Sixth in a series of essays
Ruben Navarrette recently criticized young Americans who are lobbying the government for financial help and financial advice in these tough times:
Young people usually don’t have mortgages to pay off, or spouses and children to support. That gives them an enormous amount of freedom whether they realize it or not. They also have an advantage in the job market because they can travel the country and go where the jobs are. Or they can simply follow their passions and build careers of their own designs. Instead of seeing obstacles, they should see opportunities.
And yet, when young people ask government to throw them a life preserver and save them from the choppy waters of a rough economy, they’ve all but given up. Even if they get the short-term economic aid they’re seeking, they’ll lose their self-sufficiency in the process and become dependent on an unresponsive bureaucracy. That’s not good. In fact, it’s dangerous.
So you have to wonder where young people picked up this distasteful and destructive behavior. It’s obvious. It was from watching their elders with outstretched palms, a sense of entitlement, and a tendency to see government as the solution to all sorts of problems. And to think there are people who actually believe that.
Navarrette misses the point. As he himself notes earlier in his column, young Americans are more disproportionately unemployed than other demographics. I would likely not be surprised at the number of people in Generation Y who depend on bad-debt car finance, a certified financial planner, or financial planning software to make ends meet.
But the problem is much deeper than jobs.
Just like Generation X two decades ago, Generation Y is increasingly bitter and frustrated to the point of losing all hope that they will one day have a life at least as secure — and not even as prosperous — as the Baby Boomers did in their middle-aged lives. (For the record, my birth year — 1980 — is stuck between Generation X and Generation Y, so I can empathize with both.) It is hard to quantify the pessimism and anger that pervades the younger generation, but a writer named Squashed comes close:
The word “entitlement” has picked up a negative connotation it shouldn’t have. If you go to the bank and deposit $20, you are entitled to get your $20 from the bank. If you fulfill your half of a contract, you are entitled to the other party’s performance. Sure, its a problem when you feel you deserve something you don’t deserve—but there is nothing wrong with acknowledging a legitimate debt. So let’s ask why some people in their 20s might feel the older generation hasn’t kept its end of the bargain…
For those who just graduated, there was no job. That’s not technically true. There was a job—but somebody older has it and isn’t letting go. It turns out the whole system is rigged. Education and intelligence and everything we were told was important turn out to be worth nothing next to seniority and experience…
Take health insurance. Decades of pressure to lower wages for new hires and cut benefits means that the employer-provided system means that even if you can find a job, it probably won’t offer health insurance. Paying for insurance out of pocket is prohibitively expensive if you’re healthy and coverage is entirely unavailable if you’re not. And if you have a minimum-wage job serving coffee, you’re still getting a chunk taken out of your paycheck to finance a program that won’t be solvent by the time you’re old enough to use it. But any effort to change this system is met with seniors screaming about communists taking away their medicare. And if 20-somethings back a legislative initiative that would help them obtain coverage, they’re slackers living in their parents basements. And let’s not even get into the individual mandate in the health-reform bill that will require the healthy and young to subsidize the health-care of their older and generally wealthier parents.
Should twenty-somethings who have done everything asked of them their entire lives feel like somebody pulled one over on them? Probably—but bad things happen. And hopefully all those years of education taught us enough empathy not to be vindictive. Call us gullible—but don’t call us lazy or selfish. If some of us push for a few reforms that could help us succeed even when our parents have dropped the ball—back them, and be thankful that we’re not talking outright revolution.
In an earlier essay, I also described the reasons that people my age are — to put it bluntly — pissed off. Please take a minute to read the post and its comments. Now, for the specific data from the Pew Research Center:




Now, what facts can be determined from this data?
- The percentage of workers who are approaching or older than 65 is increasing while that of younger people is declining or remaining static.
- Most workers who remain on the job past the age of 65 do so out of desire rather than need.
- Still, some older workers have delayed retirement due to the recession.
In a nutshell, it is the Baby Boomers’ own fault that their children are working at McDonald’s or sleeping in their basements. For the most part, the older generation is refusing to retire simply because they want to work. Those who may need to delay retirement because their portfolios have declined either had idiots for financial advisers, or they made bad investments themselves. (By the age of 60, almost all of your investments should be in stable bonds rather than volatile stocks. And don’t get me started if you flipped houses or bought property during the height of the housing bubble.)
Critics like Navarrette usually say that every generation has had tough times and that younger people should pick themselves up by their bootstraps. Well, here is a secret: My generation has no bootstraps! The most extreme members of my generation feel that there is nothing we can do until the Baby Boomers literally die off. Until then, we are stuck with schemes like financial spread-betting, guaranteed car-finance, and bad-credit car finance. Even a finance degree probably does little.
But even that might pose a problem. Read this insightful — and scary — article in the Atlantic Monthly on how the “longevity boom” will wreak havoc on American society:
In the scientists’ projections, the ongoing increase in average lifespan is about to be joined by something never before seen in human history: a rise in the maximum possible age at death. Stem-cell banks, telomerase amplifiers, somatic gene therapy—the list of potential longevity treatments incubating in laboratories is startling. Three years ago a multi-institutional scientific team led by Aubrey de Grey, a theoretical geneticist at Cambridge University, argued in a widely noted paper that the first steps toward “engineered negligible senescence”—a rough-and-ready version of immortality—would have “a good chance of success in mice within ten years.” The same techniques, De Grey says, should be ready for human beings a decade or so later. “In ten years we’ll have a pill that will give you twenty years,” says Leonard Guarente, a professor of biology at MIT. “And then there’ll be another pill after that. The first hundred-and-fifty-year-old may have already been born…” From religion to real estate, from pensions to parent-child dynamics, almost every aspect of society is based on the orderly succession of generations. Every quarter century or so children take over from their parents—a transition as fundamental to human existence as the rotation of the planet about its axis. In tomorrow’s world, if the optimists are correct, grandparents will have living grandparents; children born decades from now will ignore advice from people who watched the Beatles on The Ed Sullivan Show. Intergenerational warfare—the Anna Nicole Smith syndrome—will be but one consequence. Trying to envision such a world, sober social scientists find themselves discussing pregnant seventy-year-olds, offshore organ farms, protracted adolescence, and lifestyles policed by insurance companies. Indeed, if the biologists are right, the coming army of centenarians will be marching into a future so unutterably different that they may well feel nostalgia for the long-ago days of three score and ten.
“[A]lmost every aspect of society is based on the orderly succession of generations.” This is the most important line in the Atlantic article. When an older generation dies off, its wealth, jobs, and responsibilities are transferred, through inheritance and other means, to the younger generation. The next generation uses this capital to obtain jobs, get married, buy homes, raise families, and create more wealth. Then they will die off, and the circle continues. This is how society must function.
Now, however, the circle is broken. Instead of the Baby Boomers transferring their wealth to Generations X and Y, they are getting more money by staying at their jobs and spending their existing wealth on vacations as well as life-extending medicines and procedures (see here and here) rather than passing it onto their children and grandchildren. (I would have added the adverb “selfishly spending,” but I am not sure the natural, inherent desire to prolong one’s life can fairly be described as “selfish.”) Generations X and Y have yet to have the collective wealth, rights, and responsibilities transferred and assigned to them from the Baby Boomers. As a result, young people are stuck in their often-criticized state of perpetual adolescence because we cannot afford the trappings of so-called maturity: marriage, home, and family. (See here, here, and here.)
What else can we do but wait? Still, Navarrette is correct on one point: My generation has more mobility because most of us do not yet have good jobs, spouses, mortgages, and families even though many of are pushing the age of thirty or beyond. As a result, we may need to start looking elsewhere than the United States.
For example, I moved to Israel and found a wonderful job since international marketing experience and native English are in great demand. I am not paying part of my salary into Social Security, a program whose benefits I will likely never see. The government provides universal health-care. My job provides both an employer-matched pension and a retirement fund along with disability and life insurance. (My standard of living is much higher relative to other Israelis than it was in Boston relative to other Americans.) I write this not to brag but to ask: How many young people in the United States have this today? It is no wonder than Generations X and Y are so upset.
Related: Cancel Student Loan Debt (to Save the Economy). Hat tip: Anya Kamenetz. Next essay: On the Jewish-Girl Fetish. Elsewhere: Columnist Dennis Prager apologizes on behalf of the Baby Boomers, though mainly for reasons other than economic ones.
Tags: car finance, financial help, certified financial planner, financial advice, business financial software, legal finance, finance degree, financial planning software, financial consolidation, auto credit finance
Now Available: E-Book download: “Letters from Israel: An American journalist’s adventures in the Holy Land.“
Every little bit helps! Any donations to help us keep writing are much appreciated:
No related posts.

Just what the Internet needs, more Gen-X whining. “My generation REALLY is different. Blah, blah, blah. In 5 years you’ll be back to your young arrogant American self fuming about taxes and government regulations and welfare for the lowlifes. With a real bank account you’ll be screaming for government to get off your back. Gen X is so boring. I’ve been there, done that! Well, except for the real bank account. Stewart(Quote)
Thanks for your intelligent contribution to my blog. Sam Scott(Quote)
Interesting blog, but it’s missing an important part of the equation: Generation Jones (born 1954–1965, between the Boomers and Generation X). Google Generation Jones, and you’ll see it’s gotten a ton of media attention, and many top commentators from many top publications and networks (Washington Post, Time magazine, NBC, Newsweek, ABC, etc.) now specifically use this term. In fact, the Associated Press’ annual Trend Report forecast the Rise of Generation Jones as the #1 trend of 2009. Here’s a page with a good overview of recent media interest in GenJones: http://generationjones.com/2009latest.html
It is important to distinguish between the post-WWII demographic boom in births vs. the cultural generations born during that era. Generations are a function of the common formative experiences of its members, not the fertility rates of its parents. Many experts now believe it breaks down more or less this way:
DEMOGRAPHIC boom in babies: 1946–1964
Baby Boom GENERATION: 1942–1953
Generation Jones: 1954–1965
Generation X: 1966–1978 GTF800(Quote)
You are welcome. Always happy to point out the flimsy and feeble. Hey, without superficiality, this would be an interesting medium, something we need to avoid at all costs, right? Then we wouldn’t be able to read about yet another generation that has lost all hope. Stewart(Quote)
I need to give the author credit for not being sucked into the incredible stupid “Jones Generation” fallacy that is receiving so much hype, probably for commercial potentiality. These greedy nuts want us to believe that a generation, which is based upon, roughtly, the reproduction cycle, they want us to believe kids can have babies at 12 years old on a regular basic.
Note this whole Jones silliness is an organized campaign, one that attempts to take a media fad — hey, anything, especially in these hard times, to sell magazines — into a bigger lie. The Jones group is merely a cohort of the Boomers, that’s all. Generations can’t be 11 or 12, which cuts it from its basis of being a generation. Get real folks. Stewart(Quote)
Actually, you are confusing familial generations with cultural generations. Reproduction age is totally relevant to familial generations (e.g. grandma/Mom/daughter/etc.). But cultural generations (e.g. Boomers/Jonesers/Xers/etc.) have absolutely nothing to do with reproductive age. A consensus has emerged among generation experts that, partly because of the acceleration of culture, generations are now approximately 11–15 years. GTF800(Quote)
And further, the evidence is overwhelming that Jonesers are a distinct generation from Boom & X. For example, Boomers are typically the most Democratic party-voting generation, while Jonesers are the most GOP-voting gen, yet they are lumped together as if they are one gen, simply because both gen’s parents happened to have a lot of kids. Ridiculous. Which is why so many experts buy into the GenJones idea. GTF800(Quote)
Actually, you are confusing a popular fad with social substance. Generations are never familial or sub-groupie, but grounded on reproducing. Without that tie “generation” becomes absurd. For instance, then a generation can be two years long? one year? Every day? Hey, each of us can have our very own generation!
Another deep confusion on your part is all generations are broken down into different groups that have certain differences. This was even true for the World War II Generation, which in certain respects was the most recent generation with a tight consensus.
Baloney on your “experts,” which is a select group of individuals often with a vested interest to distort language and perception. At one time the experts agreed nuclear weapon were a weapon for peace. A one time the experts said Blacks were an inferior race. At one time so-called experts have said everything.
Speed of cultural change merely means there can be more diversity in a culture, but this is not a foregone conclusion. Look at Generation Y today.
In the end, the facts will overwhelm you and the Jones Generation will return to what it always was, late-wave Boomers. Sorry to break your bubble but divorcing generations from reproduction cycle is like divorcing marriage from human beings. It has no meaning, which is why you need to quote the “experts,” who in this case have no credibility. Stewart(Quote)
The added point, if Generations were determined by voting preferences, then the entire categorizing of generations would have to be ripped up. For instance, in the Silent Generation there is a age-cohort that would be Boomer, another that would be WW II, still another would be the Revolutionary Generation. Based on voting preferences there would be no coherence to a generation.
The more I read your propaganda the more I think you guys might be seriously deranged. Stewart(Quote)
Yeah, I’m another X’er, and unlike you I’m taking the low road. Hah.
Sorry, but what I call ‘Boomer Derangement Syndrome’ can be found in all parties. Actually for me, it’s repetition, because 80% of the Boomers I know are burdens on their family or liabilities.
For every Nancy Pelosi I can show you someone who I had to call BS on:
http://mindtaker.blogspot.com/2009/08/boomers-angriest-generation-please.html
That’s not anger. That’s fear. From a ‘Conservative’ Boomer.
I also agree with you, that ‘Gen Jones’ is tripe. It’s just the shirt tails seeing the writing on the wall that their generation will NOT be remembered fondly. No Boomer will.
I think Obama kind of understands this. Despite that he still surrounds himself with chickenhawks [5 deferment boy Biden, just like Cheney], and Boomers like Pelosi. You know, Nancy ‘rhetoric is assassination so shut up all of you’ Pelosi.
Another thing I’d like to bring to your attention is Bruce Sterling’s final talk at the GenX-Y Hacker Con Reboot 11:
http://mindtaker.blogspot.com/2009/09/bruce-sterling-closing-talk-reboot-11.html
The Boomers, of which Barry is the last of the last– is a great orator– but he’s a cheer leader. Not a real leader. Even Sterling can see that.
Where are we headed? Right where Eastern Europe was. Why? See the speech. Drunken Economist(Quote)
Your BDR “can be found in all parties,” do you mean in all people or in all drinking parties? Clarity is not something, evidently, that you value. As one reads through your post one word stands out that explains just about everything, “conservative.” That’s sufficient to sent you into smearing all Boomers and to slam the Speaker. Increasingly Conservative is short hand for alienated pathetic moron, we might call it APM. In this case it appears you have slipped over the line from APM to IM, incoherent moron.
I suggest you stick with the drinking, which you’re attempting to convince everyone, you excel in. Stewart(Quote)
..and I think you mistook Samuel’s ironic ‘complement’ as encouragement to promulgate your incessant blather.
Are we even? My post was about the blog entry, not what you consider ‘discourse’. Drunken Economist(Quote)
Drunken Economist, when you mention eastern Europe, what do you mean? Sam Scott(Quote)
Online Economics Degree, Online Masters Degree in Economics | Considerations // Jun 27, 2010 at 05:47
Online Economics Degree, Online Masters Degree in Economics | Considerations // Jul 2, 2010 at 18:31
True Religion | Jewish Religion | Religion Clothing | Mormon | Considerations // Jul 7, 2010 at 17:07
Online Economics Degree, Online Masters Degree in Economics | Considerations // Jul 10, 2010 at 20:07
UK Dating Service | UK Online-Dating Websites | Considerations // Jul 12, 2010 at 01:39
Student-Loan Financial Help | Student-Loan Financial Advice | Considerations // Jul 13, 2010 at 23:28
Financial Help Generation Y | Financial Advice Generation Y | Considerations // Jul 29, 2010 at 01:27
Online-Dating Websites Single Mothers Online-Dating Agency | Considerations // Aug 5, 2010 at 21:55