38yrsfan
02-12-2010, 04:50 PM
Meant to get back sooner but too much to do …..
<O:p</O:p
In a recent thread http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=223155 (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=223155) a few posters decided to let loose their in vogue, displeasure with the Boomer generation but consistently failed to provide bona fide substance to their venomous assertions.
<O:p</O:p
I thought I’d look into it and propose for thought and discussion the castigation of the Baby Boomer generation for all of the country’s current woes – everything from rampant spending to the death of the manufacturing sector, even such ambiguous terms like Family Values.
Any discussion about the merits of one generation over another is rather pointless; all generation boundaries are fluid. If you really want to tie groups of people together to assess blame, there are much less arbitrary ways of doing so than simply "If you were born between 1945-1960, then you are an idiot and have ruined this country!"
However, I agree with this poster that placing blame and fame on generations is basically inaccurate and very poor science. Two brothers, one born in 1945 the other in 1946; one is a great builder of the American dream and the other is a spoiled destroyer of that dream, yeah right. :shake:
The areas of the lack of responsible political leadership for the last 30 years and the loss of America’s economic power and prestige seem to be the main topics and they do directly and indirectly link to the other ills for which Boomers have been tarred and feathered. It was and still is in some places in vogue and popular to slam the white, American male. Due to the problems we are experiencing, the new popular target of blame has shifted to a demographic group, the Boomers. A cursory search of the net will show this to be a popular slam target for the disaffected. The mob is in the streets with torches ……… and they are younger and faster, thank you Colonel Colt.
The facts are that the Boomer politicians have been in office for many years but not until the last decade have they been the majority group and that only in the House. I think it is plausible to assume that without a majority legislation is and has been a blended generational product of our elected leaders and will be in the future even with the Boomers in the majority – not just the product of those behind-closed-doors, schemers-against-all-that-is-good, Boomers with their secret agenda to destroy America. But if you really want to point fingers and pin blame the numbers and links below might help clarify to whom you should direct your rage.
<O:p</O:p
YEAR - AVG HOUSE AGE(YOB) - AVG SENATE AGE (YOB) - GEN HOUSE/ GEN SENATE
2010 57 (1953) 63 (1947) Boomers/Boomers&Silent
2008 56 (1952) 62 (1946) Boomers/Boomers&Silent
2006 56 (1950) 60 (1946) Boomers/Boomers&Silent
2004 55 (1949) 60 (1944) Boomers/Silent
2001 55 (1946) 60 (1941) Boomer/Silent
1989 52 (1937) 60*(1939) Silent/Silent (*average)
<O:p</O:p
I think that one of the most glaring things that stands out from a quick study of the age averages is that the Silent Generation while they lost ground in the House they still share considerable power in the Senate.
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
It seems that all that spending and corporate-centered legislation that took American jobs away the past few decades was a collaborative effort by our Congress but with the considerable influence of the Silent Generation and supported by the GI Generation that were/are still in office.
<O:p</O:p
Doing a simple application of the average ages of Congress to the generational names table we get:
House Senate
1965-1979 - Generation X 2020-2034 2025-2039
1946-1964 - Baby Boom 1999-2019 2006-2024
1925-1945 - Silent Generation 1980-2000 1985-2005
1900-1924 - G.I. Generation 1955-1979 1960-1984
<O:p</O:p
Obviously there is some variance from the norm as we can see in our current congress so it would seem that the GI Generation and the Silent Generation are hanging onto their seats in Congress longer than the averages. The table indicates the Boomers did reach majority in the House until around 2000 and this is close to the ages taken from the Congressional profiles.
So the last 30 years of Congressional leadership wasn’t dominated by Boomers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Senators_by_age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Senators_by_age)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives_by_age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives_by_age)
Can’t we all remember the day in 1993 when the government knocked on the door and we were consulted about NAFTA? Yeah, right … the point being that the man on the street didn’t have any say in what went down other than that election process and once they were in office ………. all promises are off.
Loss of manufacturing jobs:
Year % of manufacturing jobs in US
1965 53
1988 39
2004 9
Corporate leadership has a very similar age profile. These were the people that made the decisions to relocate along with their boards of directors.
In 1995 the average age of a CEO was 50 .4 (1944-1945) placing them at the end of the Silent and the beginning of the Boomer. In 2001 it was 48.8, CEOs were getting younger then but in 2010 it jumped to 56 years old. So using an average of say 52 (seems a reasonable age for a CEO) and applying it to the table we get:
1946-1964 - Baby Boom 1998-2016
1925-1945 - Silent Generation 1977-1997
1900-1924 - G.I. Generation 1952-1976
The numbers on board members aren’t readily available but common sense would seem to indicate a similar age range to the CEOs and maybe even older - unless an inheritance is involved the accumulation of enough wealth, power and control to sit on the board takes time, not something where you see many 20 or 30 year olds.
So once again it would seem that it was Silent Generation supported by GI Generation stockholders and directors that moved many of our manufacturers out of the US.
<O:p</O:p
In a recent thread http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=223155 (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=223155) a few posters decided to let loose their in vogue, displeasure with the Boomer generation but consistently failed to provide bona fide substance to their venomous assertions.
<O:p</O:p
I thought I’d look into it and propose for thought and discussion the castigation of the Baby Boomer generation for all of the country’s current woes – everything from rampant spending to the death of the manufacturing sector, even such ambiguous terms like Family Values.
Any discussion about the merits of one generation over another is rather pointless; all generation boundaries are fluid. If you really want to tie groups of people together to assess blame, there are much less arbitrary ways of doing so than simply "If you were born between 1945-1960, then you are an idiot and have ruined this country!"
However, I agree with this poster that placing blame and fame on generations is basically inaccurate and very poor science. Two brothers, one born in 1945 the other in 1946; one is a great builder of the American dream and the other is a spoiled destroyer of that dream, yeah right. :shake:
The areas of the lack of responsible political leadership for the last 30 years and the loss of America’s economic power and prestige seem to be the main topics and they do directly and indirectly link to the other ills for which Boomers have been tarred and feathered. It was and still is in some places in vogue and popular to slam the white, American male. Due to the problems we are experiencing, the new popular target of blame has shifted to a demographic group, the Boomers. A cursory search of the net will show this to be a popular slam target for the disaffected. The mob is in the streets with torches ……… and they are younger and faster, thank you Colonel Colt.
The facts are that the Boomer politicians have been in office for many years but not until the last decade have they been the majority group and that only in the House. I think it is plausible to assume that without a majority legislation is and has been a blended generational product of our elected leaders and will be in the future even with the Boomers in the majority – not just the product of those behind-closed-doors, schemers-against-all-that-is-good, Boomers with their secret agenda to destroy America. But if you really want to point fingers and pin blame the numbers and links below might help clarify to whom you should direct your rage.
<O:p</O:p
YEAR - AVG HOUSE AGE(YOB) - AVG SENATE AGE (YOB) - GEN HOUSE/ GEN SENATE
2010 57 (1953) 63 (1947) Boomers/Boomers&Silent
2008 56 (1952) 62 (1946) Boomers/Boomers&Silent
2006 56 (1950) 60 (1946) Boomers/Boomers&Silent
2004 55 (1949) 60 (1944) Boomers/Silent
2001 55 (1946) 60 (1941) Boomer/Silent
1989 52 (1937) 60*(1939) Silent/Silent (*average)
<O:p</O:p
I think that one of the most glaring things that stands out from a quick study of the age averages is that the Silent Generation while they lost ground in the House they still share considerable power in the Senate.
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
It seems that all that spending and corporate-centered legislation that took American jobs away the past few decades was a collaborative effort by our Congress but with the considerable influence of the Silent Generation and supported by the GI Generation that were/are still in office.
<O:p</O:p
Doing a simple application of the average ages of Congress to the generational names table we get:
House Senate
1965-1979 - Generation X 2020-2034 2025-2039
1946-1964 - Baby Boom 1999-2019 2006-2024
1925-1945 - Silent Generation 1980-2000 1985-2005
1900-1924 - G.I. Generation 1955-1979 1960-1984
<O:p</O:p
Obviously there is some variance from the norm as we can see in our current congress so it would seem that the GI Generation and the Silent Generation are hanging onto their seats in Congress longer than the averages. The table indicates the Boomers did reach majority in the House until around 2000 and this is close to the ages taken from the Congressional profiles.
So the last 30 years of Congressional leadership wasn’t dominated by Boomers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Senators_by_age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Senators_by_age)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives_by_age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives_by_age)
Can’t we all remember the day in 1993 when the government knocked on the door and we were consulted about NAFTA? Yeah, right … the point being that the man on the street didn’t have any say in what went down other than that election process and once they were in office ………. all promises are off.
Loss of manufacturing jobs:
Year % of manufacturing jobs in US
1965 53
1988 39
2004 9
Corporate leadership has a very similar age profile. These were the people that made the decisions to relocate along with their boards of directors.
In 1995 the average age of a CEO was 50 .4 (1944-1945) placing them at the end of the Silent and the beginning of the Boomer. In 2001 it was 48.8, CEOs were getting younger then but in 2010 it jumped to 56 years old. So using an average of say 52 (seems a reasonable age for a CEO) and applying it to the table we get:
1946-1964 - Baby Boom 1998-2016
1925-1945 - Silent Generation 1977-1997
1900-1924 - G.I. Generation 1952-1976
The numbers on board members aren’t readily available but common sense would seem to indicate a similar age range to the CEOs and maybe even older - unless an inheritance is involved the accumulation of enough wealth, power and control to sit on the board takes time, not something where you see many 20 or 30 year olds.
So once again it would seem that it was Silent Generation supported by GI Generation stockholders and directors that moved many of our manufacturers out of the US.