News

Oh no. Kinda seems like we should be funneling money into welfare, huh. Maybe something livable so those that can't find or maintain employment aren't digging in the trash? Bad times for anyone who expected perpetual growth.

Maybe they'll fuck themselves over for a change.

So a couple narratives, right. One is that they're just gonna blow all their generational wealth on nothing and blah blah blah fuck off, and then those that do have generational wealth are just gonna get it eaten up by government inheritance taxes, and maybe debt collectors, who are less sympathetic, because fuck debt and specifically people looking to wring old people for all their worth. Scum, lowest of the low, should be lined up and pelted with. Maybe small coins? Pocket change? Could be kind of ironic.

At the same time, little weird that people will make a big stink about medicare and social security going underwater, and then not want to pay taxes on inheritance, because they're entitled to it. That shit doesn't track, really. They could advocate for less spending on the military, sure, but if the conception of the economy is that it just kind of works like how a house balances debt (it doesn't), then paying debts should be good, no? Weird double standard in western culture, still. Everyone hates usury, but simultaneously conceives of "the economy" as working through it, and "the economy" as being, if not good, then incredibly important and worth protecting at all costs. Point is, the common conception of how the economy works is flawed, and then some people have an idea of how it should work, but, in any case, the ire should be drawn with that, rather than with "the boomers". Attacking "the boomers" is weird. It's treating a symptom, not the cause.

Second, also a weird note, is that "the boomers", monolithically, are holding onto their jobs, or something. Certainly, a good proportion, and probably the majority that are still holding out, are doing so because of a lack of alternative, and despite how good it may feel, it's probably not moral to blame someone for, say, being an alcoholic in their 20's and 30's, and say they don't deserve to retire on that basis. Kind of scummy. A good amount of boomers face that situation, and face worse situations where they aren't even at fault for their positions, really. Any racial minority, really, including some we now consider to be white.

Then, a small proportion are refusing to retire because they're just at the top of the company. Board executives, big decision making guys. Unfortunately for the rest of us, we will never get their positions. If they retire, will their job be taken by some millenial? Will it be taken by someone in Gen X? Would it even matter, or would the position inherently be both corrupting, and magnetic to the corruptible and corrupt? Probably the latter, probably it wouldn't matter who it went to, because it's just part of a larger power structure and whoever gets hired is going to be in further service to said power structure, as it's self-reinforcing.

Also, this shit is never true. ohhhhh no social security is going away because the boomers are retiring! nooo! you should be able to invest your retirement into a private account on the basis that the government's social security and retirement plans are going belly up because of all the boomers! nooo! this shit has been spinning for like 40 years, do not believe the hype.

You cannot get me to empathize with boomer retirement woes, when they built their gilded sky-fort by looting the peace dividend after WW2 and told everyone else to fuck off and make it their own way. Every single generation since has been poorer, had less wealth and ability to save for retirement, all while the boomers vote themselves more and more entitlements.

The trickled fire sale from retirement funds and portfolios is going to be brutal. Every market transaction needs a counterparty, and if everyone else is too broke to buy stock/bonds/houses at the price your financial ‘planner’ values it, the bubble pops.