The Retirement Bubble

When I see something new and different on the topic of retirement elsewhere, I like to comment on it while it is still fresh. Thus I will step back from the direction mentioned in the last post to talk about another approach to the Retirement Bubble. This is a column titled, “The Geezers’ Crusade”, written by an op-ed columnist at the New York Times, David Brooks.

Ignoring for the moment the use of “geezer”, what especially grabbed my attention was Mr. Brooks’ blunt comments on those of us in the “50+” category:

Far from serving the young, the old are now taking from them. First, they are taking money. According to Julia Isaacs of the Brookings Institution, the federal government now spends $7 on the elderly for each $1 it spends on children.

In the private sphere, in other words, seniors provide wonderful gifts to their grandchildren, loving attention that will linger in young minds, providing support for decades to come. In the public sphere, they take it away.

He finishes by calling for a “spontaneous social movement”, mentioning both the movement that brought Barack Obama into the White house and the more recent Tea Party movement.

Spontaneous social movements can make the unthinkable thinkable, and they can do it quickly. It now seems clear that the only way the U.S. is going to avoid an economic crisis is if the oldsters take it upon themselves to arise and force change. The young lack the political power. Only the old can lead a generativity revolution — millions of people demanding changes in health care spending and the retirement age to make life better for their grandchildren.

The elderly. They are our future.

You can read his entire column at the New York Times.

THe first section above expresses some simple ideas in the sort of blunt language I used in my article at Barron’s, Next, the Retirement Bubble. It is rare to see this type of frank approach and I appreciate it. Some folks go so far in trying to be “polite” that they just do not get their point across. David Brooks gets his point across and I thank him for that. We need to hear it.

I am of the belief that if you are going to point out a problem, you should have something in the way of a solution to offer as well. In my case, the sharply negative language at the beginning of my Barron’s article led to my recommendation for a Life Sabbatical as a positive response.

Mr. Brooks has his positive proposal as well, but I must politely suggest that it is unlikely to be of much help. He calls on us to initiate a “nonselfish” social movement to demand that more money be spent on the youngest generations rather than on us. Sounds good, but not likely to occur.

First off, don’t imply that we are “selfish” and uncaring for the fate of younger generations. We are simply trying to deal with our own situation, resulting from an out-dated approach to retirement not because of any selfishness, but simply because that is the route our parents and grandparents took. We have been doing or planning to do what we were taught we were “supposed” to do when we were the younger generation. Give us a chance to come to grips with the radical changes facing all of us, not just us “geezers”.

Second, please keep in mind that simply calling for more money to be spent in support of the young does not do anything to remove the burden you now suggest we are. It only ignores it and, quite frankly, where the heck do you expect to find the money to support the goals of our “nonselfish social movement”, as well as help us deal with our needs?

Third, there are very few “nonselfish” social movements and the successful ones usually have a leader. Most have a clear benefit to those in the movement. Mahatma Ghandi’s movement in India was “selfish” in that its success was meant to directly benefit the members of the movement. I do know of one social movement in the US that I would call “nonselfish” and that was the Civil Rights movement which was powered in great part by white people on behalf of brown and black people who were to directly benefit. But such a movement requires a truly inspiring leader who can galvanize our support and the attention of the media. That leader was the Rev. Martin Luther King. Without leadership of that quality, we will not be able to rise above our own needs to focus on those of others “nonselfishly” (sorry for all the quotation marks, but “nonselfish” is not a word in my dictionary, I would have used unselfish and been done with it). I see no Rev. King of the geezers on the horizon.

Fourth, the approach we need to take is one that deals with the burdens felt by all generations, not just shifting attention from one generation to another. How can we who are older help the younger generations and ourselves at the same time? That is the question.

The solution is not to spend more money on the younger generations while spending more money on the older generations. I believe the solution lies in the older generation doing a better (and happier) job of earning its own income and meeting as much of its own needs as possible to free up resources to help those coming up behind us. That is the core of the Life Sabbatical approach.

I figure the probability of David Brooks reading this blog post are about one in 10,000, probably less, but if he were to do so and we were to discuss it, I would emphasize my appreciation for his having faced the problem straight-forwardly. It’s the solution that needs work.
———————

Did you enjoy this post? If so, click here to subscribe to updates to The Retirement Bubble by e-mail. If you prefer an RSS feed, click on the RSS symbol on the upper-right of this page. If you would like to share this with a friend, just click on “share this post” below.