People need to just stop generalizing. It pisses us off that we get labeled for our idiot cohorts in OWS, just as it does that we blame them for the dysfunctional policies that lead to where we are now.
I know it really irritates me, because you’d think a lot of Boomers would hesitate to stereotpye after what they went through with their parents reaction to the counter-culture, but the whole “us vs. them” mentality doesn’t do anything productive.
The only people that come out on that are the statist thugs who successfully caused like-minded people to squabble over assigning blame.
I knew a guy when I was just out of college who ways always complaining about baby boomers. One day he started the morning by saying to me “What’s wrong with your generation?” Be for he even said good morning. I replied good morning and your generation read too much Dr Spock and did a lousy job of raising us. He didn’t say any thing but think he agreed some what with and left the room. He didn’t complain to me any more after that.
The root cause of the animosity stems from social security.
It’s a social contract. Those working today pay for those retired today.
However, because of decisions that boomers made social security as it is worded is dysfuctional. It’s a math problem. There are simply not enough young people to pay for boomer retirements.
We have zero control over how many of us were born. All we have control over is finding sufficient employment. That’s the other side of the coin. Even if every one of us were out of unemployment, our wages are insufficient to pay for these benefits.
Again - this has nothing to do with those coming up and everything to do with present policies, hiring requirements, quotas, etc. Declining standard of living.
Why is the standard of living declining? Because demand is down. Why is demand down? Because there are simply not enough young people. No demand = no jobs. Low demand = fewer jobs. Low demand coupled by an established and large cohort results in what we see today - this cohort is actually picking up jobs.
If you do not need as many workers as you did previously, are you going to blow one of your ‘hires’ on a young person who might not work out? Or are you going to go with the person with more expericen, etc. It would be irrational for the company to choose the younger worker in this circumstance, which reflects what we do see here.
And I haven’t even gotten into the more recent policies, and how they effect hiring ratios, etc. The more expensive government makes hiring people, the less likely young people are to get hired. Straight out of Walter E. Williams, here.
I like that...