Posted on 03/05/2011 10:04:19 AM PST by Wanderer659
I have often said to my mother, who is a baby boomer and liberal, that my generation (Gen X), would have to clean up the mess that her generation left behind. As time wears on, that statement rings more and more true.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativehideout.com ...
Facts are stubborn things.
I see your point, but...
If the liberals - no matter what age - hadn’t screwed us up so badly (yes, we are to blame also, for allowing it), most of those kids would be working.
On the other hand, as streamlined production methods have reduced the need for some of the workforce, our fewer numbers would have been just fine.
Yes, no?
Look at your graph again. If you incorporate the weight of each respective age group (18%, 29%, 37%, 16%), about 50% of Obama's voters came from the 44 and under crowd, and about 50% came from those 45 and over.
Inelastic means that demand is constant. That means commodities like Corn, Wheat, etc.
Some goods are Elastic, meaning that demand is more variable. As people’s income increases, their demand for elastic goods usually increases. This is why, despite the 1/3rd drop in cohort population why demand for certain goods has held steady.
Demand for basic staples? Has dropped precipitously. When the demand isn’t there, these businesses have to lay off workers. Meaning that the young people don’t get hired.
You are right that increasing mechanization has an effect on the proportion of jobs, but usually, increased mechanization actually increases demand. The increase in production means that the cost to produce these goods go down, meaning that they are more affordable. Cost goes down, Demand will increase, assuming Supply remains the same. Supply wants to increase to meet demand, so more people get hired.
The decline in Elastic goods is what finally triggered the collapse in 2008. Boomers were hitting the crest of their earning years, and have been masking the overall decline in demand for the last 20 years. When their demand for elastic goods declined (it usually does in their 50s), then it exposed the underlying weaknesses in the economy.
So you have boomers getting older and spending less, which lowers demand. Since supply didn’t change, you had falling demand and an oversupply. Which means that prices will fall. At a point prices fall so sharply, that people can’t afford to stay in business, so they lay off folks or go out of business. This means the Kids who are supposed to keep the Ponzi game running are out of work, and can’t pay in.
Which gives us, along with the Marxist clown a 3 trillion dollar deficit when he tries to double government spending in a year.
The person born in 1943 actually had far more in common ( especially back in the '60s-'70s ) with those born in the 1930s, than with those born in 1948,'49, '50.
It is usually accepted that a generation spams 25 years; though the "WAR BABIES" ( 1942-'45 ) are an exception and should probably be classified as a substrata of the previous generation.
I was born during the late boomer years but do not fit that generation at all.My parents were born during WWII and are more the boomer generation than I am.
I think you blame boomers for much that was done while they were too young to do much of anything.I was 12 yo when Roevs Wade was passed....not a lot of influence I had at that age. I was 4yo when LBJ created the great society again not a lot I could do about it all...
Most of those who faced the draft and fought in Vietnam were born 1943-1953 (more from 1943-45 than from 1951-53). The earliest boomers, 1946-50, were the peak. 1948 was the birth year that had the most men in Vietnam and the most casualties.
I was born in 1953. (Monday is my birthday, btw, turning 58.) I had a draft number, #2, but I also had a deferment, since I was preparing for church ministry. And very few from my birth year, 1953, actually went to Vietnam. The war was winding down by that point in the early '70s.
The Vietnam War goes back to the early days of JFK, which means that older men ( those born in the late '30s and early '40s ) were there, "the advisers", who weren't "advising" anyone, but fighting, long before the antiwar movement enlisted the younger morons into that fray. That group, BTW, was led by stinking Commies, who had been at this crapola since WW II!
An early HAPPY BIRTHDAY !
The numbers are clear, those 44 and under voted for Obama. Those 45 and over would have elected McCain. There’s no debating that.
‘
Boomers? Their parents spoiled them rotten. It was the old “I’m going to give my kids everthing that I missed in life.”
Many Boomers were given everything and earned nothing. They “discovered” everything and learned nothing.
Unforutnately, I see a fair bit of this sense of entitlement and wilful ignorance in the latest batch coming up.
Good discussion.
The only possible fallacy I can see to your thinking is that FrogDad and I are boomers.
Always been employed, always paid taxes. Raised three kids. Once the kids left home, and had been on their own 5-10 years so we could quit slipping them money, our spending on “stuff” doubled or tripled. So, in our 50s when we are supposed to slow down, we started spending. Got most of the debt gone, bought some toys, ate out MUCH more frequently.
I have friends in similar situations. We aren’t the norm, but I’ll bet there are a lot of us out there.
Indeed, it’s a good discussion!
I just get so exasperated dealing with the prevalent view that things are just hunky dory if we were to raise taxes and load it on the productive folks.
It’s a relief to come here for sanity.
I would hug you in agreement!
It’s amazing to me the people who look at their with holding and say, “That’s not so bad!”
Told a fellow the other day, “It isn’t? Do you have a cell phone? You pay 3 taxes on it. Do you buy beer? Do you buy cigarettes? Do you buy gas? Do you have utilities at your home? Add up the taxes on it all, you also pay more than half of your income in taxes!”
The moron tried to tell me that you didn’t really HAVE to have all that stuff, so it was a choice to pay all those taxes.
Oy vey!
Which btw isn't to say that all members of Gen X and Gen Y are doing damage to the Republic.
The fact that Obama got a lot of votes from those 45 and above is meaningless here because he got a minority of those votes.
Your argument is specious and meaningless. 45 and above for McCain, 44 and below for Obama. Which part of that don't you understand Joe?
Votes don’t care about ages, only the total matters. That the majority of the votes Obama recieved were from Boomers states that even though he got a lower share, they were the crucial difference in the election.
Judging by their voting history, boomers are the most conservative generation of the past 70 years.
Actually most of the Greatest Generation weren’t even of voting age yet when FDR came around, which back then was 21 right? It was their predominately their parents, the WWI generation, that voted him in.
And their parents put Woodrow Wilson in 20 years earlier.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.