As a 1946 baby boomer, I feel that I should comment on this superficial paper. Firstly, not everyone who was alive and who stood up back then were baby boomers, many were much older. Those few of us who were thinking in the 1960s or 70s, and stood up and fought against the stuffy and oppressive post-war system in Australia were a small (and despised) minority. We did not risk our lives and livelihoods for the silly reasons listed by the author, and communication had little to do with it. It was dogged determination. We stood up against the anti-women and anti-gay majority. We questioned their holy cows of Diggers, ANZAC Day, Capitalism and the Free World, Parliament and Politicians. If you were independently minded, and therefore anti-establishment, and supported the many post-colonial struggles around the world then God help you. Directly going against the interests of the ruling class and its running dogs was very, very dangerous in the Australia of that era. You should be grateful to us!

The epitaph of humanity's wealthiest, best educated, most upwardly mobile generation there ever was and will ever be:

"You should be grateful to us"

Seems like a regular pass-time on OO, Baby Boomer Bashing(tm). Interesting that some of it comes from boomers themselves as some form of self flagellation. I think that it is a bit harsh to blame boomers for every world ill like the global economic crisis, global warming, promiscuity (via the sexual revolution). They have a lot the be thanked for like advances in medicine, science and agriculture, promiscuity (via the sexual revolution) and raising the rate of home ownership in the general population. It's a bit like yin and yang, you cannot have all good with no bad. In this context, their standard of retirement is perhaps the darker yin of their wealthy yang lives. It is really up to subsequent generations to decide and use the best achievements of the boomers for the betterment of all, and of course there is always soylent green if the food runs out.

Bankers and their trained attack dogs in politics know they are onto a winner when they can get away with blaming a whole generation for the ills of the world, especially when that 'generation' is said to extend from 1946 to 1964, eighteen years!

Of course ANZ's Chief Economist, Saul Eslake and others like him are forever trying to attach the tail to the Baby Boomer donkey, otherwise the electorate might smarten up and start asking awkward questions of banks about such things as their role in the global financial meltdown. Or were the 'Boomers' responsible for that too? Some bankers are trying that on too.

People are well advised to have a cold glass of water and use their BS (Bull....) detectors when reading articles and reports that preface a single final punchline with a long-winded and factually unsupportable treatise which culturally and economically lumps together people born over an eighteen year period. Doing it for people born in one year is silly enough but eighteen years?!

Intergenerational jealousy has been used as a diversion by both sides of politics and to explain away all sorts of things, without ever giving any ground away of the real contributing factors. For instance, it is much more convenient for a banker to blame 'Boomers' for the housing crisis (what should Boomers have done, move out into tents?) than admit that one million new migrants every three years puts enormous strain on housing. After all, the big end of town benefits from high immigration but the person in the street does not.

Similarly, 'Boomer generation' is a useful whipping boy for the lack of planning and policy vacuum (combined with the lobbying of vested interests) that result in long waiting queues at public hospitals, or to redistribute taxes so that the rich pay less and everyone pays more or preferably (sic) miss out on government services.

CornFlower>
Similarly, 'Boomer generation' is a useful whipping boy for the lack of planning and policy vacuum (combined with the lobbying of vested interests) that result in long waiting queues at public hospitals, or to redistribute taxes so that the rich pay less and everyone pays more or preferably (sic) miss out on government services.

That's a bit of a side-step. Wether you blame the 'boomer generation', the 'policy makers' or the 'lobby groups with vested interests', the cross hairs are on the same group. The boomers need to take _some_ responsibility as they are the dominant age group in these areas.

RexMundi, "The boomers need to take _some_ responsibility as they are the dominant age group in these areas."

It is a loosely defined demographic group, nothing more.

I know plenty of people in those age groups who will never be a burden on government and I am also aware of many who are much younger who will be on the public teat from schooling to grave.

Similarly you cannot claim that boomers are more likely to vote much differently to the remainder of the population and therefore they are no more responsible for the governments we have than younger, or older people.

Which 'boomers' should take responsibility for what and why?