Baby Boomers Unite
Baby Boomers Unite.
So what is it about, all this recent jealousy bitching about the Baby Boomers?
There has been a bleating trend of late that has currently been in vogue from a number of self selected sources focusing some ire onto the “Baby Boomers”. It is intended to express some negativity at the proliferate ‘Baby Boomers’ (BB’s) and it appears, at one time to garner some support to question the moral legitimacy of the benefits that have accrued to the BB’s that may not be available now to later generations. The essence of the bitching covers a number of aspects; arguments to in some way generate a reason for the worsening economic systems of the west, particularly the economy of the UK that has within the past decade become notably depressing. The prime cry is that there are too many of them, (the BB’s) they have got too old; not dying early enough, too rich, too ill, getting or likely to be too dependant on state services, have eroded the opportunities for the following generations, are the main despoilers of the environment, have absorbed / amassed a great deal of the wealth of the nation and now have the numerical power to sway policy decisions in their favour and they are placing ruinous financial burden on future generations (and companies) due to their drawing of their own private (in some cases) and state pensions for a longer period of time. More generally this same aging group are being blamed as corruption the opportunities for the later generation of various younger ages by absorbing much of the wealth of the country in reaching their ‘golden’ years. Such wealth is often measured in the assets they have amassed in house value, holidays, early retirement, good life style and some say, generous now unaffordable, pensions etc, etc and they are hence now blamed for not looking after resources for the generations to follow! It is no surprise that bitching has arisen as this year marks the beginning of the time when the BB's are coming to fruition. The 60+ oldies born with the procreative rush of the last war. The enthusiastic complainants of them are seeing the unravelling of the continual growth of broad wealth, which has been taken for granted by their offspring’s for the past 40 years, now dissolving into austerity from which there may seem to be no return. So someone must be at fault.
After the last war, all the countries that were involved in the ‘manpower’ losses of it had a rebound effect in baby births, which produced a demographic bulge of a large number of people born at the same time and subsequently began moving through the demographic system together. This bulge, with the starting influence of their parents, had the power to affect a number of social trends and it might be argued that in the early years they had the organised strength to affect a number of changes on the political and economic level as well. The people of this bulge and their consequent off springs are now accused of a number of culpable deeds, from laying the foundation of the massive increase in productivity and consumer ability that supported the western economies; to being most responsible for the degradation of future economic and environmental resources driven by their rapacious demands. All concerned to build their own future driven by the pressure of the unrestrained market economy and persuasive sophisticated marketing tools. Their long term concerted effort was to foster the amassing of generous disposable incomes on a whole new range of consumer goods without due regard to a planned future that took into account the future generation requirements, factors that are now hyped as irresponsible. The BB’s are to blame for the economic mess unfolding with the effect of the aged demographic weight.
The demographic problem of an aging population is usually ascribed to the post war baby boom but this is also match by a significant drop in the number of new babies being produced by the following generations as a reflection of the large changes in people’s expectations to consumerism, market shifts, and life style choices. As people get richer they choose not to have the burden of babies. This together with the allowed structural economic productive changes, compounds that generational problem of funding the unwritten social contract.
Whatever the pros and cons of the now resentful arguments laid against the BB’s, (more so now due to the 2008 credit crises and bank bale out) that has exposed countries severe negative economic over exuberance. From the perspective of the current possibly less secure younger generations, it does seem that the future for them has been hocked and they will have to carry the burden of resource erosion. However, it is instructive to remember (particularly for the UK) that the last war had a profound effect on the social structure and attitudes of the population that suffered the privations of it and they who lived through it, were the backbone of the social and industrial change of the 40s-70s pressed forward with their subsequent children, now called the BB’s. Because this bulge moved through the social structure all at the same time, its requirement from the environs it lived in were contradictory manipulated and over time changed. It is how requirements have changed by potentially living too long that is now noticeable and raises problems. These two power blocks (war survivors & BB’s) of age demography wanted and got freedom to do as it sought to better their social standing, freedom from the dictates of ossified class restraints and gross inequality and freedoms which its parentage had earned the right to expect, to manipulate the ruling orders for its own ends. It paid (as was normal) little thought for depletion effect of reducing investment in future assets or resources. After the austerity of the war and post war squeeze, there was it seemed no limit to the redevelopment of a future with greater social and financial improvement for all, one that had no limits.
The social and financial improvements that came were elements that gave rise to the large producer and consumerism of the 70s onwards. It was the BB’s which challenged and re shaped the state of inequitable affairs to give it a comfortable ride albeit that it paid for it with comparatively high taxes, some degree of social unity, union strength and a certain amount of frugalness that avoided taking on debt. Even with the restrain of the times like: rationing, product shortages, HP, credit controls, no credit cards, tight bank account, mortgage rationing and exchange controls; growth was continuous under financial restraints. This learned financial self-control might have been elicited from their own parents from considerable more austere days, which later allowed many of the BB’s to know the value of money and later to afford and enjoy resource acquisition. No doubt they and their parents gained a lot but they fought to challenge and change the remit of politics and big business and it was done when it was not usual to have a car but use public transport, not own a house but rent, pay the tally man, not have foreign holidays, going to university was for the well off and most employees had no employment safeguards at all. The pre war parents and their the BB’s had developed rebellious, anti-establishment attitudes. Attitudes not continued by following generations and it is these tendencies that were actively neutralised from the earned emancipation of the social constraints and class structures, manipulated and controlled by political pressure of vested interest, that shaped political policy capture of the 70’s - 2000’s to erode the strength of social cohesion and union activism.
Consider now also how the way tax and economic generators have been reduced, some would say by this same BB’s age group, yet this baby bulk did not mind paying tax whist it got benefits from it in (free) state, poly-tech and university education, health care, and social safety nets for itself and family. It also challenged the working expectations to improve overall employment standards. But from the early 80’s with political persuasion, some small elements of it and the later post BB’s younger generation accepted arguments to curtail the same improvements and also press to reduce tax to a much lower level. Lower tax became a chimera that offered real gains to the rich but a no win game to all else and the political expediency behind it also allowed the destruction of the hard economic generating bases. Now, so much has been rolled back that the generations to follow are not provided for, corroding the unwritten social contract and in this aspect pensions are the easy perverted focus of attention.
In the UK the pension, education and health provisions are probably the greatest achievement in social improvements; characteristic that should continue to be respected, only bettered or matched by too few other countries in quality or quantity of provision and the BB’s played the most significant part in building it. Because of these BB’s that had and controlled much of the power base of the productive periods of the late 60’s to 90’s+ they unfortunately had to deal with the demand of changing economic and political competitions as well. Lacking the support of the excessive affluent younger ‘yuppies’ 70’s- 80’s generation, eventually built in selfish relaxed systems that subsequently undermined the whole well being of that generation and those to follow i.e. the utilisation of resources from manufacturing, commerce, social contract and oil had been squandered to the extent that from the 1990 onwards the children of today will not have a economic, energy or environmental lenient time to live in. Every aspect of their future has been put in jeopardy with the lack of determined action and foresight to plan for a country’s future. The later part of the 20th century can be said to be one that was of live for the day and hock tomorrow.
The BB’s of the west may well be seen by critics, as the chosen ones, inheriting the rewards of the struggles and hard work of their parents, building up the benefits enjoyed by the children born of the mid 40s to early 1950s. This short window of opportunism which allowed these children to flourish and impact the economics of their generation, now sees them in the fortuitous position of enjoying their later years with some degree of comfort. It has to be said in their defence, that they themselves contributed greatly to the growth and wealth of the country, in that they were the working generation that influenced the direction of policies of the 60s to the late 80s, the period when the foundation were being laid from which the next post BB’s generation of the 70’s onwards would have had to build on.
Unfortunately this same period of the 1970’s has not been as constructive as before, due in no small measure the attitude of the this post BB’s generation being less radical than their parents, less involved in the politics of government and now having to compete for resources and a world position at a time when the resources that will need to be used are considerable less available.
How can a whole post BB’s generation be so negligent in not fighting for their living conditions and their children’s future? Was it because they were so blind and cosseted by the wealth they enjoyed created by the BB’s or did they get cultured from the ideas of their parents and tired of the struggle between themselves and the economic control systems? Were they too pampered to bother?
A view can be taken that the prime responsibility for the current imbalance of resources and opportunism is not the direct fault of the BB’s other than they may have in individual cases, failed to directly inculcate their children with a knowledge of prudence and social conscious for sustainability, the lack of such ideals that has subsequently had a greater compounded effect on their own children! It is the later children of the BB’s that undid the social structure in not challenging the right wing policies of government and the corporate drive in global markets. It is the children of the BB’s and their own subsequent off spring that has much more direct influence in the direction of economic trends that, I would argue, have done the damage to the future out look of the country. Those born from the 60’s lived in a somewhat charmed time; of the post war rebuild that started to come to fruition in the mid 60’s. They never cared to look at the influences affecting their lives, or continue the fight that their parents effected in getting better employment and social conditions. There was some resisting force of corporate capitalism during the 50’s- 70’s, however with no practical challenges from 1979, the ‘right wing’ self-serving attack on the common good so entrenched in the policies of conservatism won out, degradation of the social ‘glue’ that continues today.
I am sure that many of the BB’s do not feel guilty about their current state of affairs. They may be a bit more affluent than their own war parents. But the nature of the current difficulties is caused by their children and their own offspring’s, has all the signs of wanting to turn them, the BB’s, into paupers to prop up the lack of foresight of these now affected by the retrenchment of the good times of global capitalism. There may be, by the BB’s, some small concern for their children and probably more for their grand children’s future but their fighting day is done they have been eased out into retirement with the prevalence of ageism pressures and are less likely to take to the streets but they still do vote, unlike the younger generations. The subtle threats aimed at the BB grows as a smoke screen to deflect the unrolling of the current crises caused by the banks and in this the deputy of the Bank of England Charlie Bean espoused the view that savers (BB’s) should spend their savings to help the economy get going. It cannot be said that is a sage view of any merit, rather it indicates the plain lack of common sense from a representative of a sector that caused the unfolding of economic prudence.
In the most economically (or militarily) powerful country in the world, the USA, such a BB’s ‘problem’ is not or is not recognised as an issue that impacts the endemic social implications. The USA has 30 % of its population that do not have any provision for pensions, all do not have access to free medical aid, many have no expectation of continual social provision and is politically unconcerned with the possible overall social discomfort it is likely to expect as its manufacturing base it relies on gets harder to match competitors. It might be suggested that as it does not have a social contract comparable with the UK / Europe that this, together with the “flexibility” of its labor market, could be the disposable safety net that allows it to be sanguine about issue stemming from the BB’s. Although the USA like other ‘third’ world countries may have more time to contemplate and tolerate communal systemic degeneration from the lack of resources investment or a compatible social contract, other more modern developed societies have not. For regrettably the erosion of the ability to trade and earn ‘disposable’ income from exports / GDP upon which the pillars of a modern social order depends, is being meet with the slow liquidation of the assets of social cohesion, which is occurring much faster in the UK than else where.
This disposability of labour and social fabric is the cost of the much-vaunted global economy; it is one that continues to affect the EU made sharp with the current debt position of the UK, Ireland and Greece. As long as market forces rule the day and multinationals operate outside of social control this will get worse. It is the product of globalisation; money goes to the cheapest and most cost effective world zones. Overall, it brings to conflict the problems between the BB’s and their children’s children giving rise to the angst of the future and xenophobic ageist bitching of late.
The solution to the BB’s is to have them die off. This is not a Logans Run option so steps are being taken to dismantle the state default retirement age of 65, encourage a continuation of a working life and instigate compulsory pension contribution on top of the existing NI & GP. However, as the UK has the lowest state pension in the G7, it is no a coincidence that the UK government has reluctantly shown that it wants to lean towards re-instating the link between pension and incomes, but not yet. This link was taken away by the Thatcher’s Cons but a reinstatement move is delayed until after the next Con/Dem election in maybe 2012. This timing is after the bulk of baby boomers have past their 65th birthday! Some of this age may retire, some might be persuaded (foolishly) to forgo drawing their state pension for a period while they work on, some may work on therefore to die in employment, which is ideal, while others live a bit longer and have their assets practically sequestrated for payment of their long-term maintenance because of their inconvenient longevity.
The idea of people living longer is just a recent phenomenon that actuaries have picked on as a trend that has important implication for pensions, health cost and other older age related demographic issues. It is seen that compared to pre 20 century days when men (being the main worker) died at an early age, many not reaching much beyond their 3 score and 10 in an active state. Now the trend is that, due to a fortuitous period of better health, nourishments and less arduous work; some men are enjoying early retirement and both male and female are living longer – into 80+. These people are living in good active health and more importantly becoming a draw on the both the public state pension and with the past manipulation of private pension contribution; a burden on private corporate pension funds as well. The conjecture is that the benefits to the BB’s, the generational social contract, are no longer affordable and that they are mainly well off; having raped the economic good times without them now having to resort to pulling in the state benefits. Nevertheless, they are not actually wealthy or cash rich. The main wealth resides perhaps in owning a home, some unfortunately obtained thanks to the political bribe of the ‘Right to buy’ and as they get older it becomes more difficult to upkeep this asset and many do not have cash resources to down size. Despite the idea of index-linked pension, too few are enjoying a generous private pension gained at a time when it was considered a deferred payment of income and many will continue to be reliant instead on their accumulated state pension.
Fundamentally it is not the ‘problem’ of people living longer that is the financial demographic problem (the time bomb) or that they may or may not live in good health consuming resources and amassed wealth, denied to following generations. It is a function of a number of eventual fortuitous factors that came together to give advantage to one persuasive generation. The effects of two wars, measured austerity, engaged politics, economic expansion, cheap resources, combatant labour and social fairness; all were factors that laid the foundation of the supposed wealth of the BB’s. It is a coincidental phenomenon that this group are seemingly living longer but it is not surprising given how they lived with moderation and they are now being used as the scapegoat for the deterioration of the state of the nation of the past 30 years, bought painfully onto consciousness with the ongoing affects of Credit Crises collapse.
It is quiet possible that this phenomenon of a long life is short term and that the following generation will not live so long. Many will die off earlier with the excesses of the good life and many of their children will be even worse off in health outlook, with having to work longer, live with environment and economic degradation or suffer obesity and lack of health care, pestilence or war. All things remaining stable, the pension pot will be a little less under pressure for the next 15 years as oldies work on and die off but beyond that is the problem – not enough money is being earned, put aside or economically generated as a country, to for now, fund the social contract of future pensions.
So; what if the younger generation pension pot is likely to be empty? They have less job security, reduced employment terms and condition, have to work longer, have to save up, curtail the credit cards, stop wasting money on all the designer goods, forgo the multiple exotic holidays, rent property, taste austerity and we all will have to live with a devalued earnings. The younger generation may have helped fabricate the coming austere depressive times by not being organised and had dumped the idea of the good society. Independence, self-reliance, selfishness, gluttony and short-term corrupting ideology have weakened their position and created a much greater financial class divide. Fight to get back the benefits you have given away by not being political involved. It is your own self-indulgence and cupidity that has allowed this poor state of affairs to mature But don’t seek to beggar thy neighbour; you just may need the BB’s support.
© Renot 2010
299101445
So what is it about, all this recent jealousy bitching about the Baby Boomers?
There has been a bleating trend of late that has currently been in vogue from a number of self selected sources focusing some ire onto the “Baby Boomers”. It is intended to express some negativity at the proliferate ‘Baby Boomers’ (BB’s) and it appears, at one time to garner some support to question the moral legitimacy of the benefits that have accrued to the BB’s that may not be available now to later generations. The essence of the bitching covers a number of aspects; arguments to in some way generate a reason for the worsening economic systems of the west, particularly the economy of the UK that has within the past decade become notably depressing. The prime cry is that there are too many of them, (the BB’s) they have got too old; not dying early enough, too rich, too ill, getting or likely to be too dependant on state services, have eroded the opportunities for the following generations, are the main despoilers of the environment, have absorbed / amassed a great deal of the wealth of the nation and now have the numerical power to sway policy decisions in their favour and they are placing ruinous financial burden on future generations (and companies) due to their drawing of their own private (in some cases) and state pensions for a longer period of time. More generally this same aging group are being blamed as corruption the opportunities for the later generation of various younger ages by absorbing much of the wealth of the country in reaching their ‘golden’ years. Such wealth is often measured in the assets they have amassed in house value, holidays, early retirement, good life style and some say, generous now unaffordable, pensions etc, etc and they are hence now blamed for not looking after resources for the generations to follow! It is no surprise that bitching has arisen as this year marks the beginning of the time when the BB's are coming to fruition. The 60+ oldies born with the procreative rush of the last war. The enthusiastic complainants of them are seeing the unravelling of the continual growth of broad wealth, which has been taken for granted by their offspring’s for the past 40 years, now dissolving into austerity from which there may seem to be no return. So someone must be at fault.
After the last war, all the countries that were involved in the ‘manpower’ losses of it had a rebound effect in baby births, which produced a demographic bulge of a large number of people born at the same time and subsequently began moving through the demographic system together. This bulge, with the starting influence of their parents, had the power to affect a number of social trends and it might be argued that in the early years they had the organised strength to affect a number of changes on the political and economic level as well. The people of this bulge and their consequent off springs are now accused of a number of culpable deeds, from laying the foundation of the massive increase in productivity and consumer ability that supported the western economies; to being most responsible for the degradation of future economic and environmental resources driven by their rapacious demands. All concerned to build their own future driven by the pressure of the unrestrained market economy and persuasive sophisticated marketing tools. Their long term concerted effort was to foster the amassing of generous disposable incomes on a whole new range of consumer goods without due regard to a planned future that took into account the future generation requirements, factors that are now hyped as irresponsible. The BB’s are to blame for the economic mess unfolding with the effect of the aged demographic weight.
The demographic problem of an aging population is usually ascribed to the post war baby boom but this is also match by a significant drop in the number of new babies being produced by the following generations as a reflection of the large changes in people’s expectations to consumerism, market shifts, and life style choices. As people get richer they choose not to have the burden of babies. This together with the allowed structural economic productive changes, compounds that generational problem of funding the unwritten social contract.
Whatever the pros and cons of the now resentful arguments laid against the BB’s, (more so now due to the 2008 credit crises and bank bale out) that has exposed countries severe negative economic over exuberance. From the perspective of the current possibly less secure younger generations, it does seem that the future for them has been hocked and they will have to carry the burden of resource erosion. However, it is instructive to remember (particularly for the UK) that the last war had a profound effect on the social structure and attitudes of the population that suffered the privations of it and they who lived through it, were the backbone of the social and industrial change of the 40s-70s pressed forward with their subsequent children, now called the BB’s. Because this bulge moved through the social structure all at the same time, its requirement from the environs it lived in were contradictory manipulated and over time changed. It is how requirements have changed by potentially living too long that is now noticeable and raises problems. These two power blocks (war survivors & BB’s) of age demography wanted and got freedom to do as it sought to better their social standing, freedom from the dictates of ossified class restraints and gross inequality and freedoms which its parentage had earned the right to expect, to manipulate the ruling orders for its own ends. It paid (as was normal) little thought for depletion effect of reducing investment in future assets or resources. After the austerity of the war and post war squeeze, there was it seemed no limit to the redevelopment of a future with greater social and financial improvement for all, one that had no limits.
The social and financial improvements that came were elements that gave rise to the large producer and consumerism of the 70s onwards. It was the BB’s which challenged and re shaped the state of inequitable affairs to give it a comfortable ride albeit that it paid for it with comparatively high taxes, some degree of social unity, union strength and a certain amount of frugalness that avoided taking on debt. Even with the restrain of the times like: rationing, product shortages, HP, credit controls, no credit cards, tight bank account, mortgage rationing and exchange controls; growth was continuous under financial restraints. This learned financial self-control might have been elicited from their own parents from considerable more austere days, which later allowed many of the BB’s to know the value of money and later to afford and enjoy resource acquisition. No doubt they and their parents gained a lot but they fought to challenge and change the remit of politics and big business and it was done when it was not usual to have a car but use public transport, not own a house but rent, pay the tally man, not have foreign holidays, going to university was for the well off and most employees had no employment safeguards at all. The pre war parents and their the BB’s had developed rebellious, anti-establishment attitudes. Attitudes not continued by following generations and it is these tendencies that were actively neutralised from the earned emancipation of the social constraints and class structures, manipulated and controlled by political pressure of vested interest, that shaped political policy capture of the 70’s - 2000’s to erode the strength of social cohesion and union activism.
Consider now also how the way tax and economic generators have been reduced, some would say by this same BB’s age group, yet this baby bulk did not mind paying tax whist it got benefits from it in (free) state, poly-tech and university education, health care, and social safety nets for itself and family. It also challenged the working expectations to improve overall employment standards. But from the early 80’s with political persuasion, some small elements of it and the later post BB’s younger generation accepted arguments to curtail the same improvements and also press to reduce tax to a much lower level. Lower tax became a chimera that offered real gains to the rich but a no win game to all else and the political expediency behind it also allowed the destruction of the hard economic generating bases. Now, so much has been rolled back that the generations to follow are not provided for, corroding the unwritten social contract and in this aspect pensions are the easy perverted focus of attention.
In the UK the pension, education and health provisions are probably the greatest achievement in social improvements; characteristic that should continue to be respected, only bettered or matched by too few other countries in quality or quantity of provision and the BB’s played the most significant part in building it. Because of these BB’s that had and controlled much of the power base of the productive periods of the late 60’s to 90’s+ they unfortunately had to deal with the demand of changing economic and political competitions as well. Lacking the support of the excessive affluent younger ‘yuppies’ 70’s- 80’s generation, eventually built in selfish relaxed systems that subsequently undermined the whole well being of that generation and those to follow i.e. the utilisation of resources from manufacturing, commerce, social contract and oil had been squandered to the extent that from the 1990 onwards the children of today will not have a economic, energy or environmental lenient time to live in. Every aspect of their future has been put in jeopardy with the lack of determined action and foresight to plan for a country’s future. The later part of the 20th century can be said to be one that was of live for the day and hock tomorrow.
The BB’s of the west may well be seen by critics, as the chosen ones, inheriting the rewards of the struggles and hard work of their parents, building up the benefits enjoyed by the children born of the mid 40s to early 1950s. This short window of opportunism which allowed these children to flourish and impact the economics of their generation, now sees them in the fortuitous position of enjoying their later years with some degree of comfort. It has to be said in their defence, that they themselves contributed greatly to the growth and wealth of the country, in that they were the working generation that influenced the direction of policies of the 60s to the late 80s, the period when the foundation were being laid from which the next post BB’s generation of the 70’s onwards would have had to build on.
Unfortunately this same period of the 1970’s has not been as constructive as before, due in no small measure the attitude of the this post BB’s generation being less radical than their parents, less involved in the politics of government and now having to compete for resources and a world position at a time when the resources that will need to be used are considerable less available.
How can a whole post BB’s generation be so negligent in not fighting for their living conditions and their children’s future? Was it because they were so blind and cosseted by the wealth they enjoyed created by the BB’s or did they get cultured from the ideas of their parents and tired of the struggle between themselves and the economic control systems? Were they too pampered to bother?
A view can be taken that the prime responsibility for the current imbalance of resources and opportunism is not the direct fault of the BB’s other than they may have in individual cases, failed to directly inculcate their children with a knowledge of prudence and social conscious for sustainability, the lack of such ideals that has subsequently had a greater compounded effect on their own children! It is the later children of the BB’s that undid the social structure in not challenging the right wing policies of government and the corporate drive in global markets. It is the children of the BB’s and their own subsequent off spring that has much more direct influence in the direction of economic trends that, I would argue, have done the damage to the future out look of the country. Those born from the 60’s lived in a somewhat charmed time; of the post war rebuild that started to come to fruition in the mid 60’s. They never cared to look at the influences affecting their lives, or continue the fight that their parents effected in getting better employment and social conditions. There was some resisting force of corporate capitalism during the 50’s- 70’s, however with no practical challenges from 1979, the ‘right wing’ self-serving attack on the common good so entrenched in the policies of conservatism won out, degradation of the social ‘glue’ that continues today.
I am sure that many of the BB’s do not feel guilty about their current state of affairs. They may be a bit more affluent than their own war parents. But the nature of the current difficulties is caused by their children and their own offspring’s, has all the signs of wanting to turn them, the BB’s, into paupers to prop up the lack of foresight of these now affected by the retrenchment of the good times of global capitalism. There may be, by the BB’s, some small concern for their children and probably more for their grand children’s future but their fighting day is done they have been eased out into retirement with the prevalence of ageism pressures and are less likely to take to the streets but they still do vote, unlike the younger generations. The subtle threats aimed at the BB grows as a smoke screen to deflect the unrolling of the current crises caused by the banks and in this the deputy of the Bank of England Charlie Bean espoused the view that savers (BB’s) should spend their savings to help the economy get going. It cannot be said that is a sage view of any merit, rather it indicates the plain lack of common sense from a representative of a sector that caused the unfolding of economic prudence.
In the most economically (or militarily) powerful country in the world, the USA, such a BB’s ‘problem’ is not or is not recognised as an issue that impacts the endemic social implications. The USA has 30 % of its population that do not have any provision for pensions, all do not have access to free medical aid, many have no expectation of continual social provision and is politically unconcerned with the possible overall social discomfort it is likely to expect as its manufacturing base it relies on gets harder to match competitors. It might be suggested that as it does not have a social contract comparable with the UK / Europe that this, together with the “flexibility” of its labor market, could be the disposable safety net that allows it to be sanguine about issue stemming from the BB’s. Although the USA like other ‘third’ world countries may have more time to contemplate and tolerate communal systemic degeneration from the lack of resources investment or a compatible social contract, other more modern developed societies have not. For regrettably the erosion of the ability to trade and earn ‘disposable’ income from exports / GDP upon which the pillars of a modern social order depends, is being meet with the slow liquidation of the assets of social cohesion, which is occurring much faster in the UK than else where.
This disposability of labour and social fabric is the cost of the much-vaunted global economy; it is one that continues to affect the EU made sharp with the current debt position of the UK, Ireland and Greece. As long as market forces rule the day and multinationals operate outside of social control this will get worse. It is the product of globalisation; money goes to the cheapest and most cost effective world zones. Overall, it brings to conflict the problems between the BB’s and their children’s children giving rise to the angst of the future and xenophobic ageist bitching of late.
The solution to the BB’s is to have them die off. This is not a Logans Run option so steps are being taken to dismantle the state default retirement age of 65, encourage a continuation of a working life and instigate compulsory pension contribution on top of the existing NI & GP. However, as the UK has the lowest state pension in the G7, it is no a coincidence that the UK government has reluctantly shown that it wants to lean towards re-instating the link between pension and incomes, but not yet. This link was taken away by the Thatcher’s Cons but a reinstatement move is delayed until after the next Con/Dem election in maybe 2012. This timing is after the bulk of baby boomers have past their 65th birthday! Some of this age may retire, some might be persuaded (foolishly) to forgo drawing their state pension for a period while they work on, some may work on therefore to die in employment, which is ideal, while others live a bit longer and have their assets practically sequestrated for payment of their long-term maintenance because of their inconvenient longevity.
The idea of people living longer is just a recent phenomenon that actuaries have picked on as a trend that has important implication for pensions, health cost and other older age related demographic issues. It is seen that compared to pre 20 century days when men (being the main worker) died at an early age, many not reaching much beyond their 3 score and 10 in an active state. Now the trend is that, due to a fortuitous period of better health, nourishments and less arduous work; some men are enjoying early retirement and both male and female are living longer – into 80+. These people are living in good active health and more importantly becoming a draw on the both the public state pension and with the past manipulation of private pension contribution; a burden on private corporate pension funds as well. The conjecture is that the benefits to the BB’s, the generational social contract, are no longer affordable and that they are mainly well off; having raped the economic good times without them now having to resort to pulling in the state benefits. Nevertheless, they are not actually wealthy or cash rich. The main wealth resides perhaps in owning a home, some unfortunately obtained thanks to the political bribe of the ‘Right to buy’ and as they get older it becomes more difficult to upkeep this asset and many do not have cash resources to down size. Despite the idea of index-linked pension, too few are enjoying a generous private pension gained at a time when it was considered a deferred payment of income and many will continue to be reliant instead on their accumulated state pension.
Fundamentally it is not the ‘problem’ of people living longer that is the financial demographic problem (the time bomb) or that they may or may not live in good health consuming resources and amassed wealth, denied to following generations. It is a function of a number of eventual fortuitous factors that came together to give advantage to one persuasive generation. The effects of two wars, measured austerity, engaged politics, economic expansion, cheap resources, combatant labour and social fairness; all were factors that laid the foundation of the supposed wealth of the BB’s. It is a coincidental phenomenon that this group are seemingly living longer but it is not surprising given how they lived with moderation and they are now being used as the scapegoat for the deterioration of the state of the nation of the past 30 years, bought painfully onto consciousness with the ongoing affects of Credit Crises collapse.
It is quiet possible that this phenomenon of a long life is short term and that the following generation will not live so long. Many will die off earlier with the excesses of the good life and many of their children will be even worse off in health outlook, with having to work longer, live with environment and economic degradation or suffer obesity and lack of health care, pestilence or war. All things remaining stable, the pension pot will be a little less under pressure for the next 15 years as oldies work on and die off but beyond that is the problem – not enough money is being earned, put aside or economically generated as a country, to for now, fund the social contract of future pensions.
So; what if the younger generation pension pot is likely to be empty? They have less job security, reduced employment terms and condition, have to work longer, have to save up, curtail the credit cards, stop wasting money on all the designer goods, forgo the multiple exotic holidays, rent property, taste austerity and we all will have to live with a devalued earnings. The younger generation may have helped fabricate the coming austere depressive times by not being organised and had dumped the idea of the good society. Independence, self-reliance, selfishness, gluttony and short-term corrupting ideology have weakened their position and created a much greater financial class divide. Fight to get back the benefits you have given away by not being political involved. It is your own self-indulgence and cupidity that has allowed this poor state of affairs to mature But don’t seek to beggar thy neighbour; you just may need the BB’s support.
© Renot 2010
299101445
posted by Renot at 6:50 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home