lousy job market, expensive housing, inflation. (Yes, there was something called inflation. It had to be whipped. Ask your parents.)
And, guess what, millennials? You are acquiring property. So, you know, patience.
The sewer of mockery flowed both ways, upstream and down. It was funny, except when it wasn't. If young folk derided the Olds for leaving an environmental and fiscal mess, the baby boom was happy to sling verbal mud in their direction. After "OK boomer" erupted, AARP senior vice president and editorial director Myrna Blyth said in an interview with Axios, "Okay, millennials, but we're the people that actually have the money." (AARP long stood for American Association of Retired Persons, but now a growing number of older Americans can't or won't retire....) What distinguishes these latest ageist salvos are their intensity and frequency. It's an intergenerational quipping contest, fueled by the rapid, reductionist and unrestrictive nature of social media, which makes it far too easy to cast verbal stones. "Social media amplifies previously latent sentiment," North says....
Any day now, boomers won't be blamed for everything that is not okay. This is the year -- can you feel it? -- that, according to Pew's analysis of census projections, millennials are scheduled to surpass the baby boom in sheer size, 73 million to 72 million, because of, well, death. By 2028, Gen X is also projected to be larger than the baby boom, so we'll probably start blaming them.
In the meantime, perhaps the generations need to be kinder to each other.
"Age-based prejudice is the last acceptable form of prejudice. People are making age-based generalizations and stereotypes that you wouldn't be able to get away with about race or background..." People are getting away with it. This year, the baby boom was blamed for almost everything: the fate of the planet, Congress, college debt, plastic straws, the ending of "Game of Thrones." An entire generation was perceived to be operating as a giant monolith, mind-melded in its intention to make young people miserable for the rest of their long lives. Never mind that old people were once young, struggling, loaded with debt, facing a lousy job market, expensive housing, inflation. (Yes, there was something called inflation. It had to be whipped. Ask your parents.)
And, guess what, millennials? You are acquiring property. So, you know, patience.
The sewer of mockery flowed both ways, upstream and down. It was funny, except when it wasn't. If young folk derided the Olds for leaving an environmental and fiscal mess, the baby boom was happy to sling verbal mud in their direction. After "OK boomer" erupted, AARP senior vice president and editorial director Myrna Blyth said in an interview with Axios, "Okay, millennials, but we're the people that actually have the money." (AARP long stood for American Association of Retired Persons, but now a growing number of older Americans can't or won't retire....) What distinguishes these latest ageist salvos are their intensity and frequency. It's an intergenerational quipping contest, fueled by the rapid, reductionist and unrestrictive nature of social media, which makes it far too easy to cast verbal stones. "Social media amplifies previously latent sentiment," North says....
Any day now, boomers won't be blamed for everything that is not okay. This is the year -- can you feel it? -- that, according to Pew's analysis of census projections, millennials are scheduled to surpass the baby boom in sheer size, 73 million to 72 million, because of, well, death. By 2028, Gen X is also projected to be larger than the baby boom, so we'll probably start blaming them.
In the meantime, perhaps the generations need to be kinder to each other.
Translation: Hurray! Everyone's a winner! (Score:5, Interesting)
Age based "prejudice" is perfectly acceptable towards kids because kids aren't educated, experienced and cannot have valid opinions on most topics. When they grow up, they earn the right to be "prejudiced" towards still younger generations. That's how this works.
Re: Translation: Hurray! Everyone's a winner! (Score:3, Insightful)
"adjusted for inflation"
Problem: the official inflation numbers are bogus and everyone knows it.
Re:Translation: Hurray! Everyone's a winner! (Score:4, Interesting)
Markets don't work that way. Sure the seller wants the highest price the market will bear. But the buyer wants the lowest price the market will bear. The problem is not caused by some conspiracy by "the banks", it is caused by an artificial constriction in supply ... because that is what people vote for.
If you talk to typical residents of SF or NYC about housing costs, they will insist they are way too high and "something should be done". If you suggest some new housing be built in their neighborhood, they are horrified at the idea.
Re:Translation: Hurray! Everyone's a winner! (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you sleep through the subprime mortgage crisis? Housing prices absolutely go batshit insane when banks are too eager to lend money.
Ask yourself "How do banks determine what a property is worth?" They do it by looking at comparable sales in the same area. It's not long before this causes a feedback loop which over-inflates housing prices.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a wilful refusal to look directly and huge, obvious truths that characterises boomers and the right, who are largely one and the same.
Re: (Score:3)
Relative to buying power, housing is a lot more expensive than it was in 1970 or earlier.
This is only true in coastal cities, or if you are comparing a big house with a small family today to a small house for a big family years ago.
The housing cost per square foot, adjusted for inflation, is about the same as it was in 1950.
Houses are twice as big today. The average floor space per person has doubled. The size of the average family is much smaller today.
If you are willing to live in the midwest, in a 1000 sqft house with 5 other people, you can afford that with the same percentage of your inco
Re: (Score:3)
Other than the fact that "Boomers" have families that include "younger people". It would be far more accurate to say that "Boomers" have virtually EVERY point of reference in "understanding the struggles of younger people".
Every generation has struggles. The boomers had a lot of shit to fling at "The Greatest Generation". But yeah, we had struggles and problems as well.
What is disconcerting is that it appears that many millenials who are now in their mid 30's are content to play the blame game. Failure is an option because it's all too hard, and it's all those old people at fault for everything. In normal situations, you blame the old folk, then when you hit your early 20's, move on and build your life.
This is way too ol
Re:Translation: Hurray! Everyone's a winner! (Score:4, Informative)
They look at the opportunities that boomers had, the ones they were promised by their boomer parents, and realise that the system has been stacked against them and in the boomers' favour.
Re: (Score:3)
They look at the opportunities that boomers had, the ones they were promised by their boomer parents, and realise that the system has been stacked against them and in the boomers' favour.
What opportunities did I have that millenials do not have? How have I purposely stacked the system against millenials?
Boomers have had all the problems that any group of people have. We complained about the "Greatest Generation". We had lazy and incompetent ahd hard working and driven people.
I listened to all of the Boomers that complained that it was all too hard, and that you couldn't make enough money, that you couldn't save for retirement. Many of us were not hired for work due to company affirmati
Re:Translation: Hurray! Everyone's a winner! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Translation: Hurray! Everyone's a winner! (Score:5, Insightful)
"That's how it's always worked" is the singular big lie boomers tell themselves. It's fucking ridiculous. The evidence is quite clear that things are changing in important ways -- for example, in the UK fewer people own houses than previously, the fall is especially pronounced among young people, and the average age at first purchase has risen to 33. By contrast, in 1960, you weren't 21 when you bought your first home -- you were typically 23.
So your whole shtick of "it's absurd to imagine a 21 year old owning their own home and kids (by which you mean adults who are younger than you) are entitled to imagine they can" is just self-serving bullshit to paper over the obvious truth that this generation does indeed have it much harder than boomers, largely because boomers have consistently made shitty, selfish choices for policy ever since they could, with housing policy being just one example among many.
I speak as a Gen X.
Re: (Score:3)
There are also other underlying factors, such as the size of the home...avg in '73 (can't find data earlier) was 1525 sq ft. By 2010, it had grown to 2169 sq ft.
My point is, that he's laying blame without all the facts.
Re:Ok doomer (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm afraid that much of this self-delusion may be attributable to a lack of grandparents in the lives of kids while they're growing up. When you never hear stories of what life was like for people two generations back you think that your difficulties are unprecedented (because almost no one believes their parents until they're in their thirties.) When grandparents are people who live hundred of miles away that you only see a couple times a year for a holiday weekend you don't hear about their lives, like we did when they babysat us or we went there for Sunday dinner every week.
My grandparents told me about the Depression, friends dying in industrial/farm accidents, and WWII, I would have told my grandkids (if I had had any) about the Cuyahoga River burning, Jim Crow, Ronnie Raygun's reign of error, and the like.
Something better (Score:5, Insightful)
If you find yourself hating a group of people, you are the problem.
Re:Something better (Score:4, Interesting)
The people calling for kindness are the ones who just screwed the rest of us and don't want to face reprisals.
For example in the UK lots of people are calling for unity and reconciliation... The same people who are stripping away our rights and freedoms and citizenship.
If the division continues they stand to lose out, e.g. when Scotland leaves the UK or when they get blamed for the fallout from brexit.
All this while they continue to screw us with their gold plated pensions and property hoarding. They don't want us to fight back, to rebalance the system.
So no, it's war.
Absurd (Score:4, Insightful)
I am reading these comments and I am getting a heavy feeling of being in a daymare. The only thing is missing from this conversation is 30-something chairs on the scene, because this surely reads like a theater of absurd piece.
You are generalizing this case on all other cases of societal friction. Are you insane?
There is no symmetry in this case. When you talk about races, symmetry is implied (SJWs even disgraced a Nobel Laureate for suggesting otherwise not so long ago), when you are talking about genders, symmetry is implied.
There is no symmetry when you are talking about old and young. Old will never become young, and in 30 years current millennials will be EXACTLY in the same position current boomers are: they will be old and somebody else will blame them for everything.
Because how it has been since the dawn of time.
40 years ago I was in Soviet school and everybody had to study one remarkable novel from great Russian literary giants of XIX century. His name is Ivan Turgenev and the novel is called, drums... "Fathers and sons".
No, it's not a version of Cat Stevens' song. It's a novel about conflict generation.
There was no human-made global warming, there was no doomsday clock measuring time left to a nuclear holocaust, there was no Holocaust (yet), but the argument was exactly the same: young generation rejecting old generation. Old generation trying to instill their conservative views on young.
But this is not how it was presented by the school teachers. Old generation was presented like reactionary force standing in the way of progress and young generation was presented like a savior, and we, 7th grade students were supposed to accept 100% this schema. That was the Marxist dogma we were taught. Every single one of us.
When you peddle elders-blaming, you have an agenda. A progressivist agenda which is characterized by one thing: you want the world and you want it now (exactly the same crime millennials accuse older generations when somebody in +5 upvoted comment called it "I got mine"). Disregarding the logic of things that lead to the situation when we, boomers and X-ers and silent generation were young, disregarding common sense, disregarding real life exprerience.
You see, this is where the symmetry breaks. You will be us, unless you join the stupid "27" club you celebrate, in 30 years, you will be exactly in the same position - nobody will come to you and tell you "Thank you, elders!". We, on the contrary, will never be you, young.
We, the elders, know exactly how you feel, because we were you 30-40 years ago. You, on the contrary, haven't got a single idea what does it feel or mean to be old.
And the last and most important difference.
Why do you think human tradition from the dawn of time is that elders teach the young and not vice versa?
Traditional answer is that we have "knowledge", "wisdom".
We have shit. We do have experience of living in older times, that's it.
What we have is an old brain that is incapable of learning anything. You on the contrary are living in the short time of your life where you can learn. That's why we teach you and not the other way around. That's why you need to listen to us, not the vice versa. You can learn, we can't.
So, read this comment, millennials, memorize it and do not argue. You will never convince us. Just wait until we die.
Re:Absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as you die quickly and leave your horded wealth to us that's fine.
I'm sure your comment has some nuggets of wisdom but I stopped reading when you said you were in the same position we were and that we'll be in the same position you are now.
That shows clearly you don't understand our choose to ignore the fundamental issues at the core of the conflict as your statement is wrong based on every measurable metric. And if that statement is your call for unity then it will definitely fall on deaf ears.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We also survived by deceit and competition, which are critical to ecologies around the world. David Brin did a fascinating fictional analysis of this in his story "Earth": I highly recommend it for people seeking to understand that many factors make up the human mind and human society.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So the question is, does competition and deceit between humans help the species as a whole, and if so, how?
Game theorists have studied this issue. The consensus is that it is a balance. In a society that is trusting and cooperative, you can gain an advantage by cheating and stealing. In a society that is distrustful, and full of thieves and cheaters, a sub-group that decides to cooperate can team up and dominate the others.
In the modern world, trust and cooperation appear to be more advantageous than in the past. High-trust countries are far more prosperous than low-trust countries.
High-trust and low-trust s [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Something better (Score:2)
Darwinian evolution doesn't apply to society though, so what are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, the strong are the ones who are out there being kind, not just preaching it.
But you wouldn't know about that. You have the other kind of weak person's view of what a "strong" person is.
Re: (Score:2)
Hi Archie. You know what they used to call people like you?Hint: Its All in the Family!
OK boomer. Just go and die already. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We also worked our way through college to avoid taking loans. Sure, we missed out on the "collegiate experience" of the European quarter, the nightly fun in the dorms and trips every few weeks, but we ended up graduating - mainly with degrees in fields that made money - with little to no debt.
We also maintained our own cars. Buying cars that were 10 to 40 years old, patching them up, keeping them running while we accumulated a small savings account. We didn't change out a lease every 3 years, but rather
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Sure, we missed out on the "collegiate experience" of the European quarter, the nightly fun in the dorms and trips every few weeks, but we ended up graduating - mainly with degrees in fields that made money - with little to no debt.
My friend is studying to become a doctor (endocrinologist, because he's a trans). His tuition will cost around $80k, without room-and-board. With interest and other required purchases (like books) you're looking at $100k. There is simply no way to be debt-free with such expenses, and his part-time job goes towards regular living expenses.
We also maintained our own cars.
Which were much easier then, mostly because they were soot-spewing deathtraps.
We also cooked a lot of our meals, using the kitchen that exists in every apartment and home. Eating out was something done once on the weekends, rather than weekly. We learned how to live on $5 per day for food, rather than $15 per meal for food, and we banked the rest.
Banking $10 a day would result in about $3000 a year savings. And you just need to save for 30
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My friend is studying to become a doctor (endocrinologist, because he's a trans). His tuition will cost around $80k, without room-and-board. With interest and other required purchases (like books) you're looking at $100k. There is simply no way to be debt-free with such expenses, and his part-time job goes towards regular living expenses.
They will also earn an average of $267K - meaning that, if they live cheaply for the first few years, it won't take more than 4-5 years to pay off all the debt, assuming 4 years of debt.
Which were much easier then, mostly because they were soot-spewing deathtraps.
A 1962 Ford Falcon (essentially the same thing as my Fairlane, just a little smaller body), got 30 MPG back then [wikipedia.org], about what most modern cars get too. No power windows, door locks, stereo (AM radio if you were lucky), AC, etc. And with a "solid" 90 HP under the hood, it took forever to get to 55 MPH, unlike today's rocket
Re: (Score:3)
It's exactly this.
Boomers tell themselves it's about the moral failings of the young because it's easier than facing up to the fact that they've changed the world for the worse to make life better for themselves. For example, the increase in % of rental property -- who owns rentals? Landlords, who are either private citizens -- and typically boomers -- or investment companies -- largely owned by boomers, who control most of the investment wealth in the developed world. And who sets the rules allowing rental
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well if the boomer was a white male yes you are correct. If he was a minority or a she not so much. I am also not so sure about that. Where I work I work with a lot of millennials. they are all making 70k a year a few are buying their first home just two or three years out of college. They work hard, invest, and are doing well. I even worked with an intern and he took a job offer from my income and will start this June when he graduates. If you think 70k is not a lot of money I would disagree since in my ar
Re: (Score:3)
I refute the drastically more prospects claim. I came of age in the mid-70s. Oil shocks and high inflation, and rolling recessions. I joined the navy, as did my brother. College was afterwards for me, he went and worked for a coal-fired power plant, which will be shut down in a few years. The chemical plant I worked at shut down last summer, fortunately I was ready to retire. It's been a mad scramble to stay afloat, but it mostly worked.
Wikipedia used to have an article on the Jones Generation, which is th
Re: (Score:3)
It would help if you got the name right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Jones [wikipedia.org]
And while the early Jonesers may have had to deal with the draft, the later ones didn't. Those that paid attention to the news as kids just saw this mess that politics was in the '70s, with Watergate, Vietnam, and the total flop of the Carter presidency.
Re:Because their house was 1/2 the size, family ca (Score:5, Informative)
Because they chose homes less than half the size of millenials (homes they could afford),
My parents chose a house they could afford (once my grandfather gave them the deposit). It cost them $9000, but hey, the average income in those days was around $5000 per year, so it was a lot of money back in the day. Today, the same house has a valuation of $450k - but that's OK, because the average income has also gone up to about $60k. Do the math. The millennials are not just moaning about nothing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Because their house was 1/2 the size, family ca (Score:5, Informative)
My mother bought a house in 1968 for $18,000 and Zillow lists it for $700K today. Of course, back then it was just outside the bounds of Seattle - and now is firmly inside of it. A similar house located outside of Seattle's bounds can be purchased for about $250K today - about the same as inflation would take it.
Assuming your housing cost numbers are correct, without necessarily conceding the point, in 1968, the median household income was $7700, so your mom's house was approximately 2.3 times that. The median household income now is $63,688, so your mom's house is now almost 11 times that.
But yes, the Seattle metro area has expanded, so let's assume it's equivalent to a $250k hours today well outside of the metro area. That's still almost 4 times the median income, nearly double what it cost your mom, and with a much longer commute.
Citation sorely needed on a 50X increase (Score:2)
In 1980, the average home cost $47K and was 1,740 sq feet. ($27/foot)
Now, it's $218K for 2,800 sq feet. ($78/foot)
If you're going to claim a 5000% increase for the same square footage, we're going to have call bullshit on that.
Ps a quick budget guideline (Score:3)
Ps I know a lot of people grew up like I did, their parents didn't teach them how to make a budget. That's the number one tool you'll need where you want to be financially (at least, that's true for me).
Here is a quick 60-second outline, for those who weren't taught or forgot:
10â"15% for food
25â"35% on housing
10â"15% in savings
10â"15% on charitable giving
Make sure your entire monthly budgetâ"including clothing, transportation, insurance and entertainmentâ"equals 100% of your i
Buying costs less than renting & magic way to (Score:4, Interesting)
> among people who can afford to buy a house, they're buying bigger houses
Buying costs less than renting. If you "can't afford" to buy, you sure as duck can't afford to rent.
Proof - landlords make money, by buying and renting it out.
Here is what I did to get out of that problem and get a down payment to buy. I noticed that although my income varied each month, I always had just enough to pay the bills, and nothing left. So I tried and experiment. I set up a bank account in a town 40 minutes away. I didn't get a checkbook or debit card for the new account. I set up an automatic $200 transfer from my regular account to the distant account, automatically two days after pay day. At the end of the month, I STILL had just enough to pay the bills, and nothing left. After two months I made it $250/month. I still had just enough to cover the bills. Eventually I got it to $400/month.
When I had $14,000 in the house account, I found a house listed for rent $1,000 / month. I called, went to see the place. I asked them if they'd be interested in a multi-year lease, I'd sign to rent it for 5 years or more. They LOVED that idea. How about if I pay you the first year up front? Yes! How about if I take care of all of the maintenance costs and pay you for 20 years, so you don't have any rental headaches, then after 20 years the house is mine?
They hadn't planned to sell it with owner financing and 10% down, but when I laid it out as a much better form of what they had planned, renting it, that plan sounded great to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything is the same as it was. Just every decade or so another zero gets tacked onto the end of everything.
Re:Because their house was 1/2 the size, family ca (Score:5, Insightful)
Possibly not the best benchmark.
Re: (Score:3)
Two working doctors can easily afford it.
Not if they have medical school debt.
Re: (Score:3)
The average income per person may be ~$60k, but the average income per household is about double that because both partners now work. A $450k house with $120k income is very affordable. That's why upper income households are now buying $1M houses. Two working doctors can easily afford it. Single income houses will never catch up.
My wife and I make about a combined $100k, and own a $200k house. Between that mortgage, 1 car payment, my student loans, and monthly expenses we barely have anything left to put into savings. And it's going to be even worse when my wife gives birth in a few months since we're expecting about an additional $800 a month just in daycare (not to mention other childcare expenses such as food, diapers, etc). $450k on $120k might be "affordable" if you don't mind loading yourself up with debt and paying everyt
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Because their house was 1/2 the size, family ca (Score:5, Informative)
Because they chose homes less than half the size of millenials (homes they could afford), had a family car, and one 10 year old TV.
The problem is, even a smaller house will be out of reach. I have just pulled up the county records for an old house near me that was sold last year and it has increased in price by 15 times since the last sale in 1970. This is not an isolated anecdote, average home price in inflation-adjusted dollars have risen by about 1.5x since 1970-s ( https://www.supermoney.com/inf... [supermoney.com] ) with price for more desirable location skyrocketing.
However, average inflation-adjusted wage has actually _fallen_ from its peak in 1973: https://www.pewresearch.org/fa... [pewresearch.org]
Meanwhile, other expenses are even worse. Healthcare cost is exorbitant: https://www.healthsystemtracke... [healthsystemtracker.org] - it grew 6x in inflation-adjusted dollars. And millenials have to bear this cost in full, while boomers are happily mooching on the Medicare dole right now.
But wait, there's more! Childcare is up almost 2x: https://www.pewresearch.org/fa... [pewresearch.org] , post-secondary education is up more than 2x in constant dollars: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/2... [cnbc.com]
As you see, you boomers had it very easy compared to millenials.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a Gen X, so in the middle between you two fighting children.
I bought an appartment when I was in my 20s. Couldn't afford a house, but was smart enough to do the math and understand that rent is money thrown away while real estate will be mine after paying it back. Intentionally took a credit with a high pay-off percentage so I'm not stuck with it for 30 years. Sold it some years ago at a fantastic profit and got a great house with only half of it mortgaged as a result.
Your complaint that real estate pri
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's because back in 1970, people earned around 7k per year, whereas now, it's closer to 70k.
No, it's closer to $45,646 [wikipedia.org].
If you're making $70k/yr, pat yourself on the back - you're among the privileged. More than half of Americans earn less than you.
Re: Because their house was 1/2 the size, family c (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't live in a computer. Unless you're in a Tron film.
Re: (Score:3)
You're replying to a post which literally shows you that for the true necessities of life -- housing, childcare, healthcare, education -- money is worth *less* now.
And you can't demonstrate that housing is cheaper by making a convoluted (and wrong) point about an increase in the average size of houses for sale. If anything, a decrease in the availability of 2-bed houses reflects a housing market where prices are *increasing*, because cheap starter homes are not available and first-time buyers have to live i
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You're thinking of the Greatest Generation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Boomers were 3 years old in 1980 (Score:5, Interesting)
Because some millennials have experienced financial uncertainty, partly because their parents didn't teach them what their grandparents taught the boomers
Bull. I've seen tons of Boomers who planned nothing for their retirement who are working for a retirement. Perhaps it's a region thing, but in my neck of the woods, it's not uncommon to see a 70 year old running one of the self check outs at the grocery store, handling the returns counter at some department store, or manning the desk at some random city office.
when median home size was about half of what it is today
Let me tell you who bought up a recent bonanza of housing in my area. Private investment. Every, single, house in a medium size development. 280 houses, all now owned by someone who will never live a day in the house. They're not going to flip it. No, they're going to rent it or Airbnb it. If I wanted to buy land and own a bigger house, or hell even a smaller house, than the one I have lived in for the last 27 years (and yeah, my house is paid for, free and clear). I have to move two counties over and add an additional forty minutes to my already hour and a half drive into work. Because any land that comes up is bought up by development the second it comes up and their offers are always cash.
These big, oversized houses aren't being built by the people who are going to live in them in my area. They're being built by people who see the land and house as an investment tool. Housing in my area is dying pretty damn quick and being converted into rentals. Of all residential in my town, 62% is rental and it's only going down hill faster and faster. I'm very likely to never move from the house I own now because pretty much, there's nowhere to go. The house to my right and the two houses to my left have already been turned to rental. Three houses across the street from me are rental conversions, on my street alone, 17 houses have been converted to rentals. There are more rentals than there are actually owned units at this point. Any new land that comes open, the house that gets put on it, gets dictated by those who are going to put rental property on it. The vast majority of them not even living in the United States.
So you're asking people to get a frugal house. I luckily got my house before the McMasion became popular in this town. However, those "frugal" houses aren't being built. Not because the people wanting to live in the house want a McMasion, but because the investment company that is buying all the land, developing all of the new housing, and the rental companies they are being sold to, are all dictating unreasonable housing to be built, because it allows them to squeeze money out of renters. This notion, and again maybe it's just my area, but this notion of "people buying houses and then moving into them to live" seems pretty damn quaint and not in an incredibly good way.
I was once offered a 10 year old BMW (Score:3)
I turned it down because I knew damn well I couldn't maintain a BMW on my salary.
Millennials will be in the same boat. They won't be able to keep the McMansions maintained. The cost of heating and cooling alone will kill them. Doesn't help that most of them are cheaply built.
I am a boomer. The millennials are right. (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, Pell grants still exist. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fed & State direct subsidies were pulled (Score:5, Insightful)
So yeah, they're still technically in place. Meaning there was never a headline that read "Pell Grant program ended to make way for another round of tax breaks for the rich". The 1% long since realized they can't just tear these things down. It's frog boiling for the working class. Doesn't really work on frogs, but it does seem to work on us. Go figure.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Things are tough all over. They have been for generations. They'll continue to be for more, save one major problem: we're killing our spaceship.
The fossil fuels which generated energy (and positive by-products) darkened the atmosphere, and is currently poisoning it for a long indefinite future. We were lied to about it. We're still lied to.
The younger generation deals with that, and the re-emergence of financial fiefdoms, often growing across the planet. The sheltered wealth isn't taxed, audited, and become
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Some nice rose coloured glasses. The federal government nationalized student loans a decade ago and nearly all banks stopped providing loans back in 2006 or so. Polar vortex's were never stable, I remember quite a few winters down in southwestern ontario when the daytime high was -35C. People sailed through the northwest passage 150 years ago, it's safer now because Canada and Russia operate multiple icebreakers and will come rescue you if you're an idiot and get stranded. If you're looking for an actua
Re:I am a boomer. The millennials are right. (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember the coming ice age scares of the 1970s (yes, all you mods, it really was a thing), and snows of 18-24" every winter in the 1970s and 1980s, in Seattle. Then it warmed up. But now they are coming back - almost like there's a 60 year cycle with the Pacific Ocean...
I also realize that blue collar workers (plumbers, electricians) average $60K of income - more than a banker or lots of "white collar" workers who borrowed for 4 years of college.
One of the big things is the increase in taxes. Adjusted for inflation, the Federal Government alone, today, brings in over twice the taxes as it did in the mid 1960s. Taxes eat up a lot more of the average person's income, but Johnson's misguided "Great Society" movement has moved people from independence to Government dependence, and an ever-growing Federal state.
Re:I am a boomer. The millennials are right. (Score:5, Informative)
The generations can argue back and forth with anecdotes all they want. The numbers tell the story. Like these:
https://www.macrotrends.net/co... [macrotrends.net]
American boomers and older gen X spent most of their lives living through fantastic economic growth, first post-war and then through the roaring 60s, 70s and 80s. Growth approaching or exceeding 10% is roaring.
The 90s and early 2000s were a bit of a check on that, so most of gen X did their career-building and home purchasing in a more sober environment. The millennials (and those of us who went to grad school) got screwed by the late 2000s and subsequent years. Despite all the rah rah about the "unprecedented" growth in the last decade, it's been mediocre compared to the 90s, and abysmal compared to what went before.
Boomers lived through a very exceptional time. The things they take for granted were not normal for their parents, and are not going to be normal for subsequent generations.
Re: (Score:2)
What does "transmitting his rage to the corners of the Earth" mean? There seems to be a mythology about the US President that is never explained. And it doesn't seem to relate to anything he has done in office or how things are going in the US.
It's the only thing the "orangemanbad" people can use to show that they're really angry with him. They can't really define it, but it likely has more to do with the fact that he's acting more presidential then any president since Regan. Especially since he's not a neocon, and by the election and purging within the RNC most neocons are now gone and were welcomed with open arms by democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
I look at this as another side of the "Me Too" problem. The Boomers getting the attention are the toxic ones - toxic both toward millennials and women. The more civil Boomers don't get press, don't get noticed. Really the bulk of the attention seems to be going to one particularly obnoxious Boomer and his sycophants.
My own thoughts aren't exactly like the grand-posters, but in many ways similar.
- I lament the shape we're leaving the planet in. I have children and a grandchild, and would prefer t
Uh huh (Score:2)
"These kids today!" has been the fist-shaking meme of every generation, ever. At its rotten core is the unspoken resentment they turned out that way despite the previous generation's best efforts.
Re: (Score:2)
It goes back at least to Aristotle. "They [Young People] have exalted notions, because they have not been humbled by life or learned its necessary limitations; moreover, their hopeful disposition makes them think themselves equal to great things" The quote goes on, but I think you can get the gist.
So you mean...? (Score:2)
So you mean this generation is unique to cross generational differences? Please see "Vietnam War" and "Civil Rights movement".
This shit makes me think of the popular conceptionalation of the current crime rate in our country. Our children are safer then at any time since WW2 but if you talk to your average American we're under siege.
Moder mass media is a cesspool or alarmist trash
Hardly the last form of acceptable prejudice (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a couple weeks ago, Obama said [cnbc.com] that women are indisputably better leaders than men. Anyone who stated the inverse stereotype (that men are indisputably better leaders than women) would've been crucified for such a sexist remark. That's the last form of acceptable prejudice.
Remember, prejudice is not about believing a stereotype which is in general true. It's about taking that stereotype and generalizing it to the entire affected population. You are pre-judging every member of that population based solely on stereotypes about that population - hence a prejudice. Which is exactly what Obama did when he said if all leaders were women the world would be better off. Women may in general make better leaders, but to substantiate his sexist remark would require every woman to be a better leader than every man.
This is why you can't fight prejudice with reverse prejudice. All you end up doing is replacing one form of prejudice with a different form of prejudice. And the pendulum will swing one way, only to eventually swing back, and forth, and back, and forth, etc. To eliminate prejudice, you have to stop the pendulum from swinging entirely.
Not the only ones (Score:2)
In-group vs. out-group behaviour frequently reported in the media, i.e. they're at each others' throats:
Or, when you no longer have the budget or time to actually investigate anything anymore, what can you write to fill up the space between advertising that will attract people's eyeballs?
Re:Not the only ones (Score:4, Insightful)
They keep missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They keep missing the point? (Score:2)
That's ok. One of these days here, pretty soon, Millenials are going to realize what power sits behind that demographic bulge.
Voting power.
As in, "No, let me tell YOU how this is gonna go."
Shortly after that, we'll get legislatures that are suddenly VERY SENSITIVE to the issues facing the younger generations. VERY SENSITIVE.
Then it'll be time to take a look at some of that past lawmaking activity. Non-dischargeable student loan debt, for instance. Oooh, or how about all of those 'investment friendly' an
Re: (Score:2)
Silent vs Greatest (Score:2)
I'm fairly certain the reason the "Greatest" generation were called that because they were old enough to fight in a war whilst the "Silent" generation were called that because they were too young to fight.
My father was a member of the "Silent" generation, my Grandfather was a member if the "Greatest" generation. There is no way that my father and his father were in the same generation.
Nope its time to call out irrationality (Score:2)
The people who say they want others to be kind to them, are the kind that are rarely kind to others.
Be kind when it is warranted, be honest and direct else wise. It is time to speak truth to dour.
Ok, you first boomers (Score:2, Insightful)
In return we'll promise to keep Wall Street from using our medical system to steal your retirements and homes.
Deal?
Re: (Score:2)
stop blocking universal healthcare
You are a tool of insurance companies. You don't know it. You don't get it (because you are probably too stupid to get a complicated argument). But you must be resisted or by the time you get to the age when you actually need healthcare, no money in the world will buy it for you.
I think you misunderstood (Score:2)
Explain (Score:2)
So if you're going to attack the policy you're gonna lose, it's objectively correct; and polls show boomers are the ones blocking these policies. Meanwh
would love for someone to tell me this at work (Score:2)
"Ok Boomer" is overwhelmingly used by millennial against Gen-Xers. Very few of its instances are actually against baby boomers. The beautiful part is that legally, anyone 40 or above is protected class. Any age discrimination against people of 40 or above, at work, is against the law. This would be the easiest law suit ever if the HR didn't bring the hammer on whoever said it.
Is it bad that millennial are frequently dismissed because they are considered too entitled given their lack of experience? Mayb
Kindness (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Greta is trying to fix the damage
How exactly is she trying to fix the damage? I don't recall hearing any plan or suggestion. Merely a harangue.
older generations benefited from and now don't give a shit about
Funny, kids nowadays think environmental conscience is a brand new thing. I've been environmentally conscious my whole life. I've tried to cut my waste my whole life. I've recycled. I've planted trees. I've never thrown a piece of trash in a river, in the street or in the ocean. I've never driven a gas guzzler. And yet this is the thanks I get. Well fuck you, too. Wait until you see what your
Re: (Score:3)
There are plenty of plans, the problem is lack of political will to enact them.
Boomers did make a difference. But recycling and driving a slightly less shitty car isn't enough. And most of all you need to stop blocking the policies that will fix this. Stop voting for people who won't do much about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
How exactly is she trying to fix the damage? I don't recall hearing any plan or suggestion. Merely a harangue.
The reason you don't recall this is because you chose not to actually listen to her. Her suggestion has consistently been: "start listening to scientists and act on their advice and do it quickly". When she went to the US Senate, she literally handed over a copy of the IPCC report and told them to follow the recommendations in it.
In other words, she's not trying to fix the damage by coming up with her own plan for the policies countries should adopt. That would be absurd as she's not an expert, and redundan
Re: (Score:3)
First rule of Gen-X club, man.
whatever (Score:3, Interesting)
First of all, "OK Boomer" doesn't even mean anything. Except maybe "I'm incapable of rational thought; please recognize that I'm an idiot."
Secondly, Boomers were the hippies. Boomers were the ones who first got all excited about the environment, race relations, women's lib, pretty much everything you claim to care about. If there were any logic in your heads, you'd be saying "thank you Boomer".
Third, actual Boomers are now elderly. If being nasty to elderly people is your thing, then ... well, not sure what to say about that.
Fourth, since it's unlikely that the people you are clashing with are even Boomers, it makes you look pretty stupid. It makes you sound like you think that Eddie Van Halen is Lawrence Welk.
Yeah, I know, I used more than twenty words or so, so "OK Boomer" to me, even though I'm not a Boomer.
Re:whatever (Score:5, Informative)
Hippies were actually a pretty small percentage of their generation. Movies portray them as the entirety of youth in the 60s but that's just not the case.
Being old and being wise aren't the same thing. You respect the elderly by giving them your seat on a bus, not by following along with dementia based delusion.
OK, Boomer is about dismissing thecondescending argument format that the term frequently follows not actually about the age or exact generation of the one using it.
Re:whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny... (Score:5, Informative)
Because previously it was just the older generation blaming Millennials for everything.
But this is normal. A group finally defends itself, and everyone decides they are the ones being offensive.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't worry, by the time we're all dead and she'll all grown up, she'll have her hands full with her own bunch of delusionally idialistic, entitled, ungratefull little brats.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the way the birthrate is going, she probably won't.
You can keep blaming this on the Millenials. They're too poor to move out of their parent's house and start a family.