Shut Up, Boomer!

Kristin Devine

Kristin has humbly retired as Ordinary Times' friendly neighborhood political whipping girl to focus on culture and gender issues. She lives in a wildlife refuge in rural Washington state with too many children and way too many animals. There's also a blog which most people would very much disapprove of https://atomicfeminist.com/

Related Post Roulette

87 Responses

  1. Oscar Gordon says:

    So much to work with here, so little time…

    Let’s just go with, Yep, Boomers suck, they really are the ‘Me, me me!’ generation, and they just don’t quit. No, seriously, they don’t. Boomers have made me pine for a global mandatory retirement age (especially in politics, right Nancy and Mitch?).Report

    • There isn’t a month that goes by that someone in the cohort(s) after the Boomers — of which I am one — doesn’t nag me with, “You’re too talented to be retired. You need to be back at work.”Report

      • Sometimes I wonder, “Do these people have no outside interests except work?” My husband and I both LONG to be retired because we have so many things other than work we enjoy and never have adequate time to do any of them. :/

        In other words, Michael, you’re too talented NOT to be retired!Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Kristin Devine says:

          There was a small essay on twitter the other day that asked the question “how come more boomers aren’t using drugs and retiring so that they can use even more drugs?”

          And the best answer was “There are old men. There are bold men. There are few old, bold men.”Report

        • Marchmaine in reply to Kristin Devine says:

          I’m rounding in on 55 and would happily take a step-back from my ‘high-flying’ sales position and give it to a younger kid – if there was any possible way to ‘step-back’ or manage ‘health-care’ or ‘retire’ but realistically there isn’t… so cling we must.

          20-yrs ago I’d be a young rep talking to a guy my age now (i.e. a boomer) telling me how he was getting bought-out to retire early and was thrilled about it. There are no ‘buy-outs’ for GenX… they don’t buy out your early retirement when there isn’t a retirement plan.

          I don’t have a silver bullet… I suspect Medicare at 55 would change some calculations, it would probably change mine. Corporate work is mostly a pyramid scheme so there aren’t really ‘mentor’ positions or the like… just up or out. In our 50’s we basically become un-reemployable … too expensive to keep, too expensive to hire. So cling we must.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Marchmaine says:

            Earlier penalty-free withdrawals from the 401k!

            Wait. That’s even more depressing.Report

            • Marchmaine in reply to Jaybird says:

              Heh, yeah, I just double checked the latest and it’s still 59.5 for ‘early’ withdrawls without penalties.

              But the morbid humor is that it was people with funded retirement plans who made the ‘rational’ business decision that it would be ‘better’ for the company if people self-funded their retirement.

              An interesting ‘upper left’ policy proposal might be to regulate employer-match requirements… the average cap seems to be approx $5k – $6k if an employee maximizes his contributions to capture the match. Easy if you make $100k, but for the median $55k the realistic employer match is probably closer to $2.75k — assuming you’re still willing to designate 10% of your income.

              If we’re self-funding… could make some laws with 100% matches at LOW income levels tapering to lesser matches for folks who can max out contributions.

              I get that we thought it would be cool to offer retirement programs as a ‘perq’ but as the first generation to experience how cool that is? I’d support a better way for my kids.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Marchmaine says:

                I’d be interested in seeing a cost comparison of 100% employer match (or even employer funding at low levels) for given quintiles versus defined benefit plans. I suspect defined benefit still is more expensive than employers just contributing to a 401K.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                Yeah, there’s probable some wonky paper out there somewhere.

                What I was floored to discover is that the ‘BEST’ possible match is really, really huge:

                Employers rarely match 100% of employee contributions. Even if they do, there is a limit mandated by the IRS. For 2020, employees can contribute up to $19,500 to their 401(k) accounts. Employers can contribute up to $37,500 to reach a combined employee/employer total of $57,000. Employees over 50 can add $6,500 in “catch-up contributions” as well. So that would represent the best possible match – an extra $37,500 put toward your retirement.

                (I’ve never even heard of this being offered… I assume it’s only for, say, limited partnerships? I’m working under the assumption that S-Corps can only have one 401k matching program? but maybe I’m wrong?).

                The same site says that the ‘average’ (this is a policy number that should always look at median, not average) employer contribution is 4%

                So… somewhere between $2k per year and $37.5k per year is an employer sweet-spot. Plus, of course, the FICA tax too. I’m not forgetting that.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Marchmaine says:

                Here’s where I wish I could pick and choose benefits, because I would trade the gold-plated health plan I never use for a max employer 401K match. Probably a break even cost on the employers end, but then I have no idea what the tax implications are for the employer to dump money into my 401K.Report

              • JS in reply to Marchmaine says:

                I’ve worked for companies with really good benefits, and nobody matched more than 10%. Most matched 6 to 8%.

                And if you were lucky it was 1:1 all the way to their cap.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Marchmaine says:

                My mortgage still has $X on it.

                I don’t know how to do the math…

                But I don’t know which would be better for me in the long run:

                1. Taking $X out of my 401k and paying off the mortgage and paying mortgage payments (unless there’s an emergency or something) into my 401k until I’m caught back up.
                2. Just making the mortgage payments (and paying a hundred bucks over) for the next Y years.

                I deeply, deeply suspect it’s #1.

                And, if it is, I’m irritated that it’s not an option.
                Heck, even if it’s *CLOSE*, I’m irritated that it’s not an option.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Jaybird says:

                I’m not a financial advisor, but I doubt the 401k plan would work… your returns should be greater than your interest rate… if not, have you looked at interest rates lately? Maybe a re-finance at 10- or 15-yr. would pull it forward.

                PLUS, there’s a decent chance we’re going to ride an inflation wave for a bit… so you might be making those final payments with walk-about money.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Marchmaine says:

                We did a refi to a 20 year loan last year (or last spring… it all blurs together) and our rates are something that I would have considered unthinkable back when I first asked Jeeves about mortgage calculators. (Heck, when we first got the house!)

                And even with our unthinkable mortgage rate, every month when I look at the receipt, I see that I make more payments against the interest than the principal even with paying an extra hundred bucks every month.

                It feels like a grift, I tells ya.Report

              • Things get weird when you’re talking residential real estate along the Colorado Front Range (where JB lives). Several years ago, but less than a decade, we gave our son his “inheritance” early so he had a reasonable down payment on a small condo, with the goal of stabilizing his monthly housing payment. The last time I talked to him, (a) the monthly rent on his last apartment had more than doubled since he moved out and (b) if he sold his condo for the prices the cold-callers are offering, he could pay off his mortgage with enough left over to pay off the mortgage on his SO’s house. She’s a contract employee for NOAA/NCAR — every time the Republicans threaten to shut down the government, they discuss dealing with the mortgages. Being debt- and rent-free opens up a lot of options.Report

              • Maribou in reply to Michael Cain says:

                Yeah, the unreasonable enormous growth rate of housing in this market is the only reason why Jay’s theory #1 even begins to make sense. Not that I’m gonna let him. (I actually have a pretty good handle on the numbers. And on the actual value of our house as opposed to the wishful thinking value. Unlike certain parties who are really surprised every time we talk to a financial advisor to hear how great we are doing. Which is.. why he puts me in charge of the finances at the end of the day >.> But we do think about it regularly because the housing market here is just… so… it’s wild.)Report

          • InMD in reply to Marchmaine says:

            This is what I was going to say and I’m not even that old yet! I expect to be paying to be a parent at least into my late 50s with nothing to land on after but whatever is in my 401(k). I don’t even think earlier Medicare would be a meaningful release valve.

            To get people out early they have to feel like they can land safely with a realistic possibility of living another 20-30 years. One of the fun parts of our economy is that day will never come for the vast majority of people even the relatively affluent.Report

            • Marchmaine in reply to InMD says:

              Right, for regular folks who can barely fund their 401k’s it wouldn’t do much… for me? It might be the difference between stepping back vs. using penalized funds to basically pay for health-care premiums – vs. just clinging to the job until they fire me for being old, but not really for being old… that’s illegal.

              Plus as JB notes above, it’s not like the govt program allows you to consider other options before 59.5… even if you have enough saved to consider other options.Report

      • Oscar Gordon in reply to Michael Cain says:

        2 Points – There is some evidence that the “Great Resignation” is powered quite a bit by older workers (as in, older Americans are opting to exit the workforce). Couple that with a younger workforce unwilling to accept the offers on the table, and you get the current labor issues.

        I was listening to NPR (I wish I could find a link) and it had a discussion around how older elected officials should retire from office, but could still serve as party advisors to younger candidates. There is nothing to suggest that a similar tack wouldn’t have value across industries. That would probably be preferable to the normal route the Lazy B would take of allowing a senior engineer to retire without giving them an opportunity for knowledge transfer, then hiring them back at a contractors rate and putting them back to work (and still not giving them an opportunity for knowledge transfer).

        As a matter of fact, the inability of corporations* (and perhaps the public sector as well) to accept the reality that knowledge transfer that did not happen organically over the course of a career will require a charge line in the budget system (probably to the dreaded ‘overhead’) is a big part of why your talent is still desired.

        *Which are run by Boomers, for the most part.Report

      • JS in reply to Michael Cain says:

        I’m Gen X. I’m resigned to the fact that, when the Boomers above me are replaced when they finally die, it’ll be Millennials to bring in “fresh new outlooks”.Report

        • Oscar Gordon in reply to JS says:

          It is our fate to be over-stepped, and we knew it early on, hence our overly strong sense of apathy and fatalism.Report

        • Michael Cain in reply to JS says:

          Well, I’m out of everyone’s way and have no intention of going back to that rat race. I have a whole list of small software projects, and one open-ended social science research project (with a number of applied math modeling sub-questions), to satisfy any urges I feel in those directions.

          My children always told their friends, “Yeah, Dad’s cool, but weird.” I anticipate the granddaughters saying the same thing.Report

        • Saul Degraw in reply to JS says:

          It is a matter of a population size. There are lots of Boomers (who also have way too large an age range. My parents are Boomers as are people who were born in the late 1950s/early 1960s. My dad was theoretically capable of being drafted into Vietnam. Someone born in 1956 or 1963 was not. These are very different experiences). Gen X is a pretty small group in terms of population size. The Millennials were another baby boom. Gen Z looks like it will be a baby bust.*

          *The way this played out for me was college admissions. I was able to punch above my weight for college admissions because there was less competition. If I was born 3 or 4 years later, I would have been drowned out by my cohort. Apparently colleges are freaking out about a demographic cliff in a few years lowering the number of applicants.Report

          • dhex in reply to Saul Degraw says:

            there will be significantly fewer hs grads over the next 10ish years or so, with birthrates falling for almost all domestic populations (outlier is recent immigrants from central and south america, or at least was in 2015).

            a connected issue is the lower expected family contributions (fafsa talk) for these populations, coupled with increased demands for student support, disability/learning disability accommodations, and mental health services in particular.

            in short, fewer kids, more needs, increased costs per student hour of instruction, etc etc so if you have a kid trying to go to college in the next five years or so, play hardball with financial aid. treat it like car shopping, where you pit competing groups against each other via their offers. some will play moneyball, some will not, but it’s generally worthwhile to try and work with them overall.Report

        • j r in reply to JS says:

          This gets interesting when you look at the numbers. There are approximately 65 million Gen Xers alive in the United States right now, compared to 71 million Boomers and 73 million Millennials. Fewer Xers for sure, but not so much as to explain the eclipse.

          But a higher percentage of Gen Xers are immigrants, which means that there were more Millennial and Boomer kids than Gen X kids. As I wrote in my comment below, a lot of this is driven by pop culture and pop culture is largely driven by advertising and advertising is driven by demographics.

          Pop culture focused on Boomers for far too long and then jumped to Millennials far too early, which significantly narrowed the window allotted to Gen X. Personally, I view this as a good thing. Being a latchkey kid (the opposite of helicopter parenting), growing up in NYC in 70s and 80s, being too old to care about the Disney renaissance, not being online until I was in my 20s, I credit all of these things with being a happy, healthy well-adjusted adult.Report

    • I am SHOCKED by the number of people I work with (at the WWII newsletter) who are still at work into their late 70’s and 80’s. Some of them (God love ’em) are not exactly firing on all cylinders, either – can’t use technology, fear change – even things like PayPal, behave in ways that are not acceptable in 2021, are very forgetful, etc. Making laws like mandatory retirement is very much not my cup of tea (except for politicians, LOL, all in on that) but boy, it would have been nice to see those opportunities open up for people in mine and your age group, Oscar.

      As I look back over the course of my and my husband’s working careers, and now our adult sons have started careers too, we get to this point over and over again where we’re perpetual underlings for someone higher up the pecking order and no matter how hard we work or how much education we attain (my husband went back to school about ten years ago) there’s never room to advance, there’s no reward to be had, and the pay never gets any better than one step above entry level.

      Kinda discouraging sometimes.Report

      • Brandon Berg in reply to Kristin Devine says:

        This is focused more on automation and immigration than on retirement, but the principle is the same. Jobs are not a scarce resource. Boomers staying on the job later not only does not take opportunity away from later generations, but means that we don’t have to pay as much in taxes to support retirees.

        https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2021/january/refuting-lump-labor-fallacy-two-lessonsReport

        • Oscar Gordon in reply to Brandon Berg says:

          One, Lump of Labor treats all jobs as jobs, i.e. the jobs at the Executive level is counted the same as the jobs at Entry Level. Two, Lump of Labor is concerned with the long term trend, and your link even says that things like recessions can have ‘short term’ impacts.

          So we have two caveats, how long is long-term and short-term? Is it long enough to damage a career by creating an employment gap that gets flagged by software, or by creating the appearance of career stagnation because the short term recession caused a lack of opportunities? The second caveat is the quality/level of opportunities. If you have an aging population that occupies the bulk of top-level positions and refuse to exit, then we need to look not just at the number of jobs added to the market, but the levels those jobs exist at and the risk involved in leaving a workplace where advancement opportunities are largely shut-out*, for a start-up or younger company that is not as established. Again, LoL doesn’t look at the relative risk of those jobs, only that they are jobs.

          Finally, as for tax support, SS & Medicare are effectively fixed, are they not? These are essentially entitlements. You hit a certain age, and you start drawing on them, regardless of need. So what additional tax burden are retirement age citizens imposing on us, aside from not being required to have a DNR order at some point? How many retirement age persons do not have sufficient savings to live without working? Are we examining and criticizing those persons and their spending habits the way we do younger people? Shouldn’t we be telling them to stop living in expensive cities or insisting on living by themselves for the sake of their dignity?Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

      Nancy and Mitch are not Boomers. Boomers were born between 1946-1964 give or take. So the youngest Boomers are still in their 50s and a long time away from retirement. Also Nancy has no indulgement of anti-vaxx anything and it is a bit of a BSDI to compare them,

      That being said, I agree that the U.S. currently seems to have a big issue with gerontocracy. My parents were born in 1946 and 1947. You can argue that they did not really come into political prominence until 1992 when Clinton was elected (first boomer President) and a lot of Boomers were elected to Congress. It is nearly 30 years from that election and Boomers are still dominant in politics. Meanwhile, I am over 40, have a mortgage and a job, and still feel at times like my cohort is kept at the kid’s table in many ways. Plus lots of our bosses are still Boomers who refuse to retire.Report

      • Oscar Gordon in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        My dig at Nancy & Mitch was less about Boomers and more about people not effing retiring and making room for others (thus the mandatory retirement bit*).

        *Note that if we did have some kind of global mandatory retirement, we’d have to have much more robust and meaningful social security, or something.Report

        • Saul Degraw in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

          Good luck with that. I have a theory that a loot of boomers and remaining silents, especially if they are well-compensated, white collar professionals, think retirement = death. They have outlived “hope I die before I get old” and the next step to that is “hope I don’t die.”

          Greatest Gen types remembered the grinding poverty of the Depression and the hell of WWII. Retirement must have been a minor miracle to them as a concept. Before that it was work until dead.Report

          • Oscar Gordon in reply to Saul Degraw says:

            “Before that it was work until dead.”

            Yep, and usually you were dead before 65, so you still exited the workforce.

            Like I said, I doubt we could do any kind of mandatory retirement without really stepping up social security or strengthening 401Ks.Report

  2. Slight disclaimer about this piece – there is a small element of fat-shaming here, which as some of you already know, is very much not what I am about at all. Not only do I think fat shaming is gross and wrong, an opinion I’ve gone public with on several occasions (here’s one) https://atomicfeminist.com/2019/05/01/mata-hairy/ I am also fat myself, as is my husband and two of my kids. Anyone who feels offended by that element of this piece, I apologize.

    I included that note in my piece because being overweight truly does raise your risks of dying of Covid considerably, and also because it’s yet another arena where Baby Boomers think they can have their cake, and eat it too (literally) in the form of making a lifetime of personal choices that were very much not optimal for health, yet now expect other people to then be forced to give up their entire childhoods, teen years, and young adulthoods to protect them in no small part because of that choice. It felt important to me to not gloss over that when making my case.Report

  3. Doctor Jay says:

    You said:

    The issue is this: posting inflammatory crap for the sake of posting inflammatory crap is not and never has been meant to persuade anyone. These memes are nothing more than a way for a bunch of entitled people who get off on feeling superior to chest bump each other and get a momentary rush over it. They feed an us vs. them mentality, of the sort we have more than enough of in our country already, and that mindset never, ever comes along with us being our best selves.

    I agree with this. I see this all the time. I really don’t like this behavior at all.

    AND, I’m a Boomer. I didn’t choose this. It just is.

    ‘The problem I have with your post is that you tied an irritating and destructive behavior to a non-chosen identity. That’s a giant problem. I hope I don’t have to explain why.

    And by the way, I’m pretty sure there are lots of people out there who post irritating and judgmental memes, intended to produce a chest bump with fellow travelers, to get those likes, and based on us vs them, on other topics, and who aren’t Boomers at all. Nor are the memes promoting a view from the left, but from the right.

    Us v. Them is deeply etched on our souls. It isn’t determinative, it’s just a very likely tendency. It acts on everyone.Report

  4. rexknobus says:

    And a Very Merry Vitriol to you as well!Report

  5. Marchmaine says:

    Daaayaaamn… as much as I like me some Boomer Bustin’ I felt like I should spritz a little water on some of the flames here.

    I take your point about the Boomer narcissism… we GenX can spot it a mile away. But my experience of the Covid-Lifestyle clique has been more Millennial/GenX crossover. So some of this feels, to me anyhow, like we’re flaming the meme spreaders not the meme makers.

    Oh well, I’m in the ‘sane’ camp that thinks people should avail themselves of the vaccine to mitigate against a disease that we’re going to get as it becomes endemic. It is prudent to get the vaccine, and the best policy is to keep them free, easy to get and ubiquitous. The less we talk about them, the better. Get the vaccine, go about your business. Everyone else? Shhhh.

    There is no Zero-Covid option (and there never was). When you get Covid, you want to get it vaccinated.Report

  6. Jaybird says:

    Socialize the losses and the costs.
    Privatize the profits.

    It’s a sweet gig, if you can get it.Report

  7. Burt Likko says:

    1. It’s interesting to me that the OP touches on memes and other social media communications from Boomers that mock the unvaxxed. What I see from the Boomers in my life are the converse: mocking vax advocacy, mocking caution about Covid-risky interactions, exasperation with pro-vax people and Covid-prophylactic rules, distrust/resentment of vaccines and masks. And the mockery and inflammatory emotions projected in those memes, those messages is every bit as polarizing and every bit as unpersuasive as the ones discussed in the OP.

    2. Messages like the ones at the root of the OP’s complaint are probably filtered to each of us individually such that the algorithms are steering us to engage with things that inflame our passions and arouse our anger and fear. By lightly and repeatedly tapping at your amygdala, the social media machines keep your eyes and minds and attention focused on themselves and therefore capture you as an audience. Be aware, even as you feel those stimuli, that this is manipulation, and you need to emotionally distance yourself from it if you want to make an autonomous rather than a reactive decision about what you see and what you do. (This is not always easy to do.)

    3. I suspect vaxxing or not vaxxing is probably a political/cultural phenomenon rather than a generational one. It’s easy for we X’er/Millenial types to project our resentments on Boomers. After all, Boomers, especially in the USA, won kind of a historical lottery in the amount of wealth and power the world offered them. They have hubris was thinking that those changes were somehow permanent. I’ve got to think that we’re basically jealous of the unusually good historical hand of cards our parents got dealt as we experience a sort of reversion-to-mean phase of history, so that allows us to find generational common ground even as we differ on other matters.

    4. Maybe debate is bad. After all, debate and argument they are practiced in our world don’t really exist to persuade. Debate is not about figuring out who is right about what, nor to advance the participants and audience towards the truth. It’s about rhetorical tactics and the goal of a debate is to win. while Memes, particularly the ones using sharp, cutting humor, are a rhetorical tactic that, if they are aimed at anything at all, are aimed at winning a debate rather than convincing others that they are right: entertainment value makes a statement more appealing. It may be that the best we can hope for out of debate is an articulation of what people of different perspectives think, and even then we need to take it with a grain of salt because what is said in the fire of debate typically generates heat but not light.Report

    • Greg In Ak in reply to Burt Likko says:

      There is a great podcaster/creator Dylan Marron who doesn’t like debate. He has a concise description of debate as ” gamified conversation” which gets to the problem. Gamified communication is all about winning something which is not going to lead to learning anything. He also often says “empathy is not endorsement” which is good to keep in mind if we want to fully hear someone and helps move productive conversations along. I think he is right in both quotes.Report

      • Burt Likko in reply to Greg In Ak says:

        I guess this begs the question of “Why do you come to a place like Ordinary Times and bother with the comments sections at all if you think debate is bad?” In part, it’s that I’ve come to like a lot of all y’alls; in part it’s what Saul and I discuss below; in part it’s rare that I read anything here that changes my mind, but sometimes I do, and that’s a remarkable pleasure indeed.Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Burt Likko says:

      “1. It’s interesting to me that the OP touches on memes and other social media communications from Boomers that mock the unvaxxed. What I see from the Boomers in my life are the converse: mocking vax advocacy, mocking caution about Covid-risky interactions, exasperation with pro-vax people and Covid-prophylactic rules, distrust/resentment of vaccines and masks. And the mockery and inflammatory emotions projected in those memes, those messages is every bit as polarizing and every bit as unpersuasive as the ones discussed in the OP.”

      Or as the meme goes in my part of the social media world:

      “Your parents in 1996: Don’t trust anything on the internet.

      “Your parents in 2016: Freedomeagle at facebook.com states that Hillary Clinton invented aids.”

      Now this is not my parents who were always liberal, being that I am basically descended from a New Deal, Jewish New York families.* They took COVID seriously and everyone was vaccinated and boostered as soon as possible. Basically, I think you are spot on for number 3 as well especially the first part and probably the rest of the paragraph but since I am a liberal and the OP is not, the anti-boomer stuff I see is all about mocking “Old Economy Steves,” people who stiill think Regan is the bee’s knees (some boomers and older Gen Xs had their 20s coincide with the Reagan 80s), and sorryantivaxxer.com stuff. Mike Lindell is a boomer as are lots of other die-hard Trumpists.

      Even Babitz (technically not a boomer but a late Silent) died recently. In the 1960s and 1970s, she was known as a Hollywood IT girl who dated movie stars and other celebs, both men and women. She also wrote essays and books about good times in Hollywood during these wild days. She is the women in the famous photograph of a nude woman playing chess with a 76-year old Marcel Duchamp. According to her obit, she suffered a bad burn accident in the late 1990s which turned her into a recluse. During this period, she started listening to talk radio and made a big right-wing turn. I don’t know if this last paragraph is related to anything in your post but it does seem to go with how a lot of media triggers reaction.Report

      • Burt Likko in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        Your brain is like the rest of your body — it works with the raw material you feed it. If Ms. Babitz began a diet of nothing but right wing talk radio it is unsurprising that she intellectually became what she intellectually consumed.

        Let’s all make a point of keeping a heterogenous mental diet.Report

        • Saul Degraw in reply to Burt Likko says:

          The Bulwark is okay and French can write some stuff every now and then but I have grown skeptical that being exposed to all ideas neutrally is an unalloyed good. A lot of it can be vile (outright Trumpist fascism) or a lot of deliberately obtuse concern trolling that gets lapped up by the kind of liberal too broadminded to take their own side in a fight.Report

        • JS in reply to Burt Likko says:

          Best thing we ever did for my grandparents was to convince them to only watch the news from 5:00 to 6:00, and only local news.

          They calmed down considerably. 24-7 news channels really prey on anxiety, as it’s a constant drumbeat of the same stuff that makes it sound incredibly urgent and important.

          The evening news hour will always try the “Are pedophiles driving your kids to school” stuff, but it’s..one story, once a day.Report

      • Rufus F. in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        Her first book is a wonder. The others were good, for the most part. I was glad she got “rediscovered” while she was still alive to appreciate it. The bio on her is fine, but like I said here, read her first book:
        https://ordinary-times.com/2020/02/09/sunday-morning-hollywoods-eve-and-eves-hollywood/Report

    • j r in reply to Burt Likko says:

      ” After all, Boomers, especially in the USA, won kind of a historical lottery in the amount of wealth and power the world offered them. They have hubris was thinking that those changes were somehow permanent. I’ve got to think that we’re basically jealous of the unusually good historical hand of cards our parents got dealt as we experience a sort of reversion-to-mean phase of history, so that allows us to find generational common ground even as we differ on other matters.”

      I find this to be such an odd claim. I kind of get it. The Unites States occupied a very special position at the end of WWII. Much of Europe was in ruins. A good portion of the world was behind the Iron Curtain. And Asia was still desperately poor. The U.S. had half the world’s productive capacity, which allowed for an economy that brought an awful lot of Americans out of poverty.

      At the same time, poverty during the 1950s and 1960s was still high by present-day standards. The high school graduation rate was in the 60th percentile and only about 15% of people graduated college. And the level of consumption for middle class Americans was much lower than it is today. I tend to think that a lot of nostalgia for the post-war era comes from people assuming that they would be born into a stereotypical white upper middle class, suburban family. The reality was more prosaic, although I suppose some people put a very high value on living during a time of palpable progress and the present-day certainly feels as if progress has stalled.

      I don’t know how to resolve this. But perhaps let’s try a thought experiment: Tomorrow, you walk outside your front door. The sky opens up and the Lord God herself descends from the heavens and says, “My child, I have bad news and good new. The bad news is that this life is over for you. The good news is that you will be reborn into a new life. You cannot choose who you will be in this new life. You cannot choose your gender, your ethnicity, your sexual orientation or how wealthy or poor of a family you will be born into. However, you will be an American citizen. And you can choose the year of your birth.”

      Given those parameters, how many people are choosing to be born between the years 1946 and 1964?Report

      • Burt Likko in reply to j r says:

        I’d rather take my chances of being poor and in a racial minority in the 1960’s than in the 1860’s. Not that it’d be great. But being poor, gay, minority, etc. would present very serious problems no matter when you pick to come back.

        The real question is whether you’d take the Boomer years or you’d take a re-do of the X’er life. I don’t think I’d really want to go back any further than being born during or before WWII.

        The allure of selecting into the Boomer era would be that opportunities to make good were much more abundant than they’d ever been before and, like the pessimistic X’er that I am, more abundant that I suspect they will be again for a long time.

        Another downside to the game, but one that I think is going to be as universal as the risk of being in a disadvantaged group, is that until about the 1990’s, everyone smoked, like, all the time and I remember what it smelled like from my childhood. Nasty.Report

    • Em Carpenter in reply to Burt Likko says:

      I was going to say the same re: 1. It may be because I’m West Virginian but yeah, the overwhelming majority of boomer meme-ing I see mocks the pro-vax contingent. My vaxxed and boosted mother included, though hers are less about vaccines and more about the other pandemic related restrictions (she really loves those “special kind of stupid” memes, specifically with a photo of Sam Elliot on them.)Report

    • DavidTC in reply to Burt Likko says:

      3. I suspect vaxxing or not vaxxing is probably a political/cultural phenomenon rather than a generational one.

      It really, _really_ is. Holding anti-vax views is directly correlated with distrust in the government. Well, sorta: People who trust the government trust vaccines. People who do not trust the government but can separate out ‘medical science’ from ‘the government’ trust vaccines also. People who do not trust the government and think ‘medical science’ is included as part of that also do not trust vaccines.

      This has always been true about vaccines, even well before Covid. Even the anti-vaxers on the left were anti-government, just more in the ‘hippy’ style than the way the right tends to express it. They tend to blame ‘Big Pharma’ and think of the government as dupes vs. people on the right who tend to blame ‘the government’ and think medical science is in their pocket, but it’s exactly the same thing from two different directions.

      (Oh, and as a Georgian, I want to second what Em just said: The vast majority of memes I see are mocking of pro-vax position, and the stuff I see from the other side is trying to use charts and crap to convince people, and is not ‘mocking’ anything.)Report

      • Brandon Berg in reply to DavidTC says:

        But there’s a 25-point difference in COVID-19 vaccination rates between Millennials and Boomers. Adults under 40 are at about 60%, while adults ages 55-75 appear to be at around 85%.

        https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-covid-19/vaccine-tracker

        This makes sense from a rational-but-kind-of-dumb perspective. For older people, not being vaccinated is really dangerous, whereas for people under 40 the risk is fairly limited. The risk-reward calculus still favors vaccination, but not as strongly.

        Your social bubble appears to be the opposite of mine. People I know IRL are mostly peer-pressure Democrats. They can’t rigorously defend their convictions, but they sure do hold them tightly. So I see a bunch of low-info pro-vaxx memes. They’re not wrong about vaccines being good, but the quality of the arguments suggests that they’re right largely by lucky coincidence.

        My Internet bubble is more high-IQ/low-agreeability, so I see a lot of high-effort but subtly fallacious anti-vax stuff involving charts and data analysis. It’s a master class in the perils of doing your own research.Report

        • DavidTC in reply to Brandon Berg says:

          But there’s a 25-point difference in COVID-19 vaccination rates between Millennials and Boomers. Adults under 40 are at about 60%, while adults ages 55-75 appear to be at around 85%.

          So a question there: How much of that was an actual ‘decision’, and how much of that is just that vaccines for older people were available _first_ and got pushed heavily during rollout, and a good chuck of this antivax stuff didn’t get momentum until later, not until after the point that a significant amount of older people were already vaccinated?

          People I know IRL are mostly peer-pressure Democrats. They can’t rigorously defend their convictions, but they sure do hold them tightly. So I see a bunch of low-info pro-vaxx memes.

          I mean, I mostly see what you’re saying, but…memes in real life? What do you mean?

          Anyway, the side that has the minority belief doesn’t get to post very dumb memes and assume everyone will agree with them. They have to rationally state positions, or at least try.

          The Facebook groups I’m in that are merely geographically bound, like my town’s ‘Say What You Want’ group, are, uh, full of rather dumb people, people who seem to be mostly older people, with very uninformed anti-vax memes, and the occasional counter-post of ‘Here are the facts about this nonsense’. They’re full of rather dumb conservatives even outside of that, and I don’t say that because I think conservatives are dumb, I say that because they really are kinda dumb…although a good chunk of that is probably the weird uncritical repeating of things I legitimately suspect are Russian propaganda.

          …which again, is probably due to the assumption that everyone agrees with them, and they don’t _have_ to present intelligent arguments.

          The groups I am in that have other aspects, like theater or tabletop gaming or queer people or whatever, and are often full of younger more-liberal people, and it’s just assumed everyone is pro-vaccine. No one bothers to try to convince anyone of anything…and there really aren’t the memes. If anyone is talking about Covid, it’s ‘Things are looking good.’ or ‘Oh shit, things are looking bad.’.

          Things posted by my friends on their timeline tend to not be memes, but, OTOH, I already don’t follow the people who enjoy posting memes, and for all I know they’re posting a flood of pro- or anti-vax memes, I don’t know.

          Honestly…I think the fact we’re ignoring is that a lot of what is being described in this article is, in fact, TROLLING. It’s deliberately trying to get a reaction. Almost all memes are designed as trolling, which is…why I don’t really follow people who post memes on their timeline, and only see them in groups.

          In fact, talking about social media memes like they somehow have anything to do with reality is…very silly. There are indeed a bunch of heartfelt posts from bother pro- and anti-vax people, making claims they think are logical (Which is unrelated to their actual correctness.), and then there are…memes which was mostly intended to call an entire group of people stupid and the point is to have nine out of ten people say ‘Hell yeah!’ and the tenth react in anger.Report

  8. Jaybird says:

    The Boomer thing kind of reminds me of the White Privilege thing.

    Being a Boomer was easy mode. Yeah, there was a lot of exploitation. Sure, they sold the birthright of others for a mess of pottage.

    The pop culture stole liberally from other places without giving any credit whatsoever.

    But, you know, the music was pretty good.

    Pity about the counter-culture becoming the culture. It was better when it had a well of moral authority to draw from. Now it’s moved from David vs. Goliath to David versus Uriah.

    I’d feel better if there were a Solomon out there. Or had gotten the first half of Solomon instead of the crappy second half.Report

  9. Saul Degraw says:

    Related to COVID but I am currently in Singapore and the COVID public health measures here would probably have most Americans screetching. I am not sure even the most, COVID serious blue cities and states could implement them successfully or without protest. Americans are big, irrational COVID babies.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      For one thing, you’d need a mayor willing to follow their own mask mandates.

      And a citizenry willing to hold her accountable for not doing so.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Jaybird says:

        Why are you such an over grown, miserable middle-school miscreant?

        What value does your trolling add to anything? Who made you the greatest truth teller ever to tell the truth? Why do you think hiding behind “cutesy bootsy, look at me I am a big 9 year old” hides any of this?

        We have been through this. You are taking one account from one media source as the unvarinshied truth that London Breed violated the SF mask mandate because all of your priors are primed to want to jump up and down like a howler monkey and scream hypocrites at Democrats. Meanwhile, in the actual city that voted for her, in the actual state where she resides, it has become a nothing burger.

        What evidence do I have that anything you write is in good-faith?Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

          Saul, you were saying “I am not sure even the most, COVID serious blue cities and states could implement them successfully or without protest. Americans are big, irrational COVID babies.”

          I was agreeing with you.

          And I was using the example of a city leader who was not following her own mandate and, instead of being held accountable for doing so, was defended and it was pointed out that we didn’t have the whole story. Or, pardon me, we didn’t know whether or not we had the whole story.

          What evidence do I have that anything you write is in good-faith?

          I suppose I’d ask you to look at the truth values of the statements. If you find yourself more likely to switch to “I’d rather find reasons to discredit the speaker than look at the truth value of the statements”, I’d suggest that we’re not in a “good-faith” place in the first place.

          (As for “miserable”, I don’t think I am. At worst I’d say I suffer from melancholy but I understand that that goes with the territory of having the soul of a poet.)Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

            In response to “Americans are a bunch of Covid babies”, judges would also have accepted the beam of:

            “We would need the most watched cable news network not to push anti-vax hysteria, while strictly enforcing its own vaccine mandate, and a viewing audience that could accept that.”
            Or:

            “We would need the major opposition party not to push anti-vax and anti-mask nonsense, and a voting base that didn’t demand it do so.”

            Or:
            “We would need the governors of states having our largest populations of at-risk seniors not to actively block sensible pandemic measures, and a voting base that would reward them for doing so.”

            Instead of the mote of “something something mayor so & so.”

            I know that for any given comment, you have a gnawing hunger to find “B-but the Demonrats are worse!!” but with regard to Covid, the Republicans have defeated your very best attempts.Report

            • Saul Degraw in reply to Chip Daniels says:

              Jaybird just has a compulsion to argue the Democrats are worse and sigh about why substack won’t pay him oodles of money.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

              Chip, Saul wasn’t saying “Man, we’d be able to pull this off if only Republicans could get on board” but “Man, even Democrats wouldn’t be on board with this stuff”.

              And I agreed with him, providing him with an example of a democratic politician who flaunted her own mask mandate… not only because it was an example of a democratic leader not following her own rules, but because it was an example that resulted not in “yes, she should follow the rules that she expects others to follow” but “HOW DARE YOU QUESTION A BLUE MAYOR”.

              Freddie had an awesome essay the other day talking about this sort of thing. It’s called “Social Responsibility To Do What?

              He talks about how he’s following all of the rules of vaccination and getting boosted and masking and all that but he’s not impressed with the whole “outsourcing risk to low wage workers” thing that people who have their groceries (or restaurant prepared meals) are doing.

              I know that, for my part, I have done the vaccination and booster and masking thing and, on top of that, I went a year without seeing friends that I missed, I rarely visited family that I very much wanted to visit, and followed all of the so-called “rules” that were put in place.

              When I see leadership say “this is bullcrap, we’re ending the lockdown”, I may think “it’s premature” but I certainly understand how someone might look around and say “this is bullcrap, we’re ending the lockdown”.

              But when I see the leadership say “WE HAVE A MASK MANDATE!” and then see leadership not masking while out on the dance floor, I get the feeling not that leadership is trying to lead, but that leadership is trying to free ride off of my vaccination, booster, masking, etc, status.

              And then when I see people actively defending leadership doing this, I look at the whole “this is bullcrap, we’re ending the lockdown” thing with fresh eyes and see that only one of the leaders is saying “we’re all in this together” to those of us who got the vaccine, got the booster, wore the masks, etc.

              And it ain’t the one defying her own mask mandate.Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird says:

                In this together? Fox has a vaccine mandate.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Mike Schilling says:

                I got my shot on the second day it was available to me (didn’t get scheduled quickly enough). I got my second shot on the first day it was available to me. I got my booster within a couple of hours of getting the text saying I was eligible.

                I did the masking thing. I did the social distancing thing. I abstained from visiting family and friends. I followed the rules.

                I resent the leadership that wrote the rules (and then failed to follow them) far more than the leadership that screamed that the rules were bullshit.

                I did my part. I understand why the people who think that the rules are bullshit don’t want to follow them.

                Why can’t the people telling me how important these rules are follow them?

                Why in the hell do these leaders who do not follow their own rules have so very many ardent defenders?Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird says:

                Fox is paying people a lot of money to say “Don’t worry about it” while making goddam sure no one who believes their BS gets anywhere near them.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Mike Schilling says:

                If I wanted to convince people that covid was dangerous, I’d ask people to ignore what people are saying and, instead, look at what they are *DOING*.

                What I’m gathering is that Fox would be a good example to point out to people that I’d want to convince to get vaxxed and wear a mask.Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird says:

                Fox is a good example because their corporate policy isn’t privileged. I suspect the figures on the Right that are being coy about their states (DeSantis, Carlson, etc.) or flat-out insisting they’re unvaxxed (e.g. Palin) are vaxxed and boosted, but that’s impossible to prove.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Mike Schilling says:

                Well, if we were trying to find overwhelming evidence that Saul was 100% correct that even the most, COVID serious blue cities and states couldn’t implement these anti-COVID policies successfully or without protest, I think we’ve done so.

                We can’t even bring up a politician failing to follow her own mandates without “what about Fox! What about red states!” questions.

                Say what you will about Singapore, but if Lim Hwee Hua was seen maskless on the dance floor for the second time in three months, Singaporeans would not be asking “but what about India?!?” when questions started being asked.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Republicans and the entire conservative political world have been overwhelmingly worse on Covid, both in their words and actions, than any combination of Democrats.

                This is objectively true.

                Just take the point and move on.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Chip, while I appreciate that you want to argue against the point of “who is better on Covid”, I’m interested in Saul’s point of “I am not sure even the most, COVID serious blue cities and states could implement them successfully or without protest.”

                Get this: I AM AGREEING WITH HIM.

                Why? Because even examples of COVID serious blue cities failing to implement their own half-assed public health measurements do not get responses of “yeah, there’s no way we could do what Singapore did… not even in COVID serious blue cities” but “WHAT ABOUT CONSERVATIVES WHO DON’T THINK COVID IS A BIG DEAL?!?!?”

                Saul was 100% correct. 100%.Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird says:

                Because, even confronted with a deadly disease, we are all 12-year-olds yelling “It’s not fair!”?

                I’m not going to disagree.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to Mike Schilling says:

                DeSantis and Carlson are obviously vaccinated. I can see Palin and Boebert bein dumb and defiant true believers.Report

            • We would need the major opposition party not to see their leader’s saying “I took the vaccine and you should seriously consider it” as the ultimate betrayal.Report

  10. j r says:

    At some point, millennials are going to realize that they are just ‘Boomers +40 years’ and that is going to cause a serious crisis of self-regard. But don’t worry, I am sure that Gen Z and whoever comes next will treat y’all with all the kindness and understanding that you deserve.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to j r says:

      I’m hoping that the habit of naming generations will die out.

      Until the Boomers it wasn’t a thing and it really doesn’t need to be a thing.

      The only reason the Boomers were called “the Boomers” is because there was a boom in births in the post-war period.

      There wasn’t any connective tissue that bound that age cohort together,. not any more than any other generation before or since.

      The media likes to craft a definition of them- e.g. they all listened to rock & roll, drank Pepsi, and were hippies but that was never true. It was true of a very narrow band of the cohort (typically the demographic of the sons and daughters of the people who create media), but was false for a much larger band.

      Gen X, Millennials, Gen Z, whatever…there really isn’t any useful point in throwing a term over the entire age cohort. It doesn’t give us any better understanding of them than say, defining them by some other demographic metric.Report

      • j r in reply to Chip Daniels says:

        I agree to an extent that these categories are vapor. But (and this is a big but) pop culture goes a long way towards defining our reality and pop culture takes these categories seriously.

        There are a series of stories that we tell about America from the 1950s to the 1980s (the innocence of the 50s, the rebellion of the 60s, the hedonism of the 70s, and the tack towards stability in the 80s). These stories just happen to map quite well onto the age and stages of development of the Boomer generation. That kind of thing creates its own reality.Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to j r says:

          There was this great movie called Cooley High, about four high school buddies in 1964. When I first read the synopsis and read that it had a “great soundtrack” I was eager to see it, assuming it would have a lot of Beatles, Elvis and Stones songs.

          But those groups didn’t even exist in the movie; The soundtrack was all Motown stuff, because this was a story of four black high school buddies.

          The movie had this weird feel, unlike any “early 60’s” movies that i had seen. Weird because the world these kids inhabited was not the Boomer world that the media likes to talk about of beatniks and mods and rockers and budding hippiedom.

          The movie Platoon made a point of this, that the Boomers in the movie were splintered into various tribes- the Willem Dafoe tribe of suburban hippie types, and the Tom Berenger redneck types.

          I think the distance between groups within an age cohort are wider than the distance between cohorts.Report

      • The Lost Generation was a thing, thought it was a tiny fraction that got to go to Paris, drink, and pretend to be artistes.Report

      • The reason you see so many Millennial vs Gen Z vs Boomer headlines is because its click bait for publishers. These comments are case in point. Stats on this story are probably through the roof.

        Generational terminology will never die out because we are a nation of narcissists. What are they saying about “us” now??? Click, click, click …Report

  11. I guess we’ll never get to be the fun grandparents; we’ll always be the uncool parents that ask if you’re going to go outside dressed like that.Report

  12. Rufus F. says:

    I honestly think Boomers get better once they get away from media. My mother went through an period where all she wanted to talk about was Obama putting conservatives in concentration camps and how we force unwilling women to have abortions in Canada, because of Communism, obvs. What made it painful, rather than irritating, was she was so fishing dour and miserable all the time. She started telling me she was happy to die soon because she won’t see America fall, and other cheerful things.

    Then, mirabile dictu! she stopped watching “the news” and started reading the e-books I’ve been sending her (she’s also an avid reader) and she’s noticeably happier. I would like to hope she will be happier for the rest of her life, however much is left.Report