Thank you for another thought-provoking and informative piece. Having just reached 71, it resonated with me and I was particularly interested in the perspectives on investment.
I can only offer some wry opinions rather than information. Much writing I've seen falls into the trap of regarding generations as acting as cohorts, instead of individuals, as ever trying to make the best of existing circumstances. I certainly have no recollection of attending one of many implied meetings throughout the land on how we were to conspire against younger generations.
Particularly galling are do-gooder proposals for what older people ought to be doing, at no personal cost to the writer. They should for example be downsizing to liberate their home for a family in greater need. The writer is always oblivious of the fact that this would not solve a problem, merely buy a few years. In my opinion, what folk should do is lead their lives as best they can choose and manage, and be left to do so.
The concept of generations can be useful, but is now grossly overdone with a bewildering set of letters - births and deaths are of course on a continuum. The absurdity was nicely illustrated by an elderly person interviewed in the street for a radio programme when UK currency was being decimalised: "Why can't they wait for all the old people to die off before they bring in these things?"!
I think that the view of people like Charlemagne is that those in particular age groups share common interests which lead them to behave in ways that happen to benefit the group as a whole. That is, in effect, the NIMBY argument in the UK. There is something in this as the economic and political interests of people change as they age. Your point is that there is a great deal more individual variation than such arguments allow.
I would add that it is singularly foolish to attack older generations when you are hoping to benefit from inter-vivos support or estate transfers. That implicit dependence lies behind a lot of the arguments - the young always wish that their elders would move on. As lifespans get longer that sense of frustration at not having the assets and control that those who came before have is even stronger. There is also the usual incomprehension on both sides when older generations say that things were much tougher in the past - the past is another world for the young and that is all too apparent today.
Thanks for the point about 'downsizing' (us boomers can still say 'go forth and multiply'), which reminded me of that bedroom tax kerfuffle a few years back (different context but overlapping.) A highly artificial housing situation has arisen because of dated planning laws and, I would say, immigration, although some housing wonks, themselves not necessarily open borders types, have cast doubt on the actual effect of immigration on housing supply. Not all of us are obsessed with the preservation of views, nor even, in my case, much like the countryside, frankly - same brush, tarring with!
Wonderful piece - and not just because I'm a late Boomer, albeit one worried not merely by the econo-ignorant solutions being proposed, but for the Nicholas Trente Ans generation some of which does the proposing. Us lot did very much not vote for all this. And nice point about just how far this all goes back: late 19th c union appeasement by Bismarck. Thank you.
Thank you. A minor gloss on you last sentence. While what Bismarck did may be construed as union appeasement, there were good social and economic reasons why collective pension schemes were an effective and appropriate response to the breakdown of community safety nets due to rapid urbanisation and industrial growth. There are some things that are better - and more efficiently - organised collectively rather than individually. Friendly societies worked relatively well but they were restricted to well-established social groups and could not cope with mass migration into cities.
I always feel irked when old people get accused of spending their accumulated wealth. Well, don't try and grab theirs by excessive taxation then! And high inheritance tax is ludicrous. That also backfires as people are not stupid. Old people will offlay their wealth long before the taxman arrives..
Thank you. It is difficult for tax bureaucracies to deal with any taxes that fall directly or indirectly on wealth. Many politicians want to believe that these are easy sources of revenue. All experience shows that such beliefs are wrong, but there is strong resistance to accepting such evidence, because it means that taxes must fall on flows of income rather than stocks of wealth, which is politically difficult. Behavioural response sounds bad until politicians face the reality how they or their families behave themselves.
Nice post. It brings to mind the book “The Fourth Turning” by William Strauss and Neil Howe. From the blurb:
“The authors look back five hundred years and uncover a distinct pattern: Modern history moves in cycles, each one lasting about the length of a long human life, each composed of four twenty-year eras—or “turnings”—that comprise history’s seasonal rhythm of growth, maturation, entropy, and rebirth. Illustrating this cycle through a brilliant analysis of the post–World War II period, The Fourth Turning offers bold predictions about how all of us can prepare, individually and collectively, for this rendezvous with destiny.
First comes a High, a period of confident expansion. Next comes an Awakening, a time of spiritual exploration and rebellion. Then comes an Unravelling, in which individualism triumphs over crumbling institutions. Last comes a Crisis—the Fourth Turning—when society passes through a great and perilous gate in history”.
It’s a fascinating read, albeit sometimes confusing. I would say that the USA is currently in the Crisis turning – or is it the Unravelling?!
Thank you for another thought-provoking and informative piece. Having just reached 71, it resonated with me and I was particularly interested in the perspectives on investment.
I can only offer some wry opinions rather than information. Much writing I've seen falls into the trap of regarding generations as acting as cohorts, instead of individuals, as ever trying to make the best of existing circumstances. I certainly have no recollection of attending one of many implied meetings throughout the land on how we were to conspire against younger generations.
Particularly galling are do-gooder proposals for what older people ought to be doing, at no personal cost to the writer. They should for example be downsizing to liberate their home for a family in greater need. The writer is always oblivious of the fact that this would not solve a problem, merely buy a few years. In my opinion, what folk should do is lead their lives as best they can choose and manage, and be left to do so.
The concept of generations can be useful, but is now grossly overdone with a bewildering set of letters - births and deaths are of course on a continuum. The absurdity was nicely illustrated by an elderly person interviewed in the street for a radio programme when UK currency was being decimalised: "Why can't they wait for all the old people to die off before they bring in these things?"!
I think that the view of people like Charlemagne is that those in particular age groups share common interests which lead them to behave in ways that happen to benefit the group as a whole. That is, in effect, the NIMBY argument in the UK. There is something in this as the economic and political interests of people change as they age. Your point is that there is a great deal more individual variation than such arguments allow.
I would add that it is singularly foolish to attack older generations when you are hoping to benefit from inter-vivos support or estate transfers. That implicit dependence lies behind a lot of the arguments - the young always wish that their elders would move on. As lifespans get longer that sense of frustration at not having the assets and control that those who came before have is even stronger. There is also the usual incomprehension on both sides when older generations say that things were much tougher in the past - the past is another world for the young and that is all too apparent today.
Thanks for the point about 'downsizing' (us boomers can still say 'go forth and multiply'), which reminded me of that bedroom tax kerfuffle a few years back (different context but overlapping.) A highly artificial housing situation has arisen because of dated planning laws and, I would say, immigration, although some housing wonks, themselves not necessarily open borders types, have cast doubt on the actual effect of immigration on housing supply. Not all of us are obsessed with the preservation of views, nor even, in my case, much like the countryside, frankly - same brush, tarring with!
Wonderful piece - and not just because I'm a late Boomer, albeit one worried not merely by the econo-ignorant solutions being proposed, but for the Nicholas Trente Ans generation some of which does the proposing. Us lot did very much not vote for all this. And nice point about just how far this all goes back: late 19th c union appeasement by Bismarck. Thank you.
Thank you. A minor gloss on you last sentence. While what Bismarck did may be construed as union appeasement, there were good social and economic reasons why collective pension schemes were an effective and appropriate response to the breakdown of community safety nets due to rapid urbanisation and industrial growth. There are some things that are better - and more efficiently - organised collectively rather than individually. Friendly societies worked relatively well but they were restricted to well-established social groups and could not cope with mass migration into cities.
Excellent!
I always feel irked when old people get accused of spending their accumulated wealth. Well, don't try and grab theirs by excessive taxation then! And high inheritance tax is ludicrous. That also backfires as people are not stupid. Old people will offlay their wealth long before the taxman arrives..
Thank you. It is difficult for tax bureaucracies to deal with any taxes that fall directly or indirectly on wealth. Many politicians want to believe that these are easy sources of revenue. All experience shows that such beliefs are wrong, but there is strong resistance to accepting such evidence, because it means that taxes must fall on flows of income rather than stocks of wealth, which is politically difficult. Behavioural response sounds bad until politicians face the reality how they or their families behave themselves.
Nice post. It brings to mind the book “The Fourth Turning” by William Strauss and Neil Howe. From the blurb:
“The authors look back five hundred years and uncover a distinct pattern: Modern history moves in cycles, each one lasting about the length of a long human life, each composed of four twenty-year eras—or “turnings”—that comprise history’s seasonal rhythm of growth, maturation, entropy, and rebirth. Illustrating this cycle through a brilliant analysis of the post–World War II period, The Fourth Turning offers bold predictions about how all of us can prepare, individually and collectively, for this rendezvous with destiny.
First comes a High, a period of confident expansion. Next comes an Awakening, a time of spiritual exploration and rebellion. Then comes an Unravelling, in which individualism triumphs over crumbling institutions. Last comes a Crisis—the Fourth Turning—when society passes through a great and perilous gate in history”.
It’s a fascinating read, albeit sometimes confusing. I would say that the USA is currently in the Crisis turning – or is it the Unravelling?!
Here’s Part 3 (with links to parts 1 and 2) of an analysis in a similar vein by N S Lyons of the Trump administration’s upending of the old order of “the Long Twentieth Century”: https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/trump-and-the-end-of-the-long-twentieth-century-part-3/.
Thank you. I will look at the article by N S Lyons. I have read with interest some of the articles on his Substack.