Baby boom generation starting to retire in or around 2030

seenitall

I can only speak for myself personally, but, being conscious that they are American with a different demographic history to Europe or wherever, I’ve always seen these terms in purely generation-denoting terms, so nothing to do with any inter-generational economics.

For example, my father is a baby boomer, I’m gen X, my daughter is a zoomer (gen Z). It’s just a light-hearted and trivial thing to know, nothing more to it for me. The whole scale is an American invention, very American-sounding and I’m sure it carries heaps more meaning over there.

hotmail.com

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122019799#Comment_122019799

Americans love their labels.

I think most Irish people stick with young, middle aged and old. Or a person "in their 50s" etc.

SEPT 23 1989

poorer 45 year olds today won’t be retiring at 65 or anything like that

seenitall

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122019826#Comment_122019826

Off topic:

Sure, but designating people by age like that can be a whole different minefield. Cultural differences come into play as well. I remember talking to a few Spanish women in their thirties/forties. Dunno how the subject of age came up but I casually mentioned 60s being elderly (it wasn’t about anyone specific); well, they nearly ate me alive. It seems to me that in Spanish culture being called old or elderly is akin to an insult. In my own culture, it’s just a designation of age, and perhaps “old” does start earlier in my culture than in theirs. And nobody gets offended being called it (if they really are old).

I’m just reminded now of a friend who recently turned 60 and got into a funk about it. To me, that’s “Does not compute”. I would celebrate it! (as I did my 50th very recently) I mean, a little imagination in life always helps; you could have been dead from drugs, cancer or in a car crash by now - instead you’ve made it to 60! So celebrate you’re still here, living in cushy circumstances compared to the majority of the world’s population, and with a nice chance of some more good years ahead. Woohoooo 💃🏻🕺

Yeah……… being technical about it is perhaps the best way to go (“he’s in his 60’s”).

hotmail.com

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122019931#Comment_122019931

I would say "older" rather than old. Nobody minds being called young.

seenitall

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122019942#Comment_122019942

True - I wouldn’t call anyone old to their face, I do understand it can be a sensitive thing with some people. But the reason I was flummoxed with the Spanish women there is because I didn’t actually designate anyone in particular as old, it was just a general remark AFAIR. I got the feeling almost like they took umbrage on behalf of their parents or something. 🤷‍♀️

looksee

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122019502#Comment_122019502

Whatever about Ireland, and I would assume that any baby boom in Ireland related to circumstances in Ireland, I was born immediately after WW2 in England and was aware as a child that I was part of 'the baby boom' - thoughout my education I was in huge classes of children. It was something that was dicussed and was common knowledge, including the effect of this boom on future planning and pensions etc.

purplepanda

England had a birth boom post war & another early '60's, however in-between there was a substantial decline compared to America. As shown in the graph attached.

The idea that post war children in England / Western Europe are the same demographic as early '60's children as used in the American "Baby Boom" meme is totally flawed. Mid '40's children would have started work / left school at 14 in England, unless they were from affluent families, compared to early '60's children leaving school at 16.

Putting people in the same demographic as those 20 years older, might work in the USA but doesn't apply in Europe. Especially as those early '60's children would not have had the similar work opportunities & actually suffered higher unemployment rates, inflation & recession when they started working.

I had 2 teachers visit my parents asking why I was leaving school at 16, & not staying on for 6th form & going university. Being the oldest my family needed me to go work. Only 5 boys went to the 6th form that year.

Within 4/5 years the majority of children were staying on as unemployment substantially increased along with more recession.

Related to the discussion, I noticed recently that a Tory minister tried to justify the increase in women's pension age from 60 to 67, by saying most affected by the policy would have left school at 18. The facts are that most left school at 14 or 15. WTF?

20silkcut

yes in this country kids born between the early 1920’s and early 1950’s had similar experiences of poverty, emigration and early school leaving . The real generational difference in this country happened with free secondary education in 1968. Therefore Kids born between 1955 and 1975 had very similar experiences in terms of standard of living , education and emigration. Kids born between 1975 and 1990 didn’t have to emigrate as much. And kids born after 1990 didn’t really have to emigrate at all and were far more influenced by technology and were far more indulged with toys etc. A child born before 1990 had a box of toys. A child born after 1990 had an entire room full of toys.

Former Former Former

The term "boomer" is incredibly valuable because whenever you see someone using it to talk about Irish people, you instantly know they haven't the first club about history, politics or economics and you can safely disregard everything that follows.

Anyone born in Ireland during the "baby boom" years in the USA had to put up with poverty, repression and lack of opportunities that no-one born here after 1990 could even vaguely comprehend now.

SharkMX

My generation (30s) seem to want everything handed to them. All my friends seem to be counting the money they will get when their parents die, even when their parents are only 50 or 60.

My parents generation worked their asses off to get what they have, if anything. My grandparents generation worked themselves to death just to live. Cant wait to see what the next generation expect to be just given.

Guildenstern

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122019849#Comment_122019849

Some will,cor have the option to, through property inheritance although sadly this will increase inequality even further.

SharkMX

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122020899#Comment_122020899

You are correct. whenever I see anyone say boomer I just think to myself. This is the result of a tiktok education and i zone out.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122020961#Comment_122020961

That's exactly what I think when I read stuff like this:

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122020940#Comment_122020940

The term "boomer" is perfectly legitimate. I've no idea why people here are getting triggered by it. Personally, I've never death with such an indolent and entitled demographic as boomers who love to lecture other people while doing nothing themselves.

I'm not sure why you'd want to have friends like those you describe above, frankly.

SharkMX

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122020994#Comment_122020994

Well would you listen to that. Spend less time on tiktok or even back slapping message boards where you "think" your opinion is a valid one because, well you are among a minority like minded people instead of in the real world. You can thank me later.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122021051#Comment_122021051

It is valid but if you can't engage without hysterics, let's leave it at that.

markodaly

The term "boomer" is used as a pejorative. Let us not pretend otherwise.

Peregrinus

The point about "baby boomers" is that there was, well, a baby boom in the western world — a large rise in the birthrate, sustained for about 20 years. This generation has always been larger both that the generation that came before it (their parents) and the generation that came after it (their children). The result is that, by sheer weight of numbers, they have been relatively influential — first economically, when they were teenagers and young adults; then politically, as voters; and eventually both politically and economically, as they reached the top of their professions and formed the demographic from which political, economic and cultural leadership is drawn. This would be when they were in their fifties.

If we accept the conventional understanding — baby boomers are those born between 1945 and 1965, more or less — then the baby boom generation is now aged between 59 and 79. Well over half of them have already retired and most of the rest will, in the next few years. Their cultural and economic signficance is now declining, which is a new experience for most of them, and their political significance is also starting to decline, though that will be a slower process.

Expect stresses and strains to result. For example, the housing affordability crisis that plagues much of the western world is the flip side of the house price inflation which has so massively benefited baby boomer homeowners. Its very hard to see how the problem can be addressed without some detriment to baby boomers but, as their economic and political influence declines, they will be less and less able to resist that. They now have the problem that there is not just one but two generations below them who are adult and politically active; on issues where the interests of both Gen X and Millenials align — and there are many — the baby boomer are massively outnumbered, and they can no longer rely on their dominination of the political and economic establishments to protect their interests.

BailMeOut

Would like to point out that the OP never said 'boomer'. The point of this thread was to discuss the looming and possible crisis funding the batch of people who were born during the peak baby boom years around 1965.

SharkMX

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122021100#Comment_122021100

Yes, lets just leave it.

20silkcut

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122020940#Comment_122020940

This is influenced by smaller family sizes as well. Where there is only one or two kids born to reasonably wealthy middle class parents the sense of inheritance entitlement skyrockets.
If those same parents had 5 or 6 kids that dynamic would be completely different and the incentive to make one’s own way in the world increases dramatically. It really is a wealth decreasing negative feedback loop.

Sleepy

The obvious, though likely incredibly unpopular, solution to paying for the care of a growing elderly demographic is an increase in wealth (i.e. property) and inheritance tax.

BobMc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122014456#Comment_122014456

By all means push pension and retirement to 70, but I suggest that starts with all Civil servants and TDs and once they are onboard with 70 or above they can roll it out to normal joe soap contributory pensions :)

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122021293#Comment_122021293

Not going to happen. For example, the Conservative government of Theresa May tried in 2016-2017 to replace pensioners' lucrative triple-locked pensions with double-locked pensions and to reform the care system. The tabloids branded the care reform as the "dementia tax" and it's now dead for a generation. I don't object to boomers being as wealthy as they are so much as the sanctimony a lot of them come out with. With the stresses the welfare state faces, they should have to pay more for their own care.

Very good analysis of the boomer (and other) demographics here:

https://podcastaddict.com/origin-story/episode/166026459

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122017956#Comment_122017956

thats birth rate, not number of births

its any easy mistake to make, people google the wrong thing

irelands demographic nothing like the states

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122017270#Comment_122017270

there are, there was a baby boom recently enough as they all had kids

Larbre34

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122014281#Comment_122014281

Not if the policy of putting aside billions of surplus continues.

Not only will it pay pensions directly in the future, it can be invested in projects in Ireland and across the World to gain a return on it and snowball the coffers.

Also, eventually a government will have to bite the bullet and increase the State pension age to 68, and by the end of the Century to 70.

You cannot improve healthcare, nutrition and overall life expectancy to such a huge extent and still maintain pension entitlement at an age that is based on actuarial factors decades out of date.

SharkMX

What should happen is that form the age of 18 everyone should pay something like the USC but towards their old age care.

Then you tax inheritance heavily and you ring fence that money for end of life care too. This should be enough to take care of those who will not have any assets on death to collect tax from too. You tax the inheritors not the people who worked for those things that they build up over a lifetime of work.

Also increasing the retirement age will work if they ever do it. But it needs to be done in a manner which honors the contract that people approaching retirement have had since they started paying tax.

10 years from current retirement age 66 - increase the retirement age by one year.

20 years from retirement - increase it by 2 years.

And so on every 10 years back add one year to the retirement age, even for people born in the future. eg someone born in 2034 will have a retirement age of 73 or so. Go in 2 year increments if that ever looks like it is lagging behind.

That way retirement age increases as each new generation is born, so there can be no hard feelings that you worked all your life planning to retire at a certain age and then the moved the goal posts on you.

But you need to build proper retirement facilities so that people who have houses can trade down to pay without impacting their quality of life and feel part of a community and not like people thrown on the scrap heap, which sadly it seems like younger generations want for old people. They seem to want to get all the old people assets given to them for very little in return and then just dump them on the scrap heap.

sekond

But you need to build proper retirement facilities so that people who have houses can trade down to pay without impacting their quality of life and feel part of a community 

This is a massive issue already. I have two relatives both looking to downsize from big family homes that are way too big for them, but can't find anything suitable. They are both still quite active and very sociable and would thrive in one of those stereotypical American retirement communities - suitable housing, recreational activities and support nearby if needed. As it is, I expect at least one of them will never move from the big family home while it crumbles around them and family try to support them from a distance.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122021474#Comment_122021474

the problem with this is people only talk about it, never do anything about it

why not start a business where you go off build a load of retirement villages for old people