Reminder – Pew Research, which invented the generation labels, no longer recommends their use. What began as a way to try and identify commonalities evolved into a system used by the media and social media pundits to divide people and turn people against one another.
‘Why should we have to downsize?’: How boomers became the victim generation
Generally speaking, when seeing an article proclaiming an insight about “Gen Z”, “Millennials”, “X” or “Boomers”, it’s time to turn away – it is a click-bait article intended to get you emotionally riled up and turning against one another. Such articles reflect badly on the writer and the publication.
This angst has been created out of thin air by content mill journalism:
“There is a stigma attached to being a “boomer”, which has become shorthand for greedy, entitled and out of touch. Boomers have been accused of “stealing their children’s futures” by taking more than their fair share.
Many believe they are unfairly victimised – pilloried for their wealth, and told to downsize out of their house to make way for younger families. But are they right to feel that way?”
You cannot hate the media and “journalists” (creative writers) enough:
A report by the House of Commons’ Women and Equalities Committee in February confirmed what many older citizens have experienced first-hand. It found “clear evidence” of ageist stereotyping across British media, with debates about intergenerational fairness tending to pit younger and older generations against each other in a “perceived fight for limited resources”.
For example:
The average wealth of households aged 65 to 74 is £502,500 – more than 30 times that of Gen Zs aged 16 to 24, who typically have £15,200. Boomers’ wealth is also 4.6 times greater than those aged 25 to 34, who are mainly younger millennials, with £109,800.
This may not seem very surprising given older people have had a lifetime to accumulate savings, homes and pensions.
“There’s an extremely strong life-cycle component to wealth,” says Simon Pittaway, a senior economist at The Resolution Foundation think tank. “Most people start working lives with very little, build it up through peak working years then run it down in retirement.
If you responsibly spent your life saving for a future retirement so as not to be a burden on others – and not spending and squandering – you are now guilty, per the media morons, of being a bad person.
Cherry pick your years much?
A Resolution Foundation study found that between 2006-08 and 2018-20, median wealth among Britons in their 60s rose by 55pc in real terms, but median wealth for those in their 30s fell by 34pc.
The 2006-2008 period was the peak for stock and real estate asssets prior to The Great Recession, the worst economic downturn since The Great Depression. 2020 was the Covid fiasco when asset markets crashed. Talk about cherry picking your dates!
The article goes on to promote that we should charge higher taxes on “larger” (define “larger”?) homes to force elders into smaller homes. The article assumes pensions (it’s a British publication) which do not exist in the US except for government and union workers – most of the US population has no pension and has self funded retirements, which require that they spend their lifetime saving and investing their own money.
Meanwhile, we have this little problem:
After our youngest was off to college, we did, in fact, downsize (in 2013) from a home where we raised 3 kids, to a much smaller home – there were reasons we wanted to move to a new location, anyway, and choosing to do so enabled us to go through a lifetime of things accumulated while raising kids, fixing up an old house, etc – literally downsizing. We gave away and donated much, and sold many things that we would no longer need – which led to have less stuff and a simpler lifestyle.
But our approach may not be correct for all. The house I grew up in was occupied by my Mom until she was 85 years old (by today’s standards it was a small home). Part of the issue is that over time, the US has been building ever larger homes.
- 1920: 1,048 square feet
- 1930: 1,129
- 1940: 1,177
- 1950: 983
- 1960: 1,289
- 1970: 1,500
- 1980: 1,740
- 1990: 2,080
- 2000: 2,266
- 2010: 2,392
- 2014: 2,657
“Boombers” (I hate that term) were growing up in homes of 1,000 to 1,500 sq ft.
Today’s Gen Z has been growing up in homes of 2300 to 2700 sq ft and their expectations for home sizes are very different.
As this occurred the number of persons per household dropped sharply. In 1950, there was 300 sq ft per person; today there is typically about 1,000 sq ft per person.
