Generation Wars: Are 'Boomers' fleecing 'the kids'?
Greedy geezers? Lazy Millenials? As we face a budget crisis, is there a generational war going on?
Photo Courtesy of WikiMedia Commons.
Editor's note: This post is part of a series by Dr. Baker on Our Values about core American values. This week Dr. Baker takes a look about Social Security, Medicare and relations among the generations.
Are Baby Boomers poised to fleece younger generations?
Sailing is my family’s favorite summer pastime, but we never go as often as we would like. Sometimes I envy the retirees who spend the entire summer sailing the Great Lakes. Whenever I say that to a retiree-sailor, I always get the same response: “Keep working! We need you to keep paying our Social Security!” We all laugh, but there’s a certain irony in this response.
How true is it? Are Social Security and Medicare aiding older Americans at the expense of the young?
Or, to put it bluntly as Thomas A. Firey of the conservative think tank Cato Institute did a decade ago: Are the baby boomers fleecing the younger generations?
“They’ve paid less of their earnings into Social Security than we Gen-X/Yers, yet they’ll receive more in benefits than we will, and we’ll pick up the tab. And when we retire, there will be no money saved in Social Security to pay for our retirement, unless we pull the same scam on our children that the Boomers are pulling on us.”
Social Security and Medicare are on the chopping block in the Washington budget battles. Actual or even possible changes to these programs can only exacerbate the tensions between the generations. But are these tensions well founded? Is it correct to think of competition among the generations, each pursing its self-interest at the expense of the other?
In a national poll taken last year by Harris Interactive and commissioned by Generations United, eight of 10 American agreed that politicians sometimes pit generations against one another “to limit public support for government funding child care, healthcare, Social Security or other programs.”
If you’re a boomer, do you feel you are entitled to these programs?
If you are younger, do you feel taken advantage of?
Is one generation against another?
Generation Wars: Is it every generation for itself?
There are two theories about intergenerational relations. One says it’s every generation for itself. The other says that generations are interdependent and should help one another.
Consider these theories—
THEORY 1: Younger Americans vs. Greedy Geezers …
The every-generation-for-itself theory says that one generation’s gain is another generation’s loss. The stereotypical bad guys are Greedy Geezers. These elderly Americans don’t need entitlements like Social Security and Medicare but take them anyway, using discretionary income to have a second home in a warm climate, go on expensive vacations, neglect the grandchildren and squander their children’s inheritances.
This theory holds that — even when older Americans really need Social Security and Medicare — their numbers are going to swamp the system, placing a greater and greater burden on younger, working Americans.
THEORY 2: Generations are interdependent …
This argument says, in the words of Generations United, that there’s a “two-way flow of social, emotional, and financial resources between generations.” This theory recognizes that generations are not isolated, but parts of families.
Here’s one of many examples that is a contrast to the image of Greedy Geezers: More than 6.5 million American children are being raised in households headed by grandparents and other relatives, according to research cited by Generations United.
Social Security helps to keep many of these families out of poverty. Seniors volunteer in huge numbers, often focusing on the young. And, many communities of seniors have voted to raise taxes to support public education.
What’s your experience?
Do these theories make sense to you?
Dr. Wayne E. Baker is a sociologist on the faculty of the University of Michigan Ross School of Business. Baker blogs daily at Our Values and can be reached at ourvaluesproject@gmail.com or on Facebook.
Comments
Michigwen
Thu, Jul 21, 2011 : 8:04 a.m.
I know that it is all the rage, especially in conservative circles, to blame the baby boomers for all the ills of the world. However, the author has the generations confused. Baby boomers are just starting to become eligible for Social Security and Medicare. They are not the retirees who have been living it up at the expense of the younger generation. It's the members of the "greatest generation" who survived World War II and went to colllege on the GI Bill who have been living high for the past 20 years on secure pensions, Social Security and Medicare. Ironically, millions of those self-absorbed baby boomers are or can look forward to spending their retirement years as caregivers for the greatest generation.
Polyjuce123
Thu, Jul 21, 2011 : 6:05 a.m.
Yes, this is obviously a "conflict theory" in regards to generations but it couldn't be more true today. The difficulties faced by young adults in current society dwarf what baby boomers walked into after HS. First, and probably most important is the use of credit to obtain most "material" things in life, which takes time to obtain. Baby boomers had the luxury of working in a robust economy,and experiencing perks and benefits that will never again be had by any future generation. One of the problems is the fact that baby boomers have a very difficult time identifying with the 18-24 subset who currently are the largest group of unemployed individuals in the US. As the economy crumbled in 2008 many boomers were nearing retirement, being a position of seniority many are now prolonging retirement which is effectively choking off access to jobs that would go to new college grads. New college grads are lacking experience that their older counterparts were able to get, simply because there are no jobs available to them, making them less marketable which ultimately will affect their future ability to make a living wage. Beyond real world issues, there are undertones of discrimination today in regards to being younger. Young age has become an excuse for employers (in which most hiring personal or mgrs are largely older) to start at minimum wage and without benefits. This is largely due to the "seniority" culture that most baby boomers experience. Simply put, most baby boomers cannot relate to graduating HS or college in 2011, let alone understanding that even with higher education their younger counterparts make far less even for the same position The baby boomers were a generation that very much believed you must "earn" everything in life, and is often contradictory of their success which were largely based on two of the largest economic booms america's recent history.
eastsidemom
Wed, Jul 20, 2011 : 6:56 p.m.
Social Security is a must for a civil, humane society...few boomers are living it up on Social Security, but the rich are, along with their own accumulated wealth. They get it too, because they too paid in. The boomer's parents are the last of the middle class snowbirds, boomers will work till we drop. It is a ploy to pit the generations against each other, called divide and conquer. Heck we still help support our grown kids!
Technojunkie
Wed, Jul 20, 2011 : 5:10 p.m.
The younger generations work two months per year to fund the pay-as-you-go Social Security and Medicare systems. That amount is proving inadequate. The current "solution" to this problem appears to be to let the Federal Reserve print money to paper over the funding gap and to rig federal statistics to hide the resulting inflation. This is an old story but it has accelerated mightily under Obama. It will become increasingly obvious that while retirees will continue to get their promised checks, they won't be able to buy much with them and their children will be living with them for lack of productive employment. Oh, and if you think that the $2.6T Social Security "trust fund" isn't accounting fraud then why is Obama claiming that failure to raise the federal debt ceiling, which all Democrats including Obama piously voted against in 2006, may cause SS checks to not be sent out? This nation survived for quite some time without statist programs like Social Security forcing intergenerational wealth transfers. It is unclear whether we can continue to survive with them.
Gordon
Wed, Jul 20, 2011 : 2:28 p.m.
Pitting generations against each other is a Washington tactic. There is an implied question to this discussion that always causes a flurry of excitment. Is there a level of income (retired) that is appropiate? What is too much? A Billion we feel comfortable saying they don't need SS. What part of the social fail-safe is so out of hand that we can't afford it? Is the lower birth rate? Is it the changing economy similar to what happened in 30's because of the change from manufactuering from agriculture? Don't know and not easy topic. I suspect the topic is about the results and not the elements causing the results.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Tue, Jul 19, 2011 : 6:26 p.m.
My experience is that the generations are interdependent. For instance, my parents are retired and having social security and medicare for them means that I won't be on the hook for huge medical bills or their living expenses. Not many people would let their parents starve or become homeless. And although I don't have children of my own, it is in my own best interest to support programs that benefit children such as good public education because unless those children can grow up with the skills they need to get good jobs, I'll have to fend for myself in retirement and that isn't great either.