Showing posts with label Baby Boomers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Baby Boomers. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Top TILIS posts of 2014

The following list is not exactly precise, since all-powerful Google's Blogger platform doesn't give me an easy way to count for the year, but more or less, these were my most popular posts of 2014. Gratifyingly, many were not simply re-posts, but were hardcore analysis by moi, Mr. JT.

So here goes, in chronological order:















"VIDEO: Russians interrogate female pilot captured INSIDE UKRAINE (subtitles)" -- I'M STILL SURPRISED HOW POPULAR THIS RE-POST HAS BEEN.












Granted, a large number of my posts this year were about Ukraine and Russia, and that's no accident, since yours truly speaks Russian and Ukrainian and has had some very personal experience there. I thought that my East-meets-West perspective was lacking in the U.S. blogosphere and could perhaps help others to understand what was happening there.

Case in point, back home I even gave a half-hour seminar to the local Tea Party group about the crisis in Ukraine! They were attentive, polite and grateful. And I kept it to the facts, ma'am, no Obama or lib'rul bullcrap.

That said, here are a few posts that I enjoyed and wished had received more attention:







"Many Israelis don't know a single Palestinian" --  SO THEY'RE EVEN MORE CUT-OFF THAN MOST WHITE PEOPLE IN THE U.S. WHO HAVE AT LEAST ONE BLACK FRIEND.








Happy New Year, everybody!

Saturday, June 28, 2014

Milbank: Boomers are terrible political leaders

Everything wrong with U.S. politics is the Baby Boomers' fault [emphasis mine]:

Boomers inherited a system based on compromise and sacrifice — and they gave us the current standoff. They received a United States victorious in the Cold War and atop the world economy — and they gave us the Iraq war and the Great Recession. They are the parents of the first generation in U.S. history — the millennials — to have a lower standard of living than previous generations. And, in retirement, they will probably break Social Security and Medicare.

“Boomers are the scorched-earth, values-driven generation,” said Neil Howe, who with William Strauss chronicled the recurring patterns of generations in the United States. “They invented the culture wars and they’re taking it with them as they grow older, which is this complete polarization and gridlock. It’s very hard to compromise over values.” 


By Dana Milbank
June 27, 2014 | Washington Post

Friday, May 30, 2014

Commencement season: Time to pile on Millennials

Ever since the 2012 "you are not special" commencement speech at Wellesley High School went viral among conservatives, it has become fashionable among some to browbeat young millennials, who are supposedly the most self-centered generation in American history (after the Baby Boomers), into pessimistic realism.

There is some truth and good intentions in all this parental "tough love," but the fact that it's coming from the same parents who, up to commencement time, coddled and molded said millennials is a bit odd, to say the least, if not downright hypocritical.  

Yet it's just about what you'd expect from the (formerly) most self-centered generation in American history -- to blame their children for being "deluded" instead of blaming themselves for deluding them.  

I mean, these kids didn't raise and praise themselves.  The same helicopter parents who have told these students for years they were so special are now back-lashing against... themselves?... and telling these kids that their days of awards and assistance falling from the sky are over with??

(I strongly suspect that the awards/honors/praise allegedly bestowed on Millennials is way overblown. There is always a bell curve, and somebody is always more praiseworthy or praised than somebody else. Hence the law of averages tells us that most kids probably never got any awards or accolades for anything. So I suspect but cannot prove that a lot of this anti-millennial rhetoric is directed at the socio-economic cream of the millennial generation from the cream of the Baby Boomers. The question is, why are Boomers suddenly reversing themselves? One theory is that they see our post-Great Recession economic reality and want to quickly steel their children to be ready for it, while avoiding taking any responsibility for the housing bubble, rising student debt, youth unemployment and Great Recession upon themselves. As for the non-cream, it's a convenient pre-emptive excuse by the ruling Boomers for the historically bad troubles that youngin's are graduating into: they are too coddled and cocksure to successfully take on the "real world" awaiting them.  But I digress....) 

Fine.  I for one give today's kids enough credit that they'll figure the real world out on their own without adults' piling on to their economic-demographic burden, a burden they didn't ask for or create themselves. Young grads today have the added advantage of having seen their parents' successes -- and failures -- hopefully to duplicate the former and avoid the latter.


By Alexandra Petri
May 21, 2014 | Washington Post

Thursday, November 7, 2013

Prager: Sad conservative parents

"What in the world have they been teaching you at that college?!"

This is funny stuff, especially since it's meant to be a somber wake-up call. Where to start?

First, talk radio host Dennis Prager offers nothing but a few anecdotes to prove his point, which is probably evidence aplenty for his conservative audience. But is there any real evidence that so many young adults are rejecting their parents' values?

Here's counter-evidence from the 2013 American Values Survey:

Americans of every age, gender, political party, and region overwhelmingly say that "family" is most important to them, far more so than religion, work, community, or politics. Interestingly, such devotion to family is actually 13 points higher in the "liberal" northeast than in the "heartland" Midwest.

Love of family seems pretty conservative to me. And there's more:

Religion isn't the source of our division, either: 80 percent of Americans say religion is fairly or very important in their own lives, and almost 90 percent say they believe in God. 

Meanwhile, 60 percent of Americans still find abortion morally objectionable.

So if it's not Americans' strong love of God and family that bothers Prager, perhaps this is?:

According to the poll, large majorities of Americans now say that contraception, interracial marriage, sex education in schools, unmarried cohabitation, stem cell research, gambling, and divorce are morally acceptable. Even pre-marital sex and having children out of wedlock are morally acceptable to the majority of Americans under 65, and homosexuality is morally acceptable to the majority under 45. While marijuana is still about a draw (47 percent morally acceptable to 51 percent morally objectionable), for the most part what used to be "counterculture" is now, simply, culture.

Aha!  That's Sodom and Gomorrah alright!

That leads to my second point.  Prager avers that rejection of traditional values by the yutes has been happening "for at least two generations" now. A generation is 25 years, so that puts us back at 1963. Prager's Wikipedia page says he was born in 1948, meaning he was a teenager in the 1960s and a young man in the 1970s.

I seem to recall some interesting cultural stuff happening in the 60s and 70s... we read about it in high school once.... Oh yes! The counter-cultural revolution, free love, feminism, rampant drug use, riots, protests, bombings.... Gee, I guess all that happened on Pragers' parents' watch. Why didn't they put a stop to Prager's misbehaving? It makes you wonder... Is Prager really rejecting his own generation? 

I mean, compare the youth of the 60s and 70s with the youth of the 90s and 00s.  They're apples and oranges. As Fareed Zakaria recently noted, "[C]ompared with almost any period in U.S. history, we live in bourgeois times, in a culture that values family, religion, work and, above all, business."  

Read just about any survey of Millennials, or heck, go talk to one, and you'll find kids not just respectful of their parents, but downright reverent of adults. Moreover, "Millennials pray about as often as their elders in their own youth," according to Pew research, and, "Millennials (like older adults) place parenthood and marriage far above career and financial success." 

It gets worse for Prager -- I mean, better:

They respect their elders. A majority say that the older generation is superior to the younger generation when it comes to moral values and work ethic. Also, more than six-in-ten say that families have a responsibility to have an elderly parent come live with them if that parent wants to. By contrast, fewer than four-in-ten adults ages 60 and older agree that this is a family responsibility.

In fact, Millennials' biggest fear is an authority figure's disapproval (or failure to pat them on the back); and their greatest ambition is to live just like their parents (although few hope to live better). So it seems odd for Prager to cry "hell in a hand basket!" with such a crowd of fine, upstanding kids co-habitating in their parents' basements.

What gives? Well, I'd wager it has something to do with Prager's handsome head of white hair and 65 years of age. It's easy to forget the way we were. It's also related to his bio: he's always had his nose in a book. Prager was studying Russian and Hebrew while his coevals were screwing, smoking weed, dropping acid and dropping out. It seems to me his real problem is that his generation -- or at least the better parts of it -- changed American history for good. And true conservatives like Prager, as we all know, "stand athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so or to have much patience with those who so urge it."

So in that sense, Prager is a true conservative, because nobody is now so inclined to roll back the cultural changes of the 60s and 70s. Back then Prager should have done more standing athwart: he ought to have have studied less and cracked hippy skulls more.

Personally, I don't see how our culture could possibly go much farther to the Left. 
OK, gay marriage and twerking are new ones, but... in America's history we've been a lot more decadent, culturally and morally.  (For a total historical eye-opener, check out The Way We Never Were). 

And never ever in the history of mankind have our children been so well-protected and fretted over as they are in today's USA.  The whole country has practically become one big daycare center; it's completely child-friendly. 

Although... if you want actual daycare for your kids you'll have to get a second job and go into debt, because it's more expensive than college. It's a shame that Prager and other "sad conservative parents" in their 50s and 60s aren't more upset about that! But why should they be? Their privileged kids are all grown up and in college now being indoctrinated in Lenin, Marx and Lady Gaga....

And this brings me to my third and final point: values are not the same as political affiliation. Certainly the two are related, but not always the same.  Here's Prager's real beef with today's yutes, I suspect:

To be sure, Millennials remain the most likely of any generation to self-identify as liberals; they are less supportive than their elders of an assertive national security policy and more supportive of a progressive domestic social agenda. They are still more likely than any other age group to identify as Democrats.

Noooooo!  Anything but that!

Well, sorry to break it to you, Prager and Mom & Dad, but it is indeed possible to pray often, honor your parents, love your country, get jazzed about private enterprise and still be a liberal Democrat.  Now go grab some kleenex before your kids see you like this.


By Dennis Prager
November 5, 2013 | National Review

There is a phenomenon that is rarely commented on, although it’s as common as it is significant.

For at least two generations, countless conservative parents have seen their adult children reject their core values.

I have met these parents throughout America. I have spoken with them in person and on my radio show. Many have confided to me — usually with a resigned sadness — that one or more of their children has adopted left-wing social, moral, and political beliefs.
A particularly dramatic recent example was a pastor who told me that he has three sons, all of whom have earned doctorates — from Stanford, Oxford, and Fordham. What parent wouldn’t be proud of such achievements by his or her children?

But the tone of his voice suggested more irony than pride. They are all leftists, he added wistfully.

“How do you get along?” I asked.

“We still talk,” he responded.

Needless to say, I was glad to hear that. But as the father of two sons, I readily admit that if they became leftists, while I would, of course, always love them, I would be deeply saddened. Parents, on the left or the right, religious or secular, want to pass on their core values to their children.

As a father, I have as my purpose not to pass on my “seed” but to pass on my values. Just about anyone can biologically produce a child. That ability we share with the animals. What renders us distinct from animals is that we can pass on values. As the Latin puts it, animals have only “genitors,” while humans have “paters.” Or, as the Hebrew has it, parent (horeh) comes from the same root as teacher (moreh). That is why Judaism puts teachers (of religious and moral values) on the same plane as parents.

So it is sad when a parent who believes, for example, in the American trinity of “Liberty,” “In God We Trust,” and “E Pluribus Unum” has a child who believes that equality trumps liberty, that a secular America is preferable to a God-centered one, and that multiculturalism should replace the unifying American identity.

It is sad when a pastor or any other parent who believes that the only gender-based definition of marriage that has ever existed — husband and wife — has a child who regards the parent as a bigot for holding on to that definition.

It is sad when a parent who believes that America has always been, in Lincoln’s famous words, “the last best hope of earth” has a child who believes that America has always been little more than an imperialist, racist, and xenophobic nation.

That this happens so often raises the obvious question: Why?

There are two reasons.

One is that most parents with traditional American and Judeo-Christian values have not thought it necessary to articulate these values to their children on a regular basis. They have assumed that there is no need to because society at large holds those values, or it did so throughout much of American history. Villages do indeed raise children. And when the village shares parents’ values, the parents don’t have to do the difficult work of inculcating these values.

But the village — American society — has radically changed.

Which brings us to the second reason.

Virtually every institution outside the home has been captured by people with left-wing values: specifically the media (television and movies) and the schools (first the universities and now high schools). In the 1960s and 1970s, American parents were blindsided. Their children came home from college with values that thoroughly opposed those of their parents.

And the parents had no idea how to counteract this. Moreover, even if they did, after just one year at the left-wing seminaries we still call universities, it was often too late. As one of the founders of progressivism in America, Woodrow Wilson, who was president of Princeton University before he became president of the United States, said in a speech in 1914, “I have often said that the use of a university is to make young gentlemen as unlike their fathers as possible.” Eighty-eight years later, the president of Dartmouth College, James O. Freedman, echoed Wilson: “The purpose of a college education is to question your father’s values,” he told the graduating seniors of Dartmouth College.

Even now, too few conservative parents realize how radical — and effective — the university agenda is. They are proud that their child has been accepted to whatever college he or she attends, not realizing that, values-wise, they are actually playing Russian roulette, except that only one chamber in the gun is not loaded with a bullet.

And then the child comes home, often after only a year at college, a different person, values-wise, from the one whom the naïve parent so proudly sent off just a year earlier.

What to do? I will answer that in a future column. But the first thing to do is to realize what is happening.

There are too many sad conservative parents.

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

MB360: Americans unprepared for retirement

MB360 brings us some shocking figures on U.S. retirement savings:


retirementcrisisJ


What we find in the above chart is that most Americans are flat broke when it comes to saving for retirement.  You might say that those 25 to 34 years of age have simply avoided dealing with the future.  However, this is the most indebted young cohort of Americans we have ever seen largely due to student debt.  Yet look at the other age brackets.  The median amount saved for those 35 to 44 is $1,400 (one month of rent and food in many parts of the country).  Those 45 to 54 do a little bit better coming in at $10,100.  Those 55 to 64?  About $12,000.

In total, the median saved for retirement by all US households is $3,000.

Even those with retirement accounts (obviously a small figure) have a median amount saved of $40,000.  The $3,000 figure should shock people into realizing that programs like Social Security are going to become the default “retirement plan” for millions.


But should we really be surprised?  How many U.S. generations have experienced what is now considered a real, comfortable retirement, where savings combined with Social Security and Medicare allowed them to live out the last 20 or so years of life in comfort and security?  One generation?  The Baby Boomers are entering retirement now.  Let's see how well they do.  But it doesn't look good for them, not good at all. 

We need to re-think classical retirement, which is not classical at all, just an ideal that one or two generations of Americans managed to enjoy, and which now, thanks to demographics and cuts to Social Security, the Great Recession, fewer pensions and rising health costs, will soon cease to exist entirely.  


Posted by MB360
August 21, 2013

Friday, March 15, 2013

Ryan's budget either dumb or disingenuous

BOO-ya! Miller can't miss with this shot at the demographically challenged Congressional GOP:

Did I mention that Ronald Reagan ran the federal government at 22 percent of GDP when the country’s population was much younger, and health care consumed about 11 percent of GDP?

Now Paul Ryan says we can run the federal government at 19 percent of GDP as the massive baby-boom generation retires and when health costs (largely for seniors) have already soared to 18 percent of GDP.

Sorry, but Ryan is either deeply confused or doing his best to snooker us.

Miller puts in other words, same upshot:

In 1989, when President Reagan left office, there were 34 million people on Medicare and 39 million on Social Security. In 2025, according to these programs’ trustees, there will be 73 million on Medicare and 78 million on Social Security.

This is not happening because we’re stringing up the “hammock of dependency” that Ryan often invokes. It’s happening because our famously big postwar birth cohort is getting older.

Ryan obviously knows these facts. This means he’s disingenuously trying to use the aging of America to force a severe cutback in the non-elderly, non-defense portion of government, which is already headed toward historic lows as a share of GDP.

And here's what would happen if Ryan got his way:

At 19 percent, Ryan’s vision is an America with 50 million uninsured ... forever. Of infrastructure and R&D investment that trails other advanced nations ... in perpetuity. Of a nation that assigns its least effective teachers to poor children . . . permanently. (Amazingly, Senate Democrats have fallen prey to Ryan’s gravitational pull, with the budget they put out Wednesday coming in at 21.7 percent of GDP in the years ahead, a tad below Reagan-era spending.)

Ryan thinks we’re too dumb to see what he’s up to.

Well I'm not that dumb. Are you? 


By Matt Miller
March 14, 2013 | Washington Post

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Those poor, greedy Boomers

Turns out the Baby Boomers aren't greedy, they're just poor: the median annual income of both Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries is about $25,000.  

So entitlement reform at their expense is impossible because they can't survive without their current level of benefits.


By Jared Bernstein
July 31, 2012 | Huffington Post

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

The coming crisis of elderly poverty

It's good that older teabaggers suck at imposing their political views on younger generations; otherwise, we would slash their Socia Security, Medicare and Medicaid and make them spend their golden years in squalor and indignity.

But we're not gonna do that, because our progressive principles are too strong.  Sorry to break it to you, old-timers, but because of you, "Social Security and Medicare are going to have to be more generous, not less, than these programs are today."


By David Callahan
June 19, 2012 | Huffington Post

Most of the coverage last week of the Fed study on household wealth focused on the gigantic financial hit taken by nearly all Americans since 2007. Dig deeper into the report, though, and it makes for even scarier reading, as many of those people losing lots of wealth are older and don't have much time to recover before retiring.

In 2007, near the boom's height, older households (between 55 and 64) had a median net worth of $266,200. That figure included everything -- home equity, savings, 401(k)s, etc. -- and is hardly the kind of money people need to get through their golden years. By 2010, though, the nest eggs of Americans approaching retirement had shrunk dramatically, falling to $179,400 -- a 33 percent drop. The main reason for this, of course, was the collapse of the housing market, with home equity accounting for the lion's share of older Americans' net worth.

Older workers also experienced a drop in earnings, making it harder for them to stash away cash and make up for losses to their net worth. Indeed, barely over half of all families in the 55 to 64 group reported to the Fed that they saved money in 2010. You heard that right: Half of all workers hurtling toward retirement aren't putting away for the future. Yikes.

Another scary finding of the study: Only 60 percent of families, 55 to 64, even have a retirement account where they take advantage of tax breaks for retirement savings. And the median amount of money in such accounts is $100,000.

Of course, that's no surprise to us here at Demos, as we have recently been documenting the many shortcomings of the 401(k) system. Foremost among the faults of 401(k)s is that so many employers don't offer such plans to their workers. Another major problem: most workers don't build up a very big nest egg, even after decades in the labor force thanks to low contribution levels, stock market meltdowns, and loans taken out against their 401(k)s.

Not surprisingly, also, there is a huge disparity in who has access to a 401(k). According to the Fed report, 70 percent of Americans with a college degree have a retirement account -- compared to just 41 percent of those with only a high school diploma. The report shows, moreover, that such coverage for all groups declined somewhat between 2007 and 2010 -- reflecting a broader trend of more employers choosing not to offer 401(k)s.

Beyond the paltry assets of many older Americans, there is also the problem of debt among those in their fifties and early sixties. The Fed report shows that a great many older Americans carry credit card debt -- a worrisome trend that Demos documented a while back in our report, Retiring in the Red. Needless to say, it's not good to be scrambling to pay off your Amex bill when you should be putting away money for retirement.

Again, no big surprises from this data. Just more warning signs that the 401(k) system isn't working and that America is facing an epidemic of elderly poverty in the decades ahead -- a crisis that will make it very difficult to cut the big entitlement programs for seniors, which tends to be the linchpin of most centrist and conservative deficit reduction plans.

Indeed, it's hard to look at the data on how the broke the Baby Boomers are without concluding that Social Security and Medicare are going to have to be more generous, not less, than these programs are today. Strangely, few leaders in Washington seem to be tuned in to this grim reality -- or ready to deal with it.

Friday, February 3, 2012

MB360: Boomers have no savings, live on SS


We shouldn't let grumpy old Boomers, who are over-represented in the Tea Parties, lecture younger generations about responsibility, work and savings, because they have no savings and rely on Social Security for almost all their income.

We'll still take care of you old timers, because we're well-raised and we're all in this together, but please: no more sanctimonious lectures.



What happens when a society that prides itself on a middle class and self-sufficiency suddenly starts losing both? For over a decade the middle class in the US has been shrinking. This isn't some speculation but is reflected in the stagnant household income data. You also have a giant demographic train in that many baby boomers are now retiring in mass. Over 10,000 baby boomers enter into retirement each day and many have an inadequate amount of savings (if any) to get them through the leaner years. Couple this with a less affluent younger generation and you have a recipe for financial and social turmoil. Many of these younger Americans, many saddled with large student debt, are moving back home with parents that have seen their entire home equity evaporate. Do you think these are happy households especially when the median income of those 65+ is $19,167?

Median income of the old

There seems to be this misconception that older Americans are simply well off. The data shows us otherwise:

median income persons 65 and older

Source: US Dept. of Health

What is troubling about the above data is that during some of the most affluent decades in US history, most Americans have very little income in older age. In fact, most rely on Social Security as their primary source of income:

"Social Security constituted 90% or more of the income received by 34% of beneficiaries (21% of married couples and 43% of non-married beneficiaries)."

How is this even possible? Keep in mind the average Social Security payout is roughly $1,000 per month and this is fixed. Since the government has juiced the CPI data most of these fixed income Americans are seeing their energy and healthcare costs soar all the while they are told inflation is virtually non-existent. Try arguing that after going to the grocery store.

There is also this sense that since many older Americans own their home, they are somehow immune to the housing bubble. That is not true:

"In 2009, 48% of older householders spent more than one-fourth of their income on housing costs – 42% for owners"

Many older Americans still spend a lot of money on housing even if they are owners. Much of this comes from property taxes and costs associated with owning a home. Since many older Americans do own their home this housing bubble crash has harmed their largest asset.

As time presses on more and more of our population is going into retirement. Lower birth rates and more Americans making it into older age conjure up memories of Japan:

baby-boomer-statistics
Source: Baby boomer stats

-There are approximately 77.6 million baby boomers in the U.S.

-The baby boom phenomenon is responsible for over half of all consumer spending in the United States

-80% of all leisure travel is taken by boomers.

-Every 8.5 seconds a baby boomer in the U.S. turns 50 years old.

-The baby boom generation is the largest generation in American history.

-On January 1st, 2011 the very first Baby Boomers turned 65

Baby boomers tended to also be big spenders (at least they were during the debt bubbles). But what now? The strongest spending group is losing a large part of their wealth with the housing crash and many are exiting their peak earning stages. From the Social Security data, we realize many did not save in what was likely the most affluent times for America. With many younger Americans carrying major debt loads and finding items like pensions disappearing, how will they prepare for retirement? What access to savings do they have? Homes are still expensive for many younger Americans and that is why millions have moved back home:

living-at-home

A society that has preaches independence and pushes out young at 18 will have a hard time dealing with boomerang kids coming back home. Many younger Americans will feel the strain as well especially if they "did the right thing" and went to college but now find a tough employment market and being back home. This demographic train has left the station and nothing will slow it down.