<p>One to read all the way through to the end. </p>
<p>"The baby-boom generation has created an interesting conundrum for this country. Born between 1946 and 1964, boomers take up more room than any other generation in American history. They now account for about a quarter of the population. And so, inevitably, they have created a kind of bottleneck, in the work world, in politics, in power. The frustration this poses for the young and talented should be obvious. In my personal life it was reflected powerfully on the day when, talking of the unwillingness of my friends to retire, my eldest child noted, “You guys just won’t go.”</p>
<p>Let me assure you that this is a well-mannered and thoughtful person who shows all due deference to his elders. But his perspective is not uncommon among the so-called millennials, those in their 20s who constitute the baby boomlet, the children of the baby boom.</p>
<p>When my parents were my son’s age, there was an orderliness to how one generation moved aside and another stepped up to primacy and prosperity. It was reflected in the actuarial charts: in 1952, the life expectancy of the average American male was 65, roughly 10 years younger than it is today…</p>
<p>America’s opinionators are too white and too gray. They do not reflect our diversity of ethnicity and race, gender and generation. They do not reflect the diversity of opinion, either, mainly because most are part of an echo chamber of received wisdom that takes place at restaurant tables in New York and Washington. Conservative pundits are making themselves foolish, flailing wildly because their movement itself is aging, confounded by the popularity of a president who stands for much of what they revile. But liberals are little better, fighting the same old battles in the same old ways, as though the world during their tenure had not changed radically."
[Anna</a> Quindlen: Stepping Aside | Newsweek Voices - Anna Quindlen | Newsweek.com](<a href=“http://www.newsweek.com/id/195657/page/1]Anna”>http://www.newsweek.com/id/195657/page/1)</p>
<p>I agree that social security should be moved up 10 years. I think it’s a travesty that people in our generation and older act as if doing something like that would be unfair. Social Security was supposed to guarantee people support in their feeble old age when they could no longer work. It wasn’t supposed to allow healthy elders to spend 20 years playing golf and doing similar activities.</p>
<p>Personally I think she is overstating her case. Ageism is alive and well – as anyone who is in their 40s and 50s and looking for a job can attest.</p>
<p>If the baby boomer population is larger than the follow on population, of course their presence and influence will be felt longer.</p>
<p>And I agree – what’s the solution? Would the younger generation prefer to pay for the older generation to sit home? Or maybe euthanasia?</p>
<p>I don’t think we can get full social security at age 65. And many of us who started our families late are going to be paying for college still in our 60’s and having trouble funding our pensions those tuition paying years, which are spread out for 10 years more if we borrow. </p>
<p>It has been said that many of the younger generation are not growing up as quickly in terms of independence too. I see many kids pushing 30 that are much like the way I was in my early twenties. Also those kids who have gone on to college seem to be taking their time marrying and having kids. Not the situation in some parts of the country, I know, but here in the NE, I see this a lot. Few of the parents at our 30 year college reunion were grandparents. Most of our parents were at that age. Fordham Prep, an all boys high school took a head count of who was married out of the 200 kids who were at the 10 year mark, making them about 28 years old. Only ten of the were, which is very surprising to me.</p>
<p>Anna Quindlen is a very wise woman. Love her!</p>
<p>It’s an interesting and complicated issue, which she acknowledges. It surprises me that anyone looks upon retirement as a time to “live for 20 years playing shuffleboard in Florida”. That certainly isn’t my vision of our retirement, nor was it even my parents who are ~80 years old. They are still active, they have a business, they travel, they go to the theatre, to concerts, have a wide circle of friends, and they don’t live in Florida! :)</p>
<p>alwaysamom–sorry for the hyperbole. I certainly don’t plan to retire to Florida to play (ugh!) shuffleboard. But whether it’s golf, tennis, or an endless round of symphony concerts and social luncheons, we can’t expect the younger generation (by which I mean the social security payers) to support us in retirement for 20 or more years. And I think they should want us to be productive, even if it means holding jobs they want. </p>
<p>We can expand the economy to accomodate all. In fact that’s what we should have been doing to avoid the current downturn. We produce very few things in this country anymore, so most jobs are in hotels, retail, computer-related industries, and financial. Construction jobs tanked b/c financial tanked. And geriatrics is booming. :)</p>
<p>I’m so sorry she is giving up her column! She is a great writer and I always enjoy whatever she has to say. And this is making me feel old–she is the same age I am. She’s only 56–I think that is quite young to feel that she needs to step aside. There are plenty of other 20-something influences in the current Newsweek. </p>
<p>Maybe she wants more time to work on her fiction writing.</p>
<p>My husband works in an industry where there are relatively few newcomers coming into the field, at least from the US. For many years now his Grad School program(in the US, prestigious) has been nearly 100% non US citizens. Stepping aside? Not a chance when there is excellent work to be had and money to be made. </p>
<p>I think the current economy virtually guarantees that some/many of us will be working 5+ years longer than we expected. </p>
<p>Anna is stepping aside for the younger generation to have a chance but she is also stepping aside because she can afford to, and I doubt Social Security figures substantially in that.</p>
<p>Anna Quindlen is full of it. She has made top dollar for years and undoubtedly has enjoyed top benefits. She can certainly step aside. Maybe one of the thousands of baby boomers who could do HER job who is currently un- or under-employed and without benefit of health insurance and with retirement savings gutted will get a chance to take it.</p>
<p>Or should we just kill ourselves to make room for the more fortunate?</p>
<p>Step aside? I’ve been on our society’s garbage heap for quite a while already!</p>
<p>I know–it’s kind of ridiculous to “step aside” in a society that doesn’t take care of you. Many people have financial responsibilities to themselves or others. Are they just supposed to lie down and go out to sea on an ice floe?</p>