The War Against Youth (article in Esquire)

[ApatheticNoMore]

And what's happening in the United States would be instantly recognizable to any progressive of the 1930s.

By bus and train and car pool, they will follow the gerontocracy to Tampa and Charlotte, the cities with the utter misfortune of hosting the presidential nominating conventions. Then we'll see if the people inside the convention centers can find the youth anything better to do.

again it's not the 1930's, they will be nowhere near the conventions (see my comments previously)

Now the exerpts conveniently forgot a whole generation that is not boomers and not under 35, a generation that always seems to be conveniently forgot and whom social security is still scheduled to run out for (talking about my generation - gen X).

Honestly, I get really darn tired of being called lazy and entitled for wanting things that most people had just a few short years ago -- like bankruptcy protection for private student loans -- something that existed for boomers until the mid-90s, when most of the kids-of-boomers were starting to graduate from school. Or more opportunities for social service to help with the federal loans -- according to the article, Americorps programs were cut and had to turn away 3/4 of the applicants!

Personally I'd like an affordable house in California (like my parents had), and I'd also like a pony ..... not gonna happen.

I'm not sure starting a war pitting the young against the old is going to be productive

+1 Plus if you're kind of in the middle, you know that unmentionable generation, you actually do hope for a chance at the social security system you have been paying in to for over a decade. Hope for, not expect, believe me I absolutely do not expect it. I mean will the world economy have crashed by then? Will the dollar? Will natural resources have crashed by then? What about the climate? Expectations, oh ha. No ............

And the young against the old thing is FALSE anyway, I mean suppose we got rid of all social security (waved the wand, gone tommorow - admitedly too extreme to be probable political reality - though Obama has said cuts are on the table, he seems to want them). OK so in this hypothetical, Social Security is gone, then how many younger people would now or in a decade or so be having to economically provide for thier parents without the buffer of Social Security? Oh so something like that would affect younger people too? Yep .....

[bae]

And the young against the old thing is FALSE anyway...

It's just another way of dividing us all against each other.

I'm wondering though, should I expect violence from Gen X/Y/Zers when I go to the convention?

[Rogar]

The taxes boomers paid into the system on an average percentage of income was much higher than present tax rates. Maybe the boomers are just harvesting their investments from higher tax rates. Entitlements, unlike the word might imply, do not grow on trees. With no one wanting to increase tax rates to previous historic levels, there are going to be less entitlements. It seems like simple math to me, but is probably complicated.

[ApatheticNoMore]

The taxes boomers paid into the system on an average percentage of income was much higher than present tax rates.

You know I actually did an analysis on this (with BLS inflation adjustments for income) and tax rates on a middle class person really haven't changed much. Not when you look at the full tax rates including Medicare and Social Security taxes. Of course I think I did this before Obama's payroll taxes. So Obama's payroll taxes may have meant middle classes taxes are actually lower. I didn't assume any deductions beyond the standard (I don't have any). And I didn't add in state taxes at all (but oh boy have THOSE increased! that could offset quite a lot of federal decreases!)

So if you are trying to make the claim that Obama's lowering of payroll tax rates is a problem - fine I don't quibble with that. I agree. I never supported that stupid tax cut. Blame Obama? Fine with me But the Bush income tax cuts by themselves did not reduce tax rates on the middle class income at all before that point because they were offset by several decades of payroll tax increases. Now if you want to talk capital gains you may have a point but most people do not get most of their income from capital gains. I was talking wage income.

[Rogar]

Apathetic no more, do you happen to know how it would work out if you use an average tax rate, one that includes all tax brackets, rather than just the middle class? It's my understanding that taxes for the upper tax brackets are what have changed. And go back before Reaganomics.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Oh yea upper class brackets are less.

I was quibbling with this:

The taxes boomers paid into the system on an average percentage of income was much higher than present tax rates. Maybe the boomers are just harvesting their investments from higher tax rates.

because it makes it sound like young person today just doesn't deserve Social Security because they aren't paying enough taxes (if only he was willing to pay taxes then he too could harvest benefits in the future, but since he wants to have such low taxes too bad). When Joe Middleclass 2012 is probably paying the same rate of taxes (or was before the Obama tax cuts at least) as Joe Middleclass 1970. But like I said upper income people are paying less, which isn't going to do a darn bit of good for Joe Middleclass when there is no Social Security for him.

Oh the answer I wanted to find was that taxes have gone up on the middle class, so I could you know blame the horrible high cost of living of everything these days , but the answer I found was surprisingly little change.

[Rogar]

I'm sorry if I implied that a young person doesn't deserve SS because they didn't pay enough taxes. The point I was hoping to make was that collectively boomers have averaged higher tax rates. Rather than breaking this down into gen-x vs boomer middle class, I was think more about the politics of tax structure and how that has changed in the last 20 or 30 years.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Ok Rogar fair enough.

Thinking back to the main topic of this thread and the whole "age war" some would like to start and how ridiculous it is: it is true I would not want to be a new graduate just getting out in the world today looking for my first real job. I really don't envy them! But I also would not want to be an unemployed person in say my 50's right now.

I was unemployed for awhile, I got hired, I probably got hired far easier than a person a couple of decades older would. I happen to think AGE DISCRIMINATION in hiring is real. It can start for a woman in her mid 40s and programs designed to help the unemployed look for work have classes in things like "overcoming age discrimination for ages 45 and up" - sadly some say for age 40 and up!). The long term unemployed - 2 years without work and so on - in my anecdotal experience are disproportionately those a little older (although again not great for those fresh out in the world either). But those in their 40s, 50s, 60s etc. had time to save and accumulate money when times were good? Yes fair enough, but not all of them ever really earned that great incomes either etc.. But yes perhaps many should have saved more, but now they are in trouble (and besides even if one has savings, if that savings *IS* one's retirement, cashing it out to live when your not ready financially to retire yet, but are considered "too old" to work, is not great. I mean granted there might be a few more options at that age for financing something like schooling (borrowing against one's 401k maybe, I'd do that if I had to), but it all depends on someone eventually hiring an "old person" which is where they face discrimination).

[Rogar]

I graduated from college in a field that is difficult to find work in. Over a course of months I put on a suit and tie and hand delivered about 100 resumes in three cities trying to schedule appointments with the right people if possible. Plus mailing out another hundred or so out of state. It is interesting how now, with the "connected" generation you don't even have to leave the computer to apply for work. After landing mt first job I was employed continuously with different companies, but in my early fifties could sense a subtle push out the door to make way for young workers who would do the job for less. My final employer had more than one age discrimination suit filed against them as they pushed older workers out. I was actually ready to take early retirement but others who had lived a larger lifestyle found themselves in unemployable and in trouble.

My take on the age war thing is that there is no winner or looser. Times have changed and things are different. Sometimes life is hard.

[LDAHL]

It wouldn't have been my choice for words -- it's in the title of the article. And yes, it's used to sell articles.

That being said, the author's choice of words does not negate the facts or argument that she presents.

Basically she argues that the division of taxpayer spoils be skewed more toward the young. It's a common claim in identity politics, where not handing out free stuff is taken as evidence of hostility. She's just looking to champion yet another category of victim.