A good example of the politically motivated conclusion is provided in an article by Robert J. Samuelson in the Wilson Quarterly: The Withering of the Affluent Society. Samuelson makes this claim:
The term "war" seems a bit extreme given the content of that paragraph. Is there any data presented to support his assumption? No. Perhaps he is just guessing, but one suspects that he wishes to use the notion of conflict between generations as a means to convince people to take actions that would be consistent with his political and economic philosophy. Our youth are trotted out as props to use in the conservatives’ arguments that we must cut social benefits.
Consider some of his other statements.
"The future of today’s young has been heavily mortgaged. The grimmest prospect is a death spiral for the welfare state. That could happen if we continue to pay for promised benefits by increasing taxes or deficits, further retarding economic growth and thus spurring still more tax and deficit increases to sustain benefits."
Samuelson makes valid but arguable points about our economic condition, but where is this intergenerational war?
David Leonhardt injects cultural differences between young and old in an article in the New York Times: Old vs. Young. He indicates that of all the things that divide our society into segments, there is one that has not received sufficient attention.
"Draw it at the age of 65, 50 or 40. Wherever the line is, the people on either side of it end up looking very different, both economically and politically."
"Throughout the 1980s and ’90s, younger and older adults voted in largely similar ways with a majority of each supporting the winner in every presidential election. Sometime around 2004, though, older voters began moving right, while younger voters shifted left. This year, polls suggest that Mitt Romney will win in a landslide among the over-65 crowd and that President Obama will do likewise among those under 40."
Leonhardt refers to exit poll data from presidential elections to indicate differences in the voting pattern of young and old. The data really only supports a distinctive difference in the 2008 election. That is one data point—two if one anticipates the 2012 results. But does this polarization by age indicate some fundamental shift in attitudes by young and old, or is it merely a response to the shift to the right by the Republican Party and a greater emphasis on controversial "values."
Nevertheless, the term "war" must arise.
Both authors discuss the growing gap in wealth between young and old. CNN provides us with some data in an article titled Older Americans are 47 times richer than the young. This graph is provided:
Thankfully, the attempt is made to explain this data rather than turn it into a political axe.
"While rising home equity helped drive wealth gains for the older generation over the long-term, younger people had less time to ride out the housing market's volatility -- especially its most recent boom and bust."
Most of the wealth that is possessed by the senior citizens consists of their home equity—if they own a home. That is not something that they took away from the young. Most depend heavily on Social Security checks just to get by. That is not indicative of a smug generation greedily guarding their pot of gold. The conservative voting pattern of the elderly can easily be explained by fear of losing what little they have.
The gap between old and young has also been exacerbated by changing economic factors faced by the young.
The young are having a harder time getting started. Education is more expensive, it takes longer to complete, and jobs are harder to find. Are these the fault of the elderly? Remember, the elderly are the parents and grandparents of these young people. Yes, those who help with the education costs and allow their children to live at home if necessary. It is hard to see those as conditions that would ignite warfare.
A refreshing counterpoint is found in a Businessweek article by Chris Farrell: Why Young and Old Americans Have More in Common Than You Think.
Farrell recognizes that this supposed intergenerational warfare is used to further political agendas. The supposedly disastrous future Social Security and Medicare expenses that will consume resources that could have been spent on the young are, in fact, manageable.
And as for Medicare, Farrell makes a point that has been made here many times before:
And then there is this summary:
I couldn’t agree more.
No comments:
Post a Comment