Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Why Don’t Affluent Baby Boomers Give More Money Away?

By Anne Ellinger and Christopher Ellinger, AlterNet. Posted June 21, 2007.


People between 51 and 64 donate less than three-fourths of one percent of their investment assets, on average -- significantly less than those either younger or older than them.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Why don't affluent Baby Boomers give more money away?

We ask this question not to guilt-trip, as Boomer slang would put it, but because solving some urgent social problems hangs on the answer.

People between 51 and 64 donate less than three-fourths of one percent of their investment assets, on average -- significantly less than those either younger or older than them, according to New Tithing's analysis of 2003 IRS data.

These numbers gall us because we're Baby Boomers ourselves. We'd like to believe that as a generation, we are living up to our '60s ideals. How could we lag behind both the Gen-Xers and the WWII "Greatest Generation"?

But there's another reason to care besides petty generational rivalries. The popular perception of Baby Boomers as more socially active than other Americans is rooted in fact. According to the Pew Research Center, we volunteer more, join community groups more, and vote Democratic far more often than other age groups. So if we donate less money, it's mostly our own liberal and progressive causes that experience the shortfall.

According to the United Nations, it would take $50 billion more a year to provide everyone on earth with healthcare, nutrition, clean water, education and a clean environment. Baby Boomers with incomes between $200,000 and $1 million a year could donate that amount by giving just two percent more of their investment assets. Just two percent: We're not talking about simple living here!

When the Baby Boomer generation passes from this earth, what will our legacy be? Will we leave a world poisoned, hungry and war-torn? Or will we put the unprecedented wealth of our generation towards solving those crises before we die?

We know which answer we want. That's why we launched the Bolder Giving Initiative. It starts with two assumptions about what people need in order to give more boldly, drawn from our own experience with wealth and our 20 years working with donors.

First, people need inspiration. We are all affected by what's normal around us, and what's normal is to give 2 percent to 3 percent of income -- or at most, to "tithe" 10 percent. To inspire greater giving, we have gathered stories from more than 85 people who have busted the lid off this norm. We call them "The 50% League" because they have each donated half or more of their income or business profits for at least three years or half of their assets.

What motivated the 50% League members to give so much? Many wanted greater impact on a cause they were passionate about. As Carol Newell explains, "I wanted my $25 million inheritance to have as much impact as possible towards a more just and sustainable economy in the region I love, British Columbia."

And we found more super-generous Baby Boomers:

Marji Greenhut thought globally and acted locally: She applied the Jewish value of tzedakah to donations that shifted her native Maine away from a sweatshop economy and towards a local organic economy.

Lawyer Brad Seligman poured the proceeds from selling his law partnership into a nonprofit that supports class-action suits such as the historic Wal-Mart sex discrimination case.

Are you thinking, "I wish I could do what they've done, but I'm not rich"? You might be inspired, then, by Richard Semmler, a community college professor who donates over half his pay to Habitat for Humanity and scholarships. You don't have to be rich to be a bolder giver.

Our second assumption: to give more boldly, most people need individual support. They need help to think through how much to leave their children, how much of their money is truly discretionary and what difference they want to make. The good news is that the web has tremendous educational resources for givers that didn't exist a generation ago.

Giving 50 percent may be way out of reach, but many of us could, without hardship, double our giving -- for instance, from 5 percent to 10 percent of our income, or from 1 percent to 2 percent of our assets.

Imagine for a moment that a new wave of generosity spreads among progressive Baby Boomers and we start giving at our true potential, whether that is 5 percent or 95 percent. We could turn the future around if we applied our full resources -- money, talent and love.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: giving, charity, baby boomers

Anne and Christopher Ellinger are the founders and directors of Bolder Giving in Extraordinary Times. They co-authored the award-winning book We Gave Away a Fortune and served as co-directors of the national peer education network More Than Money for over a decade.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Could it be that ....
Posted by: Camilla Cracchiolo on Jun 21, 2007 12:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
one reason boomers aren't giving more is because they are the age group that is supporting and helping elderly parents while at the same time trying to put kids through college and trying to save for retirement? In my own family, we aren't giving officially to charities but a LOT of money goes out to help extended family members. We're all just hanging on.

Of course, everyone should give more, but many of those needing those charitable services are also boomers. Contrary to media impressions, boomers are not just white, not just professional or middle class.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Or.... Posted by: LMNOP
» There is no human action... Posted by: dwatkins9
» RE: Could it be that .... Posted by: Idunno
Baby boomers are perhaps the most worthless generation of Americans
Posted by: ateo on Jun 21, 2007 2:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're behind all of the recent corporate scandals.

You're the ones who sent us to Iraq.

You're the ones keeping us in Iraq.

You're the ones who formulated our aggressive foreign policy stance.

You're the ones keeping health care from being publicly funded.

You're the ones quick to complain but just as quick to hide your wallets.

You're the ones who enjoyed all the wealth that generations of Americans handed to you then declined to leave the country a better place than you found it.

So really, is this a shock? You hippies tried to fight the system and the system beat you into submission. Not just submission but adulation for your oppressors. Now you emulate them but your actions are tempered by neither wisdom nor compassion.

I guess we'll see how the "slackers" from my generation do when we get our turn at the wheel. Sadly your mean spirited yuppy spawn are here by the millions following in your foot steps seeking food, sex, entertainment and a bigger shinier car than their neighbor with no regard for anyone who gets in their way.

So to conclude: America is screwed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Damn! You are one jaded dude! Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» Gross Generalizations Posted by: Artkansas
Does anyone have a source for this?
Posted by: EagleMB on Jun 21, 2007 2:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to the United Nations, it would take $50 billion more a year to provide everyone on earth with healthcare, nutrition, clean water, education and a clean environment.

This number seems ridiculously low. Does anyone have a cite to support it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Simple answer from an oldtimer born in 1935.
Posted by: HughScott on Jun 21, 2007 3:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why don't Baby Boomers give more money away?

Simple answer. They don’t have enough cash left after buying new Hummers, million-dollar homes, vacation cruises, designer clothes, stocks and bonds, gourmet food, fine wine and all the other things they think makes them happy.

I’m not judging affluent Boomers, however. Just the opposite, I feel sorry for them.

Why? If you don’t know, you would never understand my answer, much less agree with it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yeah, so how much bling are rap stars donating to charity?
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Jun 21, 2007 3:27 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hmmmmm?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just as I suspected
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jun 21, 2007 3:50 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You have the right idea: One way to trick them into giving is to create an exclusive club that feeds their lust for status and attention.

Another idea would be to have a bunch of investment management seminars and donate the proceeds to charity. Boomers are drawn to those things like flies to cow pies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Most selfish, privileged generation in human history
Posted by: Bobsays on Jun 21, 2007 4:00 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is no surprise this 'great generation' are a bunch of skinflints who have never made a sacrifice in their lives. As many say, 'we are going to retire disgracefully!', which means they are getting ready to go out with a big bang (orgies, loads of travel, drug taking etc.).

While the world around them goes to pot as a result of many of their habits and decisions, they are getting set to retreat into decadence. Last days of Rome or what?

Statistics have long skewed against the great myths of this generation. They believe they are the most politically active and aware generation; in fact statistics found youth in the 1980s attended more demonstrations and committed more time to political activities. They believe they are generous, but as we can see, they aren't. They believe they have done nothing but bring peace and love to the world; but in fact their selfishness in foreign policy best exemplified by Bill Clinton, let the world fester into all the conflict we see today.

No, boomers and really just bust. I don't expect much from them and while they oversee the biggest looting of wealth from the young to the old (student debt, housing debt etc.) I am set to do everything possible to make their last years miserable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I can't resist asking..... Posted by: mjabele
Is Giving Good?
Posted by: igoeja on Jun 21, 2007 4:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is an unquestioned belief that charity s good, so while America as a whole gives away enormous amounts of money, it is also one of the most grotesquely unequal, with a significant portion of its population living in poverty, and with the worst social outcomes in the developed world. My belief is that charity is linked hand-in-hand with the grotesque inequities of our current political/economic system. The solution to our current set of social ills would be a responsive government, one that fostered the welfare of its citizens, not just its corporations. It's absurd to think that giving to most charities will change much of anything.

On a more concrete level, baby-boomers are likely concerned about their mortality, and unlike younger people, are looking down the barrel of retirement and fear of an impoverished life. Many are trying to squirrel away money to compensate for their lack of saving in prior years. By the way, I'm 47...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Is Giving Good? Posted by: cbrislain
» a good point, but-- Posted by: Ellen Remore
in my case
Posted by: Rod on Jun 21, 2007 5:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a doing OK baby Boomer, not afflulent but doing OK. I want to help, I like to help BUT:

When I make a contribution it is usually $25 to $50. Then I get a flood of more requests for contributions, sometimes more than 1 a month. They waste my entire contribution on asking for more money. Then I get more mail from others they sell my name to. In the end, my contribution has a negative gain. And all that paper to recycle! Not the way I want to have them spend my money.

If someone would have a checkbox, for only ask me once a year and do not sell my name, I would contribute again. ANYONE?

Until then, I stuff a few hundred dollars into the salvation army kettle and that is about all. At leat that way they do not know who I am to waste all my money sending me junk mail, and I think they spend it wisely.

Thanks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Francis
Posted by: Francis on Jun 21, 2007 6:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the past thirty years the most notable trend in American culture has been the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. This has accelerated over time since the Reagan years. Though it is always dangerous to generalize, and rightfully so, one wishing to break that rule might take refuge in the question,what is a statistic anyway but a flat out generalization? What is ANY accounting but a numerical generalization fixated on quantification rather than qualification. Having said that I offer the following generalization as a PARTIAL answer to the question. It is this...it SEEMS that the kind of people who are rising to the top nowadays are more feral, less civilized, more contemptuous of humanity, more plainly self-absorbed, less likely to be influenced by romantic notions of brotherhood and the commonweal, more coldblooded, less imaginative, and more like Marie Antoinette than Mother Theresa, than ,perhaps, in the past. I have been told by wealthy people at gatherings, without a hint of irony or shame, that war and starvation are merely natural and worthy processes by which the herd is thinned out for the betterment of the survivors. Ours is by no means the first generation or era to believe in wealth as an indicator of personal worthiness and poverty as proof of unworthiness. But I sense a rather widespread acceptance of this notion nowadays and a willingness on the part of those who do not share it to acquiesce in it. The media has offered an assist in it's worship of the rich and famous and it's complete indifference to those suffering hardship and poverty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Francis Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Francis Posted by: Trazom
» RE: Francis Posted by: mejsmith
Why don't hypocrit leftists give more money to charity?
Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah on Jun 21, 2007 6:41 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the mantra of the left is to attempt to force others to support their pet humanitarian projects.

Also, note empirical proof that conservative America overwhelmingly gives more to charity than hypocrit leftists.

In addition, evangelical conservatives are the most generous.

Note that the majority of troops serving in Iraq are conservative -- they are sacrificing blood to support their nation and ideological beliefs.

if conservative soldiers and marines can give blood to support their cause, WHY CANT LIBS GIVE A LITTLE CASH FOR THEIR'S?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Empirical proof? Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: Empirical proof? Posted by: fork
» RE: mpirical proof? Posted by: fork
» Not exactly rock-solid... Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» Ouch!!! - thanks, Beck..... Posted by: mjabele
» You are welcome Posted by: Beck
Agree with could be that
Posted by: ilene on Jun 21, 2007 7:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article asks a valid question but in no way gives a valid answer. Why indeed?

"Could Be That" has an important point. If it's going to cost $7000.00 a month for my mother to be in skilled nursing facility and she has no income, am I going to be able to give any percent of my income to causes when I make about $3600.00 a month. Let's do the math!

I am a boomer, but I sure don't make 200K to a million a year and I'm sure many other boomers are in the same position!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NOT THEIR PROBLEM
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jun 21, 2007 7:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Say what you will about rock stars and the Hollywood crowd, but they certainly are generous. Their personal lives are their own business. They do have alot of fun. But whatever their cause, they give incomprehensible amounts of money and time. Age group doesn't seem to matter. Worth mentioning is that Americans are the most generous people in the world in terms of personal donations. Maybe that's why we notice those who aren't. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

don't lump us all in together
Posted by: Janet4784 on Jun 21, 2007 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm one of the last boomers, born in 1960. We are not the hippie generation, and will end up getting the dregs of social security, if there's any left at all. We're not the attention hogs many of them are. I personally give lots to charity, both time and money, and want to thank the author for the gentle reminder to be more generous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Because we're saving for retirement!!
Posted by: olderworker on Jun 21, 2007 8:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most Baby Boomers, myself included, have not saved enough for retirement. In my case, it's because i've worked at low-paying jobs for years and years. But the point is, I cannot donate any huge percentage of my salary because I use it to pay for housing, transportation, food, etc. and what little I have left over goes to SAVINGS!!!
I do donate used clothing and other items to charity, though.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Answers?
Posted by: oregoncharles on Jun 21, 2007 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Couldbethat" had a good point - boomers are presently caught between, taking care of both the Greater Generation and their own kids.

By the same token, they are coming up fast on their own retirement, at a time when Social Security is considered very shaky. That is mostly Republican propaganda, but it is something we all worry about. And in many cases, our own kids are getting a shaky start in a rough economy, so we can't really count on them. It's our last chance to save for our own old age.

That's enough excuses: there's another factor. We weren't all hippies, or liberal. Many of those who WERE hippies still are, and barely making it financially. (I know quite a few of those.). Both the neocons and the present chief greedheads come from the same age-group, and they were always there. By and large, they're the ones with the huge incomes, because that's what was important to them. More than most generations? I don't know, but someone's litany of the traumas we faced in formative years is revealing. Among other things, those conditions bred both despair and cynicism. (In my case, I think it was the Cuban Missile Crisis. I was a senior in high school, and we were genuinely terrified. Then the assassinations started. If we don't trust the System, that's why. I shudder to think what present high-school kids will turn out like.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Taking a step beyond!
Posted by: JPHickey on Jun 21, 2007 8:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Though I’m not exactly against charity, per se, as far as I’m concerned it is a snooze, a form dedicated to sustaining the status quo that continues to create the need for charitable work itself. That level of consciousness really is an affirmation of the status quo which is responsible for the failure of all those basic human needs and rights not being adequately met.

Volunteerism and charity fit into organizational structures defined by conventional thinking. Participating in them or financially supporting them entails accepting the “go along to get along” approach to helping the needy. The deprivation of basic needs and rights is systemic, so “helping” with the symptoms has little or no impact on changing things so that the cycle of suffering is broken.

Yes, many do get that feel good charge by knowing that they’ve helped some needy illegal alien or other individual who could benefit from the boost of a helping hand. However, personally I support an activist approach that concentrates my efforts on changing the system. Isn’t that sort of vision and idealism that motivated the baby boomers during the era of consciousness raising? Beyond the hedonism of drugs, sex, and rock & roll, existed vision and activism to change our society for the better!

Some of my friends volunteer at the food bank, and I clean up useful things and take them to the Salvation Army, myself. But I am more interested in changing the law to make it easier for workers to form and join unions. Otherwise the commoditization an diminishment of the human producers of business will be forced to seek more and more charity just to get by, all the while, the wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a small, elite group.

If and when fortune smiles upon me financially, I fully intend to step outside this box to fund and administer my own version of an empowering organization. In other words, unlike the callous, plastic, serpent-hearted charity of Bill Gates and his ilk, I prefer to do something more like the McArthur program except far more outrageous. I plan to run contests with motivating prize money that are open to either high school, college, or everyone.

The topics could include asking for ways to release creativity, facilitate conservation, or even raise social consciousness. I want to direct people’s attention to social change to release cultural creativity and empower new pathways to living fulfilling and harmonious lives while leaving a much lighter footprint on the planet!

At times when I’ve been richer, I found just about everybody I knew sniffed out my financially advantaged situation, and started hitting me up relentlessly. To avoid this, I now realize I must incorporate a non-profit organization to keep my personal name in the background.

Anyway, it’s still not too late for Baby Boomers to raise their consciousness and leave the lives of materialism and fear behind, in order to empower a new renaissance of higher human potential. See the New York Times article on mindfulness in schools as a step in the right direction. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/16/us/16mindful.html?

The positive process of creative and enlightening change is going on as we speak, but just think of how much faster it could be going if a few million more Baby Boomers let go of their clouded versions of life to regain their creative and spiritual roots! Contact me at: phickey@(at)eSedona.net Remove the (at) to activate the e-mail address, please.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Groove => Greed
Posted by: Mike's Perspective on Jun 21, 2007 9:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ateo is spot on right about the Boomers. I'm on the X/Boomer cusp (42), so I suckled on the Nipple of Revolution and grew up watching the Hippies trade Groove for Greed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Groove => Greed Posted by: apeshow
» RE: Groove => Greed Posted by: Mike's Perspective
» I kick hippies! Posted by: Illiteratilumen
stat is based on percentage of investment assets
Posted by: cordak on Jun 21, 2007 10:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it seems obvious that as a percentage of investment assets people in this age group would donate less, because it is in this age group that the amount of assets usually peaks due to savings for retirement. a better study would be to track the money donated as a percentage of income.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the richer they are the cheaper they are
Posted by: fogpatch on Jun 21, 2007 10:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wealth usually is accompanied by a poverty of spirit. To gather wealth to yourself is a violation of a basic life principle - take what you need, and leave the rest to others. People who gorge themselves into a wealthy state are usually bankrupt in all other facets of their lives. They only 'give' when their accountant concurs about the tax deduction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Charity
Posted by: Techubus on Jun 21, 2007 11:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think my 'charity' will remain exclusive to friends, family and medical research fund raising for things like cancer. Citizen Fish summed up charitable organizations pretty well:

As the Charity Department at the Treasury
Dispenses licenses so you can do one too
The Ethiopians are running out of weaponry
So their leaders stock it up instead of food
And charity begins at home
So get out on the streets
And help the refugees

And the manager of E.M.I. technology
Seems reluctant to discuss his business deals
Cos the weapon sales are paying for his meals
He'll go to withering heights
To keep it out of sight

Profit! Weaponry doesn't feed refugees
It's a hit! McCartney's saying please on T.V.'s royalties to feed the world with guns

Wembley Stadium forever on the video
And a million spent to raise that sixty more
Nothing ever quite as big as this before
And it broke our hearts
As it topped the charts

But when the overkill exploited the reality
We forgot the facts and revelled in the noise
We didn't see that while we had the voice
Companies and laws were pulling vocal chords

If the western world was less obsessed with property
And the need to keep it safe with threats of war
Then the third world wouldn't need a war economy
That we're supplying at a cost they can't afford
So we buy up all their crops and grain
And sell it back again
When there ain't no rain
And have a big campaign
Using famous names
And as the penny drops
Into the Oxfam box
Take off the V.A.T.
Then call it charity

And the public think the government is wonderful
For promoting our assistance to the poor
But their profits are a whole lot more
They create the need to feed the refugees
And delegate the guilty feeling to the public eye
Via pictures of starvation on T.V.
And get the public conscience back out on the streets
With the empty tins
And little flags on pins
Lets call it charity
Lets call it charity
Make it pay!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

wish I had it
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jun 21, 2007 2:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am one of those in that "boomer" age group.

I don't know where places like Alternet get the idea that there are all these rich boomers out there with more money than they know what to do with. I wish I HAD the money to donate. And most of the people my age around here are in the same boat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: wish I had it Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: wish I had it Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: wish I had it Posted by: aussidawg
Remember Marmalard and Niedemeyer? They're Alive and Well.
Posted by: Ellen Remore on Jun 21, 2007 3:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How I wish I shared your optimism! My husband and I were dyed-in-the-wool flower children; he marched on Washington, my head was concussed in Chicago in '68. And we've often reflected upon our mutual youthful expectations--although we didn't meet until our late 20's--that when our generation took over the world, things would be very different indeed.

It goes without saying that we certainly didn't visualize anything approaching the dimwitted, smirking, bully-boy of a National Humiliation who's currently representing our generation in the White House. But, see, here's what we didn't figure on. We didn't factor in the sheer numbers of the Other Side: the ROTC, Young Republican, broomstick-up-the-ass, war supporters. In short, the Dubyas of the Boomer generation. And whether you realize it or not, they have us, the question-authority types, outnumbered by about two to one. They had hearts of stone during Vietnam, they thought Rusty Calley was getting a bum rap. Do you think they've developed a capacity for empathy since then?

My conscience is clear. I do what I can. I don't have a lot materially, but I do a lot of volunteering. So does my husband. I raised two daughters, one of whom, I am proud to say, has been contributing to Amnesty International, and the other to Doctors Without Borders, ever since they collected their first (pathetically meager) paychecks. But as for the Young (now Old) Republican contingent--they were spoiled, self-centered brats forty years ago, and in my experience, there are few miraculous recoveries among the terminally selfish. So if I were you, just to preserve your faith in your fellow man, I'd lower my expectations a bit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THREE MAJOR REASONS: SELF ABORPTION, SELFISHNESS AND
Posted by: poppop_schell on Jun 21, 2007 4:52 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MATERIALISM. IF,AS THE ARTICLE SAYS, THIS AGE GROUP VOTES DEMOCRATIC, THEN RELIANCE ON GOVERNMENT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS... "I PAID AT THE TAX OFFICE: AS A RATIONALIZATION.

LASTLY, IF POSTERS ON ALTERNET REPRESENTS THIS AGE GROUP, HYPROCISY IN THAT ATHEISTS SAY THEY REALLY CARE WHERE BELIEVERS JUST TALK THE TALK. ANOTHER STUDY FOUND THAT BELEIVERS GIVE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE MONEY IN ANY AGE GROUP THAN DO NONBELEIVERS. SO THERE YOU HAVE IT.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh? Posted by: Ellen Remore
What happens when
Posted by: Gisele on Jun 21, 2007 9:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the wealth of the 'boomers' is taken by the American government to pay the debt owed to China? You can bet that America's wealthiest won't lose much, the poor have little to lose...the boomers are all that's left. Don't bash them too hard, they have the most to lose.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

don't blame boomers for their past, do judge them on their future
Posted by: telyawot on Jun 21, 2007 9:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
everyone agrees they were handed the greatest possible situation in the history of humanity, and have subsequently pigged, peacocked and slummed in decadence like not since roman times. they will definitely not leave the world a better place. at best, they can have some last hippie awakening or yuppie therapy directive: swami says roll up your sleeves and bust open the holy grail boomer wallets when the sh*t starts going down bitches.

like the majority of the x generation i have highly mixed feelings about the boomers. yes rage..duh, but let’s not forget those inspiring and expansive encounters with boomers in my earlier years, which contributed to whatever enlightenment i can claim today. it really depends on which persons and which part of their 'kaleidoscope' you consider. just the fact 'they' are this blob is tiresome. and sloppy. and i am over it. It’s not easy to despise a generation and yet love a few of its members at the same time.

seems we of my generation pretty much already concur re: the boomers, at least to the present: selfish, shallow, slutty, narcissistic, delusional, polluting, painfully 'unsustainable', hypocritical sellout trash. let's not rub their noses in it forever. they still have 25 to 30 years to make amends. let's give them a shot.

their action or inaction will determine fundamentals for the next several generations. there will be no excuses. if the boomers fail to set things in position so that we who follow can do our job, if their response is instead to hoarde and batten down, it will not be pretty. if they fail to deliver when we need it most, there could be cross generational chaos.

maybe our Great Generational Test will be Compassion... will we muster the will to avoid wholesale revenge.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Baby boomers are selfish hypocrites, and so are the people that complain about them.
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Jun 21, 2007 9:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If there's one historical fact that has passed the test of time, it's this:

The oppressed, given the chance, become the oppressor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Income $200,000 to $1,000,000 a year
Posted by: Camilla Cracchiolo on Jun 22, 2007 2:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the income the author is calling on. I'm nowhere near that. Most boomers are nowhere near that.

Seriously: how many people do YOU personally know who make more than $200,000/yr.? Some have assets greater than that, but most of that is tied up in their houses.

The baby boom generation simply means those born from 1946 to 1965 or thereabouts. The folks went to war, came home, had kids. ALL folks...black people, brown people, American Indians, poor whites.

We are NOT the universally rich generation! Many of us have lost jobs, have no pensions, are living (like me) on SSDI due to disability, are homeless, are Vietnam Vets, etc. My boomer husband works as a security officer for less than a living wage. I get so sick of the media portrayal of us as all spoiled white middle class kids. We're everybody! Those of us who did make it rich (or who inherited money) and make above $200,000 per can give more money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]