#662
Fresh off a business trip to Bombay, I’ve been mulling over serious discussion with my son about us "Baby Boomers—those born between 1950 and 1965". He argues we had it easy, riding the wave of a booming global economy in the ‘80s and ‘90s, where “even a blind night watchman” could land a job, as he put it. He claims we milked the system during the peak of America’s and the Western world’s growth, fueled by globalization, liberalization, and privatization under leaders like Bill Clinton and Narasimha Rao. Money, he says, practically grew on trees until 9/11 shook things up. His charge? We Boomers reaped the rewards of a thriving world, yet now, as conservatives, we oppose the very principles— Globalisation, diversity, equity, inclusion, immigration, affirmative action, Birth right citizenship, and sustainability—that enabled our success, aligning instead fully with policies like Trump’s crackdowns on migration and university overreach and cutting funds to everything for which America stood for the world and its development.
There’s some truth to his view. The ‘80s and ‘90s were a golden era for many Boomers. Globalization opened markets, creating opportunities we seized—whether in tech, finance, or manufacturing. In India, Rao’s reforms unleashed economic potential, and in the U.S., Clinton’s policies rode a tech-driven boom. Jobs were plentiful, and for skilled Boomers, the path to stability was smoother than today’s gig economy. We didn’t face the same cutthroat competition or student debt burdens as Gen Y or Z. Our pensions and benefits, built on that growth, now strain younger generations, especially with declining fertility rates meaning fewer workers to support retirees like me come 2028. My son’s frustration—that we benefited from an open, progressive world but now resist similar openness—has a point when you look at the numbers: U.S. GDP grew 3.5% annually in the ‘90s, compared to 2% in the 2010s, and immigration fueled much of that earlier growth we now critique.
But his critique feels one-sided. Boomers didn’t just coast; we worked hard in a world with its own challenges. The Cold War’s shadow, stagflation in the ‘70s, and the uncertainty of early globalization weren’t exactly a cakewalk. Post-9/11 and the 2008 financial crisis tested our resilience—many of us reinvented careers or weathered layoffs, furloughs, without the safety nets younger generations demand. Younger generation like my son,sees our conservatism as hypocrisy, but it’s rooted in experience: we value stability because we’ve seen systems collapse. Skills, not just performance, mattered because they were our currency in a less credential-obsessed world. Our skepticism of “woke” policies or unchecked immigration isn’t blind rejection but a belief that merit and cohesion should still count. For instance, 63% of Americans in a 2023 Pew poll supported stricter immigration policies, reflecting concerns about economic strain, not just Boomer bias.
The charge of “milking the system” stings, though. Yes, we benefited from a unique economic window, but we also built much of the infrastructure—tech, healthcare, global trade—that Gen Y and Z inherit. My son’s generation, born in the ‘90s, leans liberal, championing DEI and sustainability, but they overlook how our hands-on grit laid the groundwork. In Bombay, I saw India’s business scene thriving, built on reforms we Boomers cheered in the ‘90s. Yet, I get his point: our resistance to affirmative action or mass immigration can seem like pulling up the ladder. But it’s less about denying others and more about preserving what worked—merit-driven systems that rewarded effort over identity.
The pension issue is a real sticking point. With global fertility rates dropping—1.6 in the U.S., 1.4 in India by 2023—fewer workers will fund our retirements. Many younger men, sees this as Boomers burdening the young, and they are not wrong; Social Security’s trust fund is projected to hit zero by 2035 without reforms. But we’re not sitting idle. Many Boomers, myself included, plan to work past 65, using skills honed over decades to stay self-reliant. In Bombay, I met retired professionals consulting for startups as well as consulting in manufacturing, proving we’re not just leaning on welfare. Our resilience, forged in crises, means we’re not the entitled leeches he paints us as.
Still, I wonder if we’re missing each other’s context. Gen Y faces stagnant wages and housing costs we never grappled with—U.S. home prices have risen 300% since 1990, while wages grew only 100%. Their push for DEI and sustainability reflects a world of scarce resources and social fractures we didn’t face at their age. Maybe our conservatism is less hypocrisy and more caution, but it can come off as gatekeeping. Meanwhile, their idealism, while noble, sometimes ignores the practical trade-offs we’ve navigated. Both sides have blind spots: we Boomers might cling too tightly to old systems, while Gen Y risks overcorrecting for inclusivity at the cost of cohesion.
Reflecting on this in Bombay’s bustling streets, I see a city that’s both a Boomer success story and a Gen Y battleground. The economic liberalization we championed built those skyscrapers, but the youth navigating their shadows face new hurdles. My son’s critique isn’t entirely fair, but it’s not baseless. We Boomers must own our advantages while showing we’re still in the game, not just defending our slice. And maybe he could see that our “conservative” stance isn’t about hoarding but about preserving what we know can work. Here’s to hoping our next chat finds more common ground.
What do you think? What are your thoughts? Which generation you belong to?
Karthik.
25/5/25.
No comments:
Post a Comment