Are Gen X-ers Falling Behind?

Reader Comments

Back to article

I'm a member of Generation X that fits the profile described - a highly educated professional and we do OK on one full-time income. It is all about living within your means. Our parents did it and we have to do it too. If you think the middle class lifestyle includes expensive cars and family trips to Europe without any trade-offs, you've been watching too much TV. Although there is certainly a lot of stress now, you can't say that people raising kids in the 70s had it easy with galloping inflation and soaring crime rates. Please stop your whining and be grateful that your parents are in a position to help you.

GenXavier of VA 10:49AM July 03, 2008

If you agree that the U.S. economy is currently in a mess, perhaps its time for our political and business "leaders" to develop a strategy to move in a new direction, e.g. consider what has worked best in the past and what needs changing now. Of course, if you are among that top 10% who continue to profit in the new economy - you can stop reading here. You will not need to sacrifice your daily Starbucks, cable TV, iPhone, vacations, 2nd house or European-styled auto.

If affordable (think salaries) education, housing/apartments, healthcare, transportation and retirement plans created the robust U.S. market economy and viable middle class of the 1970s and 1980s, is it possible that our present consumer economy, unbridled credit, increased taxes (yes - local, state and federal "fees" count), free-trade agreements and workers-be-damned attitudes have anything to do with the desperate straits most middle-class people feel and know today? Maybe, just maybe, our political and business leaders need to rethink what is best for the greatest number of citizens in the U.S.A. Something has certainly shifted our national focus from Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Senior Citizen of NC 7:48AM July 03, 2008

Nan says, "As intelligent, articulate members of the political system, we are in a position to demand more federal support for education, housing, child care, healthcare, and retirement. This is far more than just a financial issue; it's a moral issue about the shifting values of a country where a staggering number of people cannot manage to get by."

Nan may be articulate, but I question her intelligence if she wants to rely on government handouts for her education, housing, childcare, healthcare and retirement. The government doesn't have any money. She wants to take someone else's money to pay for her demands. That should not be the role of government. If Nan's generation moves in that direction our current mess will pale in comparison.

It's not moral for government to take away your money to spend on someone else. Read the Constitution people.

Don of UT 9:52PM July 02, 2008

Ultimately, a shrinking middle class traces back to government policy. That, in turn, is influenced by lobbying firms, which exist, in part, because corporations and special interest groups have achieved recognition under the law as individuals. The middle class is a low priority when there are pork barrel favors owed to those who finance political campaigns. Look back to the time in history when lobbying firms and special interest groups were not sophisticated operators, and you will find a robust, up-and-coming middle class.

Women entering the workforce SHOULD have ensured a higher standard of living, but over time two incomes net the buying power of one income decades ago. With increased family pressures divorce rates have begun to parallel the Big Squeeze. (Sociologists say financial problems are a leading cause.)

Every developed nation, when the populace becomes more educated, sees native birthrates drop. In Western Europe, birthrates have sunk so low that the offspring of Muslim immigrants, among others, may outbirth "native" populations by the end of the Century (look it up). Similarly, Latino and Southeast Asian immigrants are likely to outnumber existing US residents by 2050 (Pew Research Center). This is not a commentary about minorities vs. majorities, it is a demographic REALITY.

Immigrants bring children to Europe and America thinking there will be plenty of opportunities whereas existing residents may be less optimistic. It may be that "natives" who are more familiar with domestic realities weigh the economic feasibility of starting a family (or at least limit family size). An early Planned Parenthood goal, which is factually verifiable, was to encourage family planning as a means to reduce poverty (not a slam, but verifiable fact.). But here's what the studies found: Those of middle class means embraced family planning whereas the poor, who may feel they do not have access to birth control OR who express cultural objections, generally have not. This *may* explain why demographers have found that birthrates in developed nations tend to decline relative to immigrant populations. (Again, not a commentary but a summary of the research.)

Whereas in the past single family homes were the norm, population growth and economic realities are sparking a trend in which extended families begin to share multi-family dwellings in order to pool financial resources (a factor behind "mansionization"). Meanwhile, marketers are stripping us of our frugal tricks. It's no longer cheaper to sew one's own clothing, and the gap between eating in and eating out is narrowing too. Grocery store chains use club cards to track buying habits so they can attract shoppers with discounted cereal while making up a perceived savings with increased milk prices. It's a very sophisticated game, which is too efficient to favor a consumer who is working longer hours and can't find time to outsmart the system. Economists call it information asymmetry. Look it up!

Diana Lynn of CA 4:10PM June 30, 2008

The cost of housing and more recently, real incomes have stagnated (the last few years).

Baby boomers are happy to make money speculating on overpriced homes, driving up prices during the bubble, but they're unhappy that the kids (40 yrs old) can't afford a home of their own and now have to move back in.

The so-called Greatest Generation and the Baby Boomers fell asleep at the switch while the Fed and the USGov destroyed the economy.

For instance, for several years now, we've had to listen to you freeloaders gleefully joke about passing on the national debt to us and future gens.

You had many chances and blew all of them.

Boston Dan of MA 4:31AM June 27, 2008

And you guys are doing much better? Our generation is continuing to make the same mistakes as the baby boomers! If that's the case, then you're as much as part of the problem instead of the solution! Stop playing the victim and blaming others and start taking care of yourselves!

Henry of MA 11:36PM June 26, 2008

baby boomers and the people currently drawing more from SS than they ever contributed. Now our generation has to pay for this mess. What do you expect from the generation that grew up in the 70s. They don' believe in responsibility or common sense.

dave of CA 11:08AM June 26, 2008

I blame the baby boomers for this as they have created a society built on debt and living beyond their means. Their greed and reckless spending habits drove real estate prices to unreasonable levels. This has priced many generation X-ers out of being able to afford a home.

Thanks for sticking it to the generation of your children!

Tom of IL 7:39AM June 26, 2008

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Back to article

advertisement

Latest Video

advertisement