Highlights From The Comments On Boomers
Deep Dives
Explore related topics with these Wikipedia articles, rewritten for enjoyable reading:
-
State Pension (United Kingdom)
10 min read
Linked in the article (18 min read)
-
One Big Beautiful Bill Act
11 min read
Linked in the article (56 min read)
-
Social Security Trust Fund
15 min read
The article extensively discusses Social Security sustainability, demographic shifts, tax rates, and intergenerational fairness. Understanding how the Trust Fund actually works - its mechanics, projections, and the 'looming demographic cliff' mentioned - is essential context for evaluating the claims about Boomers preventing reforms and younger generations bearing fiscal pain.
[original post: Against Against Boomers]
Before getting started:
First, I wish I’d been more careful to differentiate the following claims:
Boomers had it much easier than later generations.
The political system unfairly prioritizes Boomers over other generations.
Boomers are uniquely bad on some axis like narcissism, selfishness, short-termism, or willingness to defect on the social contract.
Anti-Boomerism conflates all three of these positions, and in arguing against it, I tried to argue against all three of these positions - I think with varying degrees of success. But these are separate claims that could stand or fall separately, and I think a true argument against anti-Boomerists would demand they declare explicitly which ones they support - rather than letting them switch among them as convenient - then arguing against whichever ones they say are key to their position.
Second, I wish I’d highlighted how much of this discussion centers around disagreements over which policies are natural/unmarked vs. unnatural/marked.
Nobody is passing laws that literally say “confiscate wealth from Generation A and give it to Generation B”. We’re mostly discussing tax policy, where Tax Policy 1 is more favorable to old people, and Tax Policy 2 is more favorable to young people. If you’re young, you might feel like Tax Policy 1 is a declaration of intergenerational warfare where the old are enriching themselves at young people’s expense. But if you’re old, you might feel like reversing Tax Policy 1 and switching to Tax Policy 2 would be intergenerational warfare confiscating your stuff. But in fact, they’re just two different tax policies and it’s not obvious which one a fair society with no “intergenerational warfare” would have, even assuming there was such a thing. We’ll see this most clearly in the section on housing, but I’ll try to highlight it whenever it comes up.
I’m in a fighty frame of mind here and probably defend the Boomers (and myself) in these responses more than I would in an ideal world.
Anyway, here are your comments.
Table Of Contents:
1: Top comments I especially want to highlight
2: Comments about housing policy
3: ...about culture
4: ...about social security technicalities
5: What are we even doing here?
6: Other comments
1: Top Comments I Especially Want To Highlight
…
Sokow writes:
[The anti-Boomer] take has been imported in part from the EU + the UK where the pension system is not
...
This excerpt is provided for preview purposes. Full article content is available on the original publication.