80
New office crisis: Boomers won't leave!
Dan Drezner
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF STORY
Kai Ryssdal: How you feel about the economy right now might well depend on where you are in the pecking order, generationally speaking. To use a personal finance term here for a second, financial horizons -- that is, the time any given person has left to work and save -- can vary widely. And in light of the great stock market crash of 2008, everybody's reassessing their economic future, including commentator Dan Drezner.
DAN DREZNER: The financial downturn has left all sorts of casualties in its wake: more unemployment, depressed wages, and greater economic uncertainty. But I'd like to direct my angst at a different target -- the baby boomers.
A hidden effect of this crisis is that, in the workplace, as in popular discourse, they simply refuse to get out of the way.
To understand my lament, you have to realize that the oldest of the baby boomers are on the cusp of retirement. For younger generations, this should be a cause for relief. For decades, Gen X-ers like myself have had to hear the standard declarations about the uniqueness of the baby boomers. Maybe they were not the Greatest Generation, but they were the ones who glorified the whole idea of generational identity. For decades, Gen X-ers have had to hear complaints about our political apathy, our popular culture, and our musical tastes.
We have suffered many of these critiques without complaint. Why? Because so many of us worked for so many of them. They were the bosses of the business world. And they were supposed to be retiring very soon, but the recession has changed all that.
In 2008, U.S. workers aged 55 to 64 who had 401(k)'s for at least 20 years saw their retirement balances drop an average of 20 percent. A recent YouGov poll showed two-thirds of this generation have not made the necessary adjustments in their financial planning. This is not a recipe for leaving the workforce anytime soon.
What does this mean for the rest of us? Younger workers who expected promotions when the boomers cleared out are going to have to stew in their own juices. With this job market, looking for a better opportunity elsewhere is not in the cards. Which means that Gen X-ers are going to have to listen to baby boomers doing what they do best -- talk about themselves.
Office politics across the country are going to get a lot nastier. Of course, it could be worse. Generation Y not only has to deal with the boomers, they have to cope with people like me complaining about them.
Ryssdal: Dan Drezner is a professor of international politics at Tufts University.
Pages
Sheesh. What is this, Wild Kingdom? Or perhaps, for the younger ones, NatGeo? I almost expect to see 40ish men in business suits locking horns with 50ish men in business suits.
Where does all this "get out of the way" aggression come from? There's room for everyone in a balanced workplace and society. Some people can and should continue to work as long as they want. Isn't that one of the changes that we have actively sought? Wasn't forcing people out at a certain age once considered ageism? Stereotyping people by when they were born is passe, didn't you know? Expecting people to do certain things at a certain age--or to stop doing certain things at a certain age--limits their potential as human beings. (I'll bet when you were in your 20s you thought your parents weren't having sex anymore.)
Baby Boomers, Gen X, Y, Z, P, S--all the generational tags--they're all media creations. And most media creations are anomalies. The creations may be based on some realities, but they are not reality. They are handy short-cuts, shorthand for the truth. There's a term for it: synechdoche. Believing that all people between 55 and 65 are selfish, or that all people between 35 and 55 are whiners (or whatever the characterization is, I forget) is like believing all people between 65 and 85 are heroes. Some are. Some aren't.
We're all in this together, like it or not. You can't have one generation without another. Not yet, anyhow.
As I listened to Dan Drezner's commentary regarding how Generation X, my generation, has been held down by the Baby Boomers because of their positioning in the workforce, a big grin grew on my face. How delighted I was to hear a contemporary, comment on the stranglehold that that generation has had over our ability to move up in the workforce. For years I have felt that "THEY" have thought of themselves as "THE GENERATION"; and anyone who questioned that did not know what they were talking about and thus their opinions irrelevant (or even nonsensical). Dan Drezner finally speaking out, shows that although we may not have the numbers like they do nor the sense of entitlement through power and positioning like they do, we are not voiceless, our thoughts do matter, we exist, and we are....Generation X. Kudos
While I sympathize with your view of baby boomers, your commentary unfortunately identifies with their collective sense of entitlement, detracting from what I imagine may (or may not) have been your underlying message: The old need to innovate and maintain their edge, or get the heck out of our way. Instead, you've just bought into their same tired old lines, by introducing your own. The pleasantly cold reality is that while this depression (DOH!) has inflicted and will continue to inflict much pain, it also serves as a wonderful opportunity for the truly innovative to outwork, outthink, and outmaneuver the stagnant, the fragile, and the dense, regardless of age or generation.
I think every person that writes, no matter what medium, no matter what age group hates baby boomers. At 53 I'm a boomer myself (and, by the way, Wendy, you were born in 59? you're a boomer also), and I'd rather hear criticisms any day from Gen X's or Y's than those baby boomer writers who are in love with themselves because they aren't nostalgic.
This isn't just affecting the typical white-collar offices. My wife is a first year teacher, and she was fortunate to find a part-time job this year. Next year, we would be lucky to do so well. Most of the teachers in our town are boomers, and many could have retired, but haven't in the last few years. Now it is even less likely that they will, because they and their families can't afford to financially, especially if their spouse has been laid off. The effect, though, is huge. Long-term teachers not only are keeping new teachers, and, unfortunately, also new ideas and methods out of the classroom, they are also costing districts more money because their salaries are higher. And these are districts which are facing budget cuts in the next year. But, because they are tenured, the district can't hire younger (and cheaper teachers). The result will be fewer teachers overall and thus larger class sizes. I feel for these boomers who have lost so much (they are, after all, my parents), but let's not forget that others are also suffering from their portfolios' declines.
Representative:
I appreciate you feedback on my concerns regarding layoffs of state employees. I had initially suggested that early retirements might be an option, but now realize that maybe a rewording of the term used might be appropriate to take into consideration the information you provided. Instead of promoting "early retirements," how about just promoting employee's working for state government just "retire" on the schedule that was originally planned for them, instead of waiting years after their normal retirement age due to increased health benefit concerns that are holding them back. Obviously, with the down economy at the worst time for "baby boomers" like my parents, their plans for retirement may have been pushed back due to loss of retirement funds or concern over how to pay for health benefits between the time they retire and are able to receive Medicare to cover their health costs.
This is having a direct impact on employees that have been in the work force for a few years now replacing them when they eventually retire. Without the normal retirement age that was once expected, these "baby boomer's" children like myself who are raising their own families now, which are the grandchildren of these "baby boomers" are at a high risk of losing their jobs due to layoffs because the "baby boomers" are not retiring on "schedule." So, I would encourage you to see what can be done to encourage those that have fullfilled their obligations to their pension funds by serving their full working career, thus not undermining the funding of these pension funds, be encouraged to retire on time, instead of delaying these retirements and likely causing the next generation of workers to loose their jobs in the time being. Lets not let these employees become late retirees, because the consequences in these times are too dire for those dependent on them retiring on schedule and really not "early retirees."
Sincerely,
Roy
From: <rep@house.mn>
Subject: Re: Thank You Representative
To: Roy
Date: Monday, March 23, 2009, 7:11 PM
March 23, 2009
Roy
MN
Dear Roy:
Thank you for contacting me with your idea for tackling Minnesota’s budget deficit without resorting to state employee lay-offs. As the Legislature works to confront the present budget shortfall, I believe public employees like you have important insights to offer and I appreciate having an opportunity to respond to your concerns.
I think your suggestion is worth considering, but I have noted a significant down side. As you may know, the State of Minnesota implemented an early retirement program in 1993 for teachers and state employees. The Legislative Auditor later issued a report giving mixed reviews to the cost savings associated with this initiative. Overall, he concluded early retirement programs only save money when an agency reduces its overall workforce for the long-term and typically increases costs if a significant number of early retirees are replaced by new employees. Therefore, the effectiveness of such a program for the department you work for depends somewhat on long-term projections for agency staffing needs.
An additional concern is that early retirees can pose a real threat to pension fund solvency. Currently, state employee pension funds receive money from three sources: employee contributions, employer contributions, and investment earnings. The employee and employer contribution rates are figured based on numerous variables such as the anticipated lifespan of a retiree and the expected performance of the pension fund’s investments. If the Legislature encourages state employees to retire early, state pension funds will have less time to accumulate enough money to pay those benefits. This is especially true given recent investment losses suffered by pension funds across the country.
Thank you again for contacting me about Minnesota’s $4.6 billion budget shortfall for the coming biennium. This is an historic deficit in real and absolute terms, and closing the gap is going to require bipartisan cooperation and creativity. To address it, Minnesota will likely need to make some significant spending cuts. However, I am going to work tirelessly to see that these are made prudently and will do my best to avoid lay-offs wherever possible.
I depend upon the feedback of my constituents, so I hope you will continue to share your thoughts and ideas with me about issues important to you. If I can be of any other assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
State Representative
I couldn't agree more with Dan Drezner! But he can take comfort in this little tidbit: among my circle of Gen Xer friends, most own their cars outright, don't use credit cards, and didn't fall for the "real estate prices will go up forever" fairy tale. Sure, GenX lacks the self-aggrandizement gene of the boomers, but maybe by the time this current crisis plays itself out, society will be celebrating US for our dogged, pay-as-you-go approach to our finances.
...eh, who am I kidding?
Boomers are the generation that brought our nation to a new low with morality. They were blessed to live at what was most likely the heigth of our country, and yet they didn't appreciate it.
I am the daughter of the generation of the children born during WWII...but my parents were influenced too much by that generation, and I was one of the first generations of latchkey kids. I attended public school in the years of the largest decline of competence. We've learned to live as the red headed step child.
Gen X an Y might have been doing some of the grunt work in the financial sectors that brought our Rome down, but who are their bosses? Middle management? CEO's? I'll place bets 90%are boomers. I always knew they would ruin our country when they got to the highest levels of power.
Pages
