Baby Boon Generation - Net positive or net negative

**jt1** · December-13-10, 04:34 PM

Lately I have been hearing many in the baby boom generation complaining about younger generations. It got be thinking about what benefit the baby boomer generation has brought to society and if it is a net positive or net negative:

The good:
1. Strong supporters/fighters for civil rights

The bad:
1. Drove divorce rates up, severely impacted the standard family structure
2. Brought about the greatest greed of any generation.
3. Politicians from their generation are largely responible for the mess of this country.
4. NAFTA and outsourcing have happended under their watch
5. Will drain social security but refuse to alter the terms to help future generations
6. Number of people imprisoned have gone through the roof during their generation.
7. General 'F you' I got mine mentality which has caused a massive divide of the classes - on their way to eliminating the middle class all together.
8. First generation that will leave their children with a lower standard of living than their own.

I may be missing a bunch of good and bad. My opinion is that, not on an individual level, but as a generation the baby boomers may go down as the worst generation in history.

What are your thoughts.

**gazhekwe** · December-13-10, 04:41 PM

Probably not enough parents made their kids walk ten miles uphill in snow up to their necks to get to school after milking all the cows and slopping the hogs.

**Detroitnerd** · December-13-10, 04:55 PM

They seem selfish, but then when you talk to millenials and Gen Y's, they seem to think that older people are more altruistic. It's hard to talk about things in terms of "generations" because we're all individuals and "generations" are constructs, handy for marketing and advertising people but not so good for analysis. For instance, when you hear "baby boomer," do you picture a black person? Why or why not are they part of this "generation"?

**maxx** · December-13-10, 06:47 PM

Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Steve Wozniak are baby boomers. So is Robert Jarvik.And the divorce rate could be linked to the women's movement that brought more women into the workforce making them economically independent and thus not forced to stay with abusive or unfaithful men.

Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney, Alan Greenspan, and Don Rumsfeld are not baby boomers.

**gazhekwe** · December-13-10, 06:54 PM

So are Bill and Hilary Clinton, George W. Bush, AL Gore, Barack Obama, John Robers, Karl Rove, Sarah Palin...

Can't lump everyone together into one awful quagmire. I have to say that I am disappointed in my fellow hippies, we definitely dropped the ball on making our world more people friendly. Will we ever manage that?

**Pam** · December-13-10, 07:29 PM

Barack Obama, Sarah Palin...

People born in the 60s are boomers? That's my age group and I never considered myself one.

**Detroitnerd** · December-13-10, 07:30 PM

Only until 1964

**Pam** · December-13-10, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Only until 1964

Who picks these arbitrary cut off dates? I think of the boomers as people who were young adults or teens in the 60s, not babies or children.

**thnk2mch** · December-13-10, 07:43 PM

I'm with Pam. I was born in 62 and do not consider myself a boomer.

**Ray1936** · December-13-10, 08:02 PM

Born in '36, I'm a depression baby. I'm just happy when I have a nickel in my pocket.

**Detroitej72** · December-13-10, 08:15 PM

Who the heck comes up with these generational names, a marketing agency?

To lump praise or criticism on any one generation is about as weak as blaming all the world's ills on one ethnic group of people, its just plain foolish.

Ravine · December-13-10, 11:51 PM

Originally Posted by Pam

People born in the 60s are boomers? That's my age group and I never considered myself one.

Running the Boomer demographic up to 1964-- technically correct-- is really pushing it; in fact, considering the concept behind the term, running it up that far is ridiculous, so you are justified in not seeing yourself as a boomer.

**firstandten** · December-14-10, 01:09 AM

Here's the breakout of the different generations according to some demographers

Depression - 1912-1921

Pre World War II 1922-1927

World War II 1928-1945

Baby Boomers 1946-1964 [[ the boomers are actually split boomer 1 46-53 and boomer 2 54-64)

Gen X 1965-1980

Gen Y 1981-2010

I guess there divided by the shared experiences and the marketing people really have their marketing strategies for each generation.

**Zacha341** · December-14-10, 06:34 AM

Yeah, I was born near to so-called cut off... sometimes I see myself a boomer, sometimes not..... I just know I was not born in the 50's. LOL!

Originally Posted by Pam

Who picks these arbitrary cut off dates? I think of the boomers as people who were young adults or teens in the 60s, not babies or children.

**Pam** · December-14-10, 06:57 AM

I don't want to be a boomer, because then jt1 will hate me.

Anyway, I agree with all the comments about overgeneralization blah blah blah.

Politicians from their generation are largely responible for the mess of this country.

The decline of the middle class started under Reagan, definitely not a boomer. Neither was Shrub the first.

In the good column, how could you forget music?

Ravine · December-14-10, 07:19 AM

That's the up-side. Being introspective to a fault and shamelessly self-absorbed in general, them there traits tend to make for quality artists.

Ravine · December-14-10, 07:20 AM

Wow!! After repeatedly logging my 1,007th post, I have inched forward!!

Ravine · December-15-10, 05:02 AM

For those who have not noticed-- and it appears that most of you have-- the meat of this thread has ended up landing in the "Great Decision" thread about DPS holding, or not holding, classes during the recent "winter storm."

**jcole** · December-15-10, 08:10 AM

Now, I'm a Boomer[[II) and I see some real benefits to our contributions to today's society.
One can credit the boomer generation with creating a generation of kids who don't know how to lose graciously based on the fact that we were the parents who insisted that our kids must be told that losing was as good as winning and be given a second place trophy in a two member competition. We also taught them that no matter what they do wrong in life, their parents will be there to bail them out, sue the school or or pay for damages.

**GOAT** · December-15-10, 09:48 AM

As a gen X'er I will say net negative. The hippies became the yuppies and did exactly what their fathers did except they gave themselves an even bigger slice of pie [[check out management pay to workers pay ratio, it is astonishing).

Personally, I think the "revolutions" of the 1960s, other than civil rights [[a real revolution) hasn't bode well for North America in many ways.

One for me is the two-parent income trap. While women have every right to work and be paid the same [[and they should) it is becoming increasingly impossible to have a one income family any more. Kids suffer, relationships suffer etc.

**maxx** · December-15-10, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Pam

Who picks these arbitrary cut off dates? I think of the boomers as people who were young adults or teens in the 60s, not babies or children.

I think 1946 marks the post WWII baby boom . I don't know why they chose 1964 as the cut-off. Maybe the rise of student activism. I thought a generation was 25 years. Anyway, if people use these labels as a way to look down on entire generations, the authoritarians have won. Divide and conquer.

**Kevgoblue** · December-15-10, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by GOAT

Personally, I think the "revolutions" of the 1960s, other than civil rights [[a real revolution) hasn't bode well for North America in many ways.

One for me is the two-parent income trap. While women have every right to work and be paid the same [[and they should) it is becoming increasingly impossible to have a one income family any more. Kids suffer, relationships suffer etc.

Agreed.
I think this 2 income trap has been, by far, the biggest contributor to the destruction of the American family.

**Pam** · December-15-10, 12:49 PM

think 1946 marks the post WWII baby boom . I don't know why they chose 1964 as the cut-off. Maybe the rise of student activism. I thought a generation was 25 years

I know traditionally a generation was considered 20-25 years, but if you are going by the "shared experience" model it should be more like 10 years. Plus the beginings and endings blur. The Beatles were all born before 1946 but were icons of the boomer era. So maybe 1940-1950 or 55 would be a better range than 1946-1964.

**jt1** · December-15-10, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Kevgoblue

Agreed.
I think this 2 income trap has been, by far, the biggest contributor to the destruction of the American family.

I think the bigger issue [[which causes this) is our societies materialism. Compare the last 30-40 years to know and consider the size of houses people 'need', stuff people 'need', etc.

Let's begin to eliminate the rampant materialism and get back to just having the needs [[and some of the wants). Reduce size of houses, drive cars more than a couple years before getting a new one, reduce the need to get every new electronic device, etc and a family casn manage just fine on one income. Or if both parents want to work it will allow a family to build a nice cushion, college funds for kids, retirment savings, etc

**GOAT** · December-15-10, 05:25 PM

That is true to a jt1. But even having a family with one income and two kids and the grocery bill itself is outarageous; heating and electricity are through the roof, fucking property taxes are enormous. It can be done but damn it is extemely difficult. I know of 3 people who are one income families and they struggle while the worker still has a pretty decent job.

The sad reality is the corp's all say that if we don't buy there won't be any jobs. But most of the crap I buy is Chinese made. It is getting increasingly difficult to buy north american products. What these fat cats are really saying is buy me another house in Barbados.