But the issue is more complex. Today there is global competition and your jobs (never mind promotions) get shipped off.
So they don’t even have a chance at a working stiff’s job at all. That’s where desperation comes from.
There are some confounding factors - the baby boom's sheer relative to the preceding and succeeding generations means that at least some of the noted effects would occur even if the "age you got promoted" probability distribution remained the same.
The specific complaints about the consulting and legal industries expansion of the career path have the issue that the size of those firms have grown massively over the time period indicated- McKinsey had 88 staff in 1951, 7700 in the early 2000s and 27000+ by 2018. That’s simply not the same company/industry and not really due to demographic trends.
Overall though, it makes raises some good points (particularly the implication that there is/was positive ageism toward boomers in the selection of executive roles) that are worth reflecting on.
BTW- it’s really Gen X (and the younger boomers) that got hosed here. The boomers really are retiring now and millennials will have plenty of career ahead after that.
Edit: I don't see how anyone can blame boomers because it's harder now. I gave my millennial kids a good start.
Boomers voted to decrease how much they paid for everything once they were earning money. The way they did that was purely by increasing how much the following generations had to pay for every service, while also reducing their employment protection and actively preventing their wages from increasing at the same rate living costs were being made to increase.
Your generation did nothing but make it harder for the following generation after benefit from all the work you parents generation did to improve your opportunities.
Things your parents produced for you: cheaper/free high level, a functional Medicare system that covered the majority of the people who needed it, employment protection, retirement benefits, ...
Things your generation did: killed free higher education, actively defunding it so you paid less taxes having already got your free education, vigorously worked to remove layout protections, defunded Medicare, defunded infrastructure investment, blamed “millennials” for all the problems your selfish choices caused.
The fact that you can’t understand basic cause and effect of your actions warrants it:
Ok, boomer.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200131200026/https://think-bou...
How much of this is due to the boomer gen being larger in size and more of them having to stick around working
Doesn’t sound like all of them got to retire
> If boomers are increasing their share of wealth, it is clearly at the expense of the following generations.
how is this clear? Wealth can’t be created only taken ?
Ironically, it was focused on evaluating ways to transfer knowledge to new hires to account for the brain drain incurred due to retiring boomer population.
First, identify a sub-group. Begin referring to the group as "they", as "other" than "us". Make sure they are not seen as heterogenous individuals - "they" are a single, malevolent entity.
Next, ascribe to them great power, unearned, over "us".
Then, ascribe to them ill-gotten wealth, power, control. All nefarious and self-aggrandizing.
Now describe them as "the problem", as "intractable", implying that something must be done - about them - to them.
Begin to use the language of violence, attributing it to "them". A blockade is an act of war, committed by an aggressor.
What do you think the outcome of this kind of rhetoric will be?
But inter-generational strife isn't quite the same thing. It's conflict largely between parents and their children, shaped by that intimacy. And it's a conflict that cuts both ways...
Think about the rhetoric being used whenever someone refers to "millennials" today.
First, identify a sub-group. Begin referring to the group as "they", as "other" than "us". Make sure they are not seen as heterogenous individuals - "they" are a single, entitled entity.
Next, give them trophies, unearned.
Then, ascribe to them the rise of avocado toast, end of homeownership, and lack of ambition. All overeducated and self-defeating.
Now describe them as "increasingly falling for socialism's trick", as "unpatriotic", implying that something must be done - about them - to them.
Begin to use the language of violence, attributing it to "them". Killing the date, and romance, and marriage, and golf, and the motorcycle.
What do you think the outcome of this kind of rhetoric will be?
So, you see the outcome as killing off the olds?
