JCC Waiting for The Baby Boomers to Die, Part II

I'll do it tomorrow! God.

 

Indeed. Will they be against needed change and innovation required in education and the economy?

 

yes. The main reason you should want me and the boomers dead as soon as possible is this giant crest in the elderly. We are going to be a monstrous drain on economic resources. This big outflow of boomers from the labor force into retirement through 2030 followed by the Gen Xer retirement boomlet is going to slow growth in the size of the labor force to a near standstill.

It will help a bit if indeed you make us all work into our 70s.

 

It all depends on how good the parents were on raising the millennial in question.

 

Someone who is 34 was born in the early 80s. So depending on who you ask, that's Gen Y or the arse end of Gen X.

 

Actually Gen Y are millenials. Millenials were born throughout the 80's to the mid to late '90s.

Gen Xers were born from the sixties through the 70s.

Not surprisingly, GrandAdmiralJello is right.

The really young crowd today(15-20) are not millenials as GAJ points out. They were born just prior to or after the new millennium.

 

The point, dear Shane, was that 34 is probably too on the cusp to call Gen Y?

 

edit:

I WAS WRONG ENDER WAS RIGHT

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X

US - Gen X ends in 1981
UK - Gen X ends in 1981
Canada - Gen X ends in 1982
Australia - Gen X ends in 1981
New Zealand - Gen X ends in 1981

Sorry mate, what?

 

Well I'll be.

I'd always thought Gen X ended in 79. Learn something new every day. My apologies.

There, I edited my post.

 

It's ok, I think if we're going to keep the human race pure we just have to know at what date people get a pass, and from what date people have to start getting wiped out.

 

Hahaha.

Well, considering millenials will likely be more peaceful, at least in the west, I'm not sure they will get wiped out.

 

Quitting before we start?

 

ITT angry old white guys take issue with the most diverse generation.

 

Who was that emo user that cried because millenials were "supposed to be" an enlightened generation and instead were just as **** as the rest of generations?

 

At any rate, I don't think it's going to be remotely possible to understand the 2016 elections without understanding the demographic shift in the U.S.

The Republicans are going to be nominating one of their pile of white men who represent the declining or stagnant populations of the heartland states of which 85% of the population is still white. Scott Walker is their perfect posterboy.

The democrats will nominate the person who splits the difference between the youngest segment of the declining white population and the diverse populations of the classic melting pot regions and the new sun belt states where new minorities are beginning to dominate the demographic mix. Hillary Clinton may have to do this time. But she and Biden are the last of their breed. The oldest of the boomers are just about done running the country.

Barack Obama was the shot across the bough of the new demographic. He's technically late boomer, but he's a stand in for the new multi-racial, multi-ethnic profile of America's youth. That's why race politics seemed to become uglier than ever during his presidency.

This election may be the last time a white guy representing boomer interests has a feasible shot at the presidency. Or it may already be too late. The Mitt Romneys and the Jeb Bushes may be forevermore locked out of the presidency. The boomer voting block is going to remain big, but geographically compartmentalized. And they start dying after 2020.

 

I think the GOP candidates will remain largely older white men for at least some time, regardless of demographics - they are the leaders of the party, they have a locked in solid base due to the districts and the passionate voters in those districts who will turn out to keep them in office - those who feel threatened will continue to turn out to protect what they fear they are losing.

Dems: hard to say - it may take a few years yet for someone younger. Even now, most of the announced candidates are older white men.

For a few years yet there is going to be a "backlash" against Obama (amongst a significant number of voters who actually go out and vote). I've already heard (Triump?) say that it's going to be a long while before another black gets into high office because of Obama (meaning that the actions/behavior of just one "black" has "tainted" all blacks - hugely racist to me but I haven't heard much backlash on that).

Those who do want a more liberal-leftist-progressive-not conservative Christian viewpoint have to actually get out, throw their support behind a candidate, and VOTE. This group can be motivated, but they seem to rally more to someone charismatic rather than necessarily someone compatible with their beliefs (hence Sanders popularity).

And as long as we have a divided, contentious, unwilling to compromise government, all bets are off. Who can do the best rallying call for the voting troops?

Note: of course I'm generalizing above regarding the different "groups" as no group is a monolithic block.

 

Back to ****ing on baby boomers.

 

Ha ha, very funny. Hardly accurate, though, as representative of an entire generation that spans roughly 1946-1964 (depending on whose definition you accept). Most of that doesn't apply to me or lots of my contemporaries (to be fair, of course, that does apply to others).

 

Oh yes, it's totally accurate.

 

Nope. Only for some Boomers. Never a part of a union, never owned a home at 22 (try 30's, and that only with help from parents), own no boats or such toys, has applied for many jobs and been unemployed twice, including now, has been alive in both good economy and inflation out of control, hasn't retired and probably will be lucky to do so at 70, etc.

I certainly haven't done a thing to create the "worst global economy" - I participate no more and no less than others.

Boomers are too large and diverse a group to so easily categorize or demonize.

 

Hard to believe this article from 2007 is still online, but it's pertinent. San Francisco's SF Weekly is one of those weekly free (leftist/progressive) papers like LA Weekly or the Village Voice. It's worth noting that this piece was written over a year before the economic meltdown.

Boomtastrophe

(hyperlinking not working: http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/boomtastrophe/Content?oid=2162702 --Note: language warning)

 

Idunno, applies to my parents and their siblings to a T. At my age (22) in the early 80s, my parents had their own house, and both worked 50k a year jobs without college degrees.

 

#NotAllBoomers