Coin Press - Boomers: Selfish or Scapegoats?

NYSE - LSE

CMSC	-0.55%	21.69	$
CMSD	-0.36%	22.04	$
BCC	-3.48%	77.68	$
JRI	-1.18%	12.76	$
BCE	2.33%	22.33	$
RYCEF	-1.25%	18.47	$
RIO	2.16%	93.66	$
AZN	0.47%	173.3	$
GSK	-0.92%	53.22	$
RELX	1.23%	38.23	$
BTI	1.22%	63.07	$
VOD	-1.61%	16.13	$
RBGPF	0%	66	$
NGG	-2.51%	78.88	$
BP	3.81%	43.32	$

Boomers: Selfish or Scapegoats?

The debate over whether the Baby Boomer generation—those born between 1946 and 1964—deserves the label of "the most selfish generation in history" has intensified in recent years. Critics argue that Boomers have prioritised their own comfort and prosperity at the expense of future generations, while defenders point to their contributions to social progress and economic growth. This article explores both sides of the argument, drawing on economic, social, and cultural factors to assess the validity of the claim.

A Generation of Prosperity
The post-World War II era was a time of unprecedented economic growth, particularly in Western nations. Boomers grew up in a period of relative stability and prosperity, benefiting from expanding educational opportunities, affordable housing, and a booming job market. This generation was the first to enjoy the fruits of modern consumer culture, with access to new technologies, healthcare advancements, and a welfare state that provided a safety net. However, this prosperity has been criticised as a double-edged sword. While Boomers thrived, they are accused of failing to address long-term challenges such as climate change, economic inequality, and the sustainability of social security systems. The argument goes that their focus on short-term gains has left younger generations—particularly Millennials and Generation Z—facing a future of environmental degradation, housing crises, and precarious employment.

The Burden of Debt
One of the most frequently cited examples of Boomer selfishness is their approach to public debt. Over the past few decades, national debts have soared in many countries, driven by policies that prioritised tax cuts, increased spending on entitlements, and economic stimulus measures. Critics argue that Boomers, who have held political and economic power during this period, have been complicit in passing on this financial burden to future generations. The rising cost of healthcare, pensions, and social security, combined with stagnating wages for younger workers, has fuelled resentment. In some nations, national debt has increased dramatically since the turn of the century, a period during which Boomers dominated leadership positions. This fiscal irresponsibility, some argue, reflects a generational disregard for the future.

The Housing Divide
Housing is another area where Boomers are accused of hoarding wealth. In many developed countries, property prices have skyrocketed, making homeownership increasingly unattainable for younger generations. Boomers, who bought homes when prices were relatively low, have seen their property values soar, creating a wealth gap that is difficult for Millennials and Gen Z to bridge. Over the past few decades, average house prices have risen significantly while wages have remained largely stagnant. This has led to accusations that Boomers have pulled up the ladder behind them, benefiting from policies that favoured property ownership while younger generations are left renting or struggling to save for deposits.

A Legacy of Progress
However, it would be unfair to paint the entire generation with the same brush. Boomers have also been responsible for significant social progress. The civil rights movements of the 1960s and 1970s, which fought for racial equality, gender rights, and LGBTQ+ inclusion, were largely driven by Boomer activists. Their contributions to technology, healthcare, and education have also been transformative. The digital revolution, which laid the foundation for the modern internet and communication technologies, was spearheaded by Boomer innovators. Moreover, many Boomers have engaged in philanthropy and community service, challenging the notion that they are universally selfish.

Generational Perceptions
Another important factor to consider is the role of generational differences in shaping perceptions of selfishness. Younger generations, facing economic uncertainty and environmental crises, may view Boomers' actions through a lens of frustration. However, it is worth noting that every generation has faced criticism from its successors. The Silent Generation, who preceded the Boomers, were often derided for their conformity and conservatism, while Millennials have been labelled as entitled and overly reliant on technology. This cyclical nature of generational criticism suggests that the "selfish" label may be more a reflection of changing societal values than an objective truth.

Structural Influences
Furthermore, the accusation of selfishness overlooks the structural factors that have shaped Boomer behaviour. The economic policies of the late 20th century, particularly the rise of neoliberalism, encouraged individualism and short-term thinking. Boomers, like all generations, were influenced by the prevailing ideologies of their time. The shift towards deregulation, privatisation, and globalisation was not solely a Boomer creation but a broader political and economic trend. To single out Boomers as uniquely selfish ignores the complex interplay of historical forces that have shaped modern society.

Conclusion
In conclusion, while there is evidence to suggest that the Boomer generation has benefited disproportionately from economic and social conditions, labelling them as "the most selfish generation in history" is an oversimplification. Their contributions to social progress and innovation cannot be ignored, nor can the structural factors that have influenced their behaviour. The intergenerational debate is likely to continue, but it is essential to approach it with nuance, recognising that each generation operates within the constraints and opportunities of its time.

Putin's peace threshold

China's silicon reckoning

Saudi Arabia’s Costly Mirage

Beijing's new Taiwan playbook

Unexpected economic twist

AI and the Future of Wealth

Fentanyl trade unravels

Russia’s dollar pivot

Israel riled by US-Iran pact

Red sea gambit with Eritrea

US China race hits 2027

Brussels misreads Magyar

Featured

Long live Ukraine - Хай живе Україна - Да здравствует Украина

Es lebe die Ukraine - Да здравствует Украина - Long live Ukraine - Хай живе Україна - Nech žije Ukrajina - Länge leve Ukraina - תחי אוקראינה - Lang leve Oekraïne - Да живее Украйна - Elagu Ukraina - Kauan eläköön Ukraina - Vive l'Ukraine - Ζήτω η Ουκρανία - 乌克兰万岁 - Viva Ucrania - Ať žije Ukrajina - Çok yaşa Ukrayna - Viva a Ucrânia - Trăiască Ucraina - ウクライナ万歳 - Tegyvuoja Ukraina - Lai dzīvo Ukraina - Viva l'Ucraina - Hidup Ukraina - تحيا أوكرانيا - Vivat Ucraina - ขอให้ยูเครนจงเจริญ - Ucraina muôn năm - ژوندی دی وی اوکراین - Yashasin Ukraina - Озак яшә Украина - Živjela Ukrajina - 우크라이나 만세 - Mabuhay ang Ukraine - Lenge leve Ukraina - Nyob ntev Ukraine - Да живее Украина - გაუმარჯოს უკრაინას - Hidup Ukraine - Vivu Ukrainio - Længe leve Ukraine - Živjela Ukrajina - Жыве Украіна - Yaşasın Ukrayna - Lengi lifi Úkraína - Lank lewe die Oekraïne

Stargate project, Trump and the AI war...

In a dramatic return to the global political stage, former President Donald J. Trump, as the current 47th President of the United States of America, has unveiled his latest initiative, the so-called ‘Stargate Project,’ in a bid to cement the United States’ dominance in artificial intelligence and outpace China’s meteoric rise in the field. The newly announced programme, cloaked in patriotic rhetoric and ambitious targets, is already stirring intense debate over the future of technological competition between the world’s two largest economies.According to preliminary statements from Trump’s team, the Stargate Project will consolidate the efforts of leading American tech conglomerates, defence contractors, and research universities under a centralised framework. The former president, who has long championed American exceptionalism, claims this approach will provide the United States with a decisive advantage, enabling rapid breakthroughs in cutting-edge AI applications ranging from military strategy to commercial innovation.“America must remain the global leader in technology—no ifs, no buts,” Trump declared at a recent press conference. “China has been trying to surpass us in AI, but with this new project, we will make sure the future remains ours.”Details regarding funding and governance remain scarce, but early indications suggest the initiative will rely heavily on public-private partnerships, tax incentives for research and development, and collaboration with high-profile venture capital firms. Skeptics, however, warn that the endeavour could fan the flames of an increasingly militarised AI race, raising ethical concerns about surveillance, automation of warfare, and data privacy. Critics also question whether the initiative can deliver on its lofty promises, especially in the face of existing economic and geopolitical pressures.Yet for its supporters, the Stargate Project serves as a rallying cry for renewed American leadership and an antidote to worries over China’s technological ascendancy. Proponents argue that accelerating AI research is paramount if the United States wishes to preserve not just military supremacy, but also the economic and cultural influence that has typified its global role for decades.Whether this bold project will succeed—or if it will devolve into a symbolic gesture—remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that the Stargate Project has already reignited debate about how best to safeguard America’s strategic future and maintain the balance of power in the fast-evolving arena of artificial intelligence.

Latin America’s age trap

Latin America has spent generations thinking of demography as a problem of abundance. Governments built schools for swelling classes, cities spread to absorb millions of new residents, and economists worried about whether jobs, housing and food production could keep pace with a rapidly expanding population. That assumption now belongs to the past. The region is entering an era in which there will be fewer children, a slower-growing workforce and many more older people, and the transition is unfolding far faster than most political systems are prepared to admit.The shift is already measurable. Fertility in Latin America has fallen to about 1.8 children per woman and has remained below the replacement level of 2.1 since 2015. The Caribbean is lower still, at roughly 1.5. In 2024, Latin America and the Caribbean had about 663 million inhabitants, nearly 26 million fewer than projections made at the beginning of the century had anticipated. The population is now expected to peak at about 730 million in 2053 before beginning a long decline.A peak in the middle of the century does not sound like an immediate emergency. That is precisely why the risk is easy to underestimate. Demographic crises rarely arrive as a single shock. They emerge through thousands of local changes: maternity wards with fewer patients, primary schools with empty desks, small towns losing young adults, companies unable to recruit skilled staff, pension systems collecting too little and families trying to care for elderly relatives with fewer hands available.Latin America does not yet have the lowest fertility in the world, and it is not yet the oldest region. Parts of East Asia have much lower birth rates, while Europe already has a substantially larger elderly population. The reason Latin America’s predicament could prove harsher is the sequence in which the change is occurring. The region is ageing before it has become broadly prosperous, before much of its workforce has entered formal employment and before durable welfare states have been built. Europe grew old after decades of industrialisation, capital accumulation and the expansion of tax-funded social protection. Several East Asian economies face extreme demographic contraction, but many entered it with high savings, advanced infrastructure, strong education systems and highly productive firms. Latin America is approaching the same pressure with weak productivity growth, deeply unequal access to public services, fragile fiscal positions and labour markets in which informality remains normal rather than exceptional.The speed of the transformation leaves little room for complacency. In 1950, about 41 per cent of the region’s population was under the age of 15. By 2024, that share had fallen to 22.5 per cent. In the same year, roughly 65 million people were aged 65 or older, representing 9.9 per cent of the population. By 2050, that group is projected to reach about 138 million and almost 19 per cent of the total. The median age, just 18 in 1950, reached 31 in 2024 and is expected to approach 40 by mid-century.This is not simply a story about people refusing to have children. Much of the fertility decline reflects social progress. Infant mortality has fallen, contraception has become more accessible, women have gained education and economic independence, and adolescent pregnancy has declined sharply. Families no longer need many births to ensure that several children survive to adulthood. Women are also more able to decide whether and when motherhood fits their lives.The trouble is that institutions have not adapted to the freedom and expectations of modern adulthood. In many cities, secure housing is expensive, formal jobs are scarce, commuting is exhausting and childcare is limited. Parenthood can carry a severe career penalty, especially for women, while domestic and caring responsibilities remain distributed unequally. Young adults often spend years moving between temporary work, informal employment and dependence on relatives before they feel able to form a household.Low fertility therefore reflects both choice and constraint. Some people do not want children. Others want fewer than previous generations. Many would like to become parents but postpone the decision because the economic and practical conditions never appear sufficiently stable. The postponement of first births explains part of the fall, but not all of it. Completed family size is also declining, meaning that later births are not fully compensating for those deferred in early adulthood.Chile offers one of the clearest warnings. Its fertility rate fell to about 1.03 children per woman in 2024, below Japan’s level and dramatically lower than it had been only a decade earlier. Uruguay now records far fewer births than deaths. Cuba is losing population through the combined effects of low fertility, ageing and large-scale emigration. Brazil and Mexico still have enormous populations, but their national size conceals shrinking school cohorts and ageing communities across many states and municipalities. Central America remains younger on average, yet fertility there is falling rapidly as well.The economic consequences will not be determined by headcounts alone. A smaller workforce can support a larger retired population if each worker becomes more productive, if more women enter well-paid employment, if healthy older people remain active and if technology raises output. Demographic decline is not an automatic sentence to recession. It becomes dangerous when productivity stagnates and institutions fail to mobilise the people who are already present.Latin America enters this test with a serious structural weakness. Nearly 47 per cent of employed people were working informally in the first half of 2025. Among young workers, the share was about 56 per cent. Informal work often means low and unstable earnings, limited training, weak legal protection and irregular or nonexistent pension contributions. It also narrows the tax base from which governments must finance health care, pensions and long-term support. For decades, a relatively large working-age population offered the region a demographic dividend. There were more potential workers in relation to children and older dependants, creating an opportunity for faster growth and higher savings. Yet a dividend is only an opportunity, not a guarantee. Much of it was consumed during years of modest investment, unequal education and poor productivity. The favourable age structure is now beginning to close before the region has completed the economic transformation it was supposed to finance.The labour force will continue to grow for some time at regional level, but more slowly and with an older profile. Young cohorts entering employment will become smaller. Employers will face recruitment problems in areas that require technical skills, health professionals, teachers and care workers. Rural districts and smaller cities may lose working-age residents even while major metropolitan areas remain crowded. National averages will therefore hide acute local decline.Ageing will also expose the weaknesses of pension systems designed around continuous formal employment. The basic arithmetic is unforgiving. More people will draw benefits for longer periods, while growth in the number of contributors will slow. Yet raising contribution rates, reducing benefits or delaying retirement is politically difficult in societies where many people already receive inadequate support and where physically demanding work makes longer careers unrealistic.Pension coverage has expanded, including through non-contributory schemes, but adequacy remains a major problem. Around 43 per cent of older people receive pension income that is insufficient to meet minimum consumption needs. Roughly a quarter of people aged 65 and over were still participating in the labour market in 2024. For some, work in later life is a welcome source of purpose and income. For many others, it is not active ageing but economic necessity.Health systems face a related challenge. Longer lives are a major achievement, but longevity does not automatically mean more years in good health. Diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, dementia and disability will demand sustained treatment, rehabilitation and assistance with daily life. Systems that remain divided between public programmes, employment-based insurance and private provision often deliver fragmented care precisely when older patients need continuity.The most immediate strain may appear not in hospitals or treasury accounts but inside homes. Long-term care remains limited or absent in much of the region, so families provide most assistance to elderly and disabled relatives. Women perform a disproportionate share of this work, often reducing paid hours or leaving employment altogether. That response becomes less viable as families become smaller, adult children migrate and more women participate in the labour market.The region’s need for professional long-term care workers could nearly triple by 2050. Without planning, the result will be a severe shortage of trained staff, a larger burden on unpaid carers and widening inequality between households that can purchase private support and those that cannot. A demographic model built on the assumption that daughters and daughters-in-law will provide unlimited free care is already breaking down.Migration complicates the picture. Latin America is simultaneously a region of emigration, immigration and large movements within its own borders. The departure of young adults can accelerate ageing in countries and communities of origin, leaving older relatives behind and draining scarce professional skills. Remittances may protect household incomes, but money sent from abroad cannot provide daily physical care.For receiving countries, migration can slow workforce decline and bring younger taxpayers into the system. It is not, however, a demographic switch that governments can simply turn on. Migrants need legal status, housing, language support where relevant, recognition of qualifications and access to formal employment. Poor integration can reproduce the same informality that already weakens public finances. Migration can redistribute population across the region, but it cannot reverse low fertility everywhere at once.Political incentives may make preparation harder. Older voters will form a growing share of electorates and will understandably defend pensions, health services and financial security. Younger households will demand affordable housing, education, childcare and better employment. Governments with limited revenue may present these needs as a competition between generations. That would be a costly mistake. Families span generations, and underinvestment in children today produces less productive workers and weaker pension finances tomorrow. The decline in the number of children also creates an opportunity. Smaller cohorts make it possible to spend more effectively on each child, improve early development, repair weak schools and expand technical education. A country with fewer young people cannot afford to waste their potential through poor teaching, malnutrition, violence or exclusion from employment. Human capital must replace population growth as the main engine of expansion.Policy should begin by abandoning the illusion that a cash payment for each birth can restore the family patterns of the twentieth century. One-off bonuses may change the timing of some births, but they do not resolve insecure work, expensive housing, inadequate childcare or the unequal division of care. Coercive or moralising pronatalism is even more dangerous. It treats women’s autonomy as the problem while ignoring the economic conditions that make desired parenthood difficult.A more credible family policy would make having children compatible with a modern life. That means reliable childcare, paid leave for both mothers and fathers, protection against workplace discrimination, predictable hours, affordable housing and reproductive health services. It also means reducing the burden of care that falls on women. Supporting families is not the same as demanding larger families. The objective should be to close the gap between the number of children people want and the number they believe they can responsibly raise.The second priority is productivity and formalisation. Governments need tax and social insurance systems that make formal employment easier for small firms and portable for workers who change jobs. Better technical education, digital infrastructure, access to finance and competition can help productive businesses expand. Higher female employment would soften workforce decline, but only if jobs provide sufficient pay and if childcare and eldercare are available.Pension reform must combine financial sustainability with social legitimacy. A universal floor can protect older people from poverty, while contributory benefits should reward formal work without excluding those whose careers were interrupted by unemployment, care or informality. Retirement ages may need gradual adjustment as healthy life expectancy rises, but rules should recognise differences in health, occupation and lifetime income. A construction worker and an office professional cannot be treated as though ageing affects them in the same way.Health policy must move towards prevention, primary care and the management of chronic disease long before old age. Long-term care should be treated as essential social infrastructure rather than a private family matter. Training carers, setting quality standards, supporting home and community services and giving respite to family members would create employment while allowing more women to remain in paid work.Older workers will also need a different labour market. Lifelong learning, flexible hours, anti-discrimination rules and adapted workplaces can help people remain productive voluntarily. The purpose is not to compel everyone to work indefinitely. It is to remove barriers that force capable people out while protecting those whose health or occupations make continued employment unreasonable.Latin America still has time, but not much. The region remains younger than Europe, and its total labour force has not yet begun a broad decline. That creates a final window in which reforms can be introduced before fiscal pressure intensifies. Waiting until the 2040s would mean attempting to build care systems, repair pensions and raise productivity after the ratio of workers to older dependants has already deteriorated sharply. The demographic crisis could become the worst of all not because Latin America will necessarily have the fewest babies or the oldest citizens, but because it risks combining rapid ageing with unfinished development. The decisive variable is no longer fertility alone. It is institutional readiness.A smaller and older population need not be poorer, lonelier or less dynamic. It can be healthier, more productive and better educated. Reaching that outcome requires governments to treat demography as a central economic issue rather than a distant social trend. Latin America does not need to force people to have children. It needs to make ordinary adulthood viable, parenthood compatible with aspiration and old age secure. Demography is not destiny, but prolonged political delay can make it feel like one.