1
   

Oops! The Boomers are Coming! - The Boomers are Coming!

 
 
Foxfyre
 
Reply Sun 17 Oct, 2004 09:50 pm
Milton Friedman cites three waves of boomers who will profoundly change us over the next decade:

1. The aging American baby boomers who are two elections away from retirement.
2. The Asian upward mobility.
3. The population explosion in the Arab world. There are eight Saudis under age 15 for every adult 45 to 60.

'Oops. I Told the Truth.'
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: October 17, 2004 - NY Times

Sometimes it's useful to stand back and ask yourself: If I could vote for anyone for president other than George W. Bush or John Kerry, whom would I choose? I'd choose Bill Cosby - on the condition that he would talk as bluntly to white parents and kids about what they need to do if they want to succeed as he did to black kids and parents a few months ago.

The one thing that has gone totally missing, not only from this election, but from American politics, is national leaders who are actually ready to level with the public and even criticize their own constituencies. The columnist Michael Kinsley once observed that in American politics "a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth." We could use a few really big gaffes right now. Because we have not one, but three baby booms bearing down at us, and without a massive injection of truth-telling they could all explode on the next president's watch.

The leading edge of the American baby boom generation is now just two presidential terms away from claiming its Social Security and Medicare benefits. "With unfunded entitlement liabilities at $74 trillion in today's dollars - an amount far exceeding the net worth of our entire national economy - and with payroll taxes needing to double to cover the projected costs of Social Security and Medicare, how can any serious person not call entitlement reform the transcendent domestic policy issue of our era?" asks former Commerce Secretary Peter G. Peterson, whose book on this subject, "Running on Empty," provides a blueprint for a bipartisan solution to this problem for any president daring to lead.

The second group of boomers barreling down the highway are the young people in India, China and Eastern Europe, who in this increasingly flat world will be able to compete with your kids and mine more directly than ever for high-value-added jobs. Attention Wal-Mart shoppers: The Chinese and the Indians are not racing us to the bottom. They are racing us to the top. Young Indian and Chinese entrepreneurs are not content just to build our designs. They aspire to design the next wave of innovations and dominate those markets. Good jobs are being outsourced to them not simply because they'll work for less, but because they are better educated in the math and science skills required for 21st-century work.

When was the last time you met a 12-year-old who told you he or she wanted to grow up to be an engineer? When Bill Gates goes to China, students hang from the rafters and scalp tickets to hear him speak. In China, Bill Gates is Britney Spears. In America, Britney Spears is Britney Spears. We need a Bill Cosby-like president to tell all parents the truth: throw out your kid's idiotic video game, shut off the TV and get Johnny and Suzy to work, because there is a storm coming their way.

The third group of boomers our next president will have to deal with is from the Arab world. The Arab region has had the highest rate of population growth in the world in the last half century. It has among the highest unemployment rates in the world today. And one-third of the Arab population is under the age of 15 and will soon be entering both a barren job market and its child-bearing years. There are eight Saudis under age 15 for every one between ages 45 and 60.

This is why I believed so strongly in trying to partner with the people of Iraq to establish some sort of decent government there that might serve as a beachhead for more progressive governance in the Arab world. I have not given up hope for this, but it may turn out that we made too many mistakes and that Iraqis are too divided for such a project to succeed. If so, the next president is going to need plan B - some combination of oil conservation that reduces our exposure to this region, a new military strategy and a renewed focus on promoting better government there through diplomatic and economic means. The Arab world is not even close to educating its baby boomers with the skills needed to succeed in the 21st century. Left untended, this trend is a prescription for humiliation and suicide terrorism.

I realize that elections are no time to expect honesty from politicians. But we're in this hole because the political season used to stop on Election Day. Now it's a permanent campaign. That is simply not a luxury our next president will have. The boomers are coming - from three directions - and we will not be able to deal with them without a president with a real penchant for gaffes of honesty.
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,909 • Replies: 43
No top replies

 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 08:16 am
I saw this article in the paper and was fascinated by it. Thank you for posting it.

The thing about the American baby boomers is, it's going to be interesting when they all start to hit their 60s (the first year's worth will turn 60 next year; what I'm talking about is the next 10 or 20 years when just about all of them get to the big 6-0). After all, they may retire early (sense of entitlement), may retire late (no $$ in the Social Security system), may become disabled (disability affects 1/5 of all Americans, see: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:GZPtCOj77coJ:www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/cenbr975.pdf+percentage+of+persons+disabled&hl=en), or - who knows?

If they retire early, we may see a huge upsurge in the number of available high-level jobs. There might also be an upsurge in hospitality-type jobs as people travel and eat out more. It won't be due to anything any politician is doing, or at least not directly. Rather, it'll just be a function of time. 'Course we may see a lot of the jobs go to India, Israel, Pakistan and other countries with lots of IT workers (Northern Ireland is another), or to folks with work visas coming from those countries.

See: http://www.agingstats.gov/chartbook2000/tables-population.html#Indicator%201 for some population figures.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 12:37 pm
Jespah, I think you're spot on accurate as I think Friedman is accurate on this one like he typically is.

The thing is, if the numbers are correct and the Asians and Arab nations are up and coming as predicted, we simply are going to have to change our way of thinking and doing things in order to compete, maybe even survive.

Oddly in this emphasis for change, it is George Bush who is the liberal and it is John Kerry who represents the establishment wanting to keep the status quo. It's a debate I think we need to have as possible however.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 12:42 pm
I just noticed the author is Thomas Friedman, not Milton. Oh well, the substance of the article is still powerful. Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 12:46 pm
Good article. Not sure how Bush is a liberal in this regard, though, and Kerry the establishment. Because Kerry is squawking about the job losses?

I don't think Friedman is saying that all these trends are good for the US, only that they're happening, and we'd better start paying more attention to them!
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 12:50 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
The thing is, if the numbers are correct and the Asians and Arab nations are up and coming as predicted, we simply are going to have to change our way of thinking and doing things in order to compete, maybe even survive.


As far as I remember - and that's more than 50 years 'far' - people always talked about the 'Yellow Danger'.
And since I studied history, I know, that such has been an argument since decades.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 01:06 pm
Walter writes:
Quote:
Walter writes:
As far as I remember - and that's more than 50 years 'far' - people always talked about the 'Yellow Danger'.
And since I studied history, I know, that such has been an argument since decades.


True that; however, I think a few decades is but a blip in the grand scope of history. I had an aunt who, for as long as I can remember predicted she had some terrible life threatening condition and that her time left on earth was numbered at most in days if not hours. When she died at age 93, we couldn't help quip that we should put on her tombstone, "See? I TOLD you I was sick!"

Well sooner or later the dire predictions re the Asians, the Arabs, and our own boomers are in fact going to at least in part come to fruition unless we rethink how we do things. Privatization of a portion of social security would be a great start. If I had been able to do that when I first started paying into the system, my retirement would be at least well over a million dollars now and as that money was allocated to me, the principle would still be in the U.S. treasury to be used as needed. It really is a proposal that needs careful consideration. Bush wants us to begin this as soon as possible. Kerry says no privatization of social security.

As far as us preparing our youth to compete with in a world in which other nations are working to achieve parity with us in technology and production, we had better stop the social promotions and start educating our kids, or they will indeed be left in the dust. Bush's NCLB program has seen some good results and can be improved; Kerry has nothing comparable.

We really can do better, but our next presidents in this next decade have to be those with a vision of how it can be and who have a willingness to take the risk of change.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 01:19 pm
I thought it was the "Yellow Menace"?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 02:02 pm
I guess that I agree with the general themes of this article, but Friedman is very wrong on the specifics.

1. The US does not want an honest president. The last of those rare presidents that had honesty and integrity was Carter. We all agree he was a weak president (perhaps because of he couldn't use the subterfuge needed to be a good exective). The heroes of the left and the right (for example Clinton and Reagan) were both less than honest.

2. I agree wholehearted that the US must come up with a way to reach out to the people of the Middle East.

However from the beginning, Iraq did not have a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding on this front-- and it is doubtful that this was every a real goal of anyone who has a clue.

One of our major problems in the Middle East is the Israel/Palestine crisis. It is idiocy to underestimate the ill-will that what Arabs perceive as the US's anti-Arab bias causes. We will never be loved, liked or even tolerated in th region until we resolve this problem in a way that is seen as fair by the Arab street.

If you want to know how we are doing, real Al-Jeezera. I am not arguing that this is good journalism or anything close to fair or un-biassed, but Al-Jazeera most closely represents the Arab street.

The Bush view of a Middle East longing for the US to bring freedom is sheer lunacy. The fact is that the Arab world views the US with deep suspicion and resentment. Israel is a big part of this, and Iraq is making it worse-- not better.

3. Bill Gates may be a capitalist hero, he is not an engineer. Microsoft became giant through, marketing wizardry, savvy business alliances, and the occasional rip-off or unfair business practice.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 02:18 pm
I guess I don't share your pessimistic opinion of either our national leaders or our prospects in Iraq, ebrown. I am pretty sure the vast majority of educated Arabs do not consider al-Jazeera to be a credible source; the Iraqi leadership in fact found it so misleading and disruptive, they banned it. Friedman was supportive of our project in Iraq even as he shares some (not all) of your belief that it will not succeed. His assessment of how far the Arabs lag behind along with an explosive growth in population is a recipe for disaster if we do not succeed in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 02:38 pm
Quote:
3. Bill Gates may be a capitalist hero, he is not an engineer. Microsoft became giant through, marketing wizardry, savvy business alliances, and the occasional rip-off or unfair business practice.


Are you trying to demonstrate the fact that you know very little about Bill Gates?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 02:43 pm
I know quite a bit about Bill Gates.

Software is my profession and Linux is my preference. This is politics, but of a different type. But the great advances of the computer age were not invented by Microsoft, they were swallowed by Microsoft and then marketed into submission.

This list includes DOS, Financial software(Quicken), the mouse, the windows based operating system, spreadsheets, word processors, internet browsers, c compilers, and the list goes on. None of these were invented by Gates (or anyone else at Microsoft).
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 02:53 pm
http://voteview.uh.edu/gates.htm
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 03:02 pm
Wow there's a lot of information there McG. I knew Gates was a programming genius--he simply had to know something about computers to build his empire--marketing genius would not have been enough--but there is a lot of information on the website that I didn't know. (Got to meet Bill Gates some years ago. He's an odd duck but quite personable, is well read in a lot of stuff, and is definitely no dummy.)
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 03:05 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I am pretty sure the vast majority of educated Arabs do not consider al-Jazeera to be a credible source; the Iraqi leadership in fact found it so misleading and disruptive, they banned it.


Which Iraqi leadership are we talking about here? The Saddam regime or the one the U.S. installed? Surely, neither is objective about this.

The U.S. doesn't like al-Jazeera because they dare to show news that contradicts our official line.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 03:05 pm
<snipped misplaced post>
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 03:07 pm
It was the current Iraqi regime that banned Al Jazeera as it was reporting so much inflammatory misinformation it was hindering both the war and the rebuilding efforts. Lots of sources dare to show news that contradicts our official line. Some have a valid point and a whole lot of them are reporting pure bullsh*t. Al Jazeera falls into the latter category.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 03:10 pm
This is a tangent. I just opened a new thread in the Computers forum.

It seems like the Middle East and presidential are more appropriate topics for the Politics forum.

If you want to talk about Microsoft, join me here

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=962163#962163
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 03:20 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
It was the current Iraqi regime that banned Al Jazeera as it was reporting so much inflammatory misinformation it was hindering both the war and the rebuilding efforts. Lots of sources dare to show news that contradicts our official line. Some have a valid point and a whole lot of them are reporting pure bullsh*t. Al Jazeera falls into the latter category.


Foxfyre,

You misunderstand my point. The US is not doing a very good job at reaching out to the Middle East. Al Jazeera's popularity is a sign of this.

The current Iraqi regime was set up by the the Bush administration. It is undoubtably pro-US and pro-Bush (these are not the same thing but both apply here).

The US is not very popular in the Middle East. People don't trust the US and many are simply hostile toward the US.

Al Jazeera is very popular amoung the people of the Middle East. People listen to what it says because they feel it represents their point of view.

So, try to look at this without your American bias....

A government that is instituted and supported by the US government bans a news outlet that is popular among the people of the Middle East. Do you see why some people may view this as a bad thing?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 03:22 pm
Thanks ebrown. Will probablymake a good discussion and we did inadvertently highjack the thread a little bit. I do mean "we" and it's my thread. Smile

With U.S. kids already lagging well behind other countries in math and science and no doubt are losing at least some of their edge in new innovations, advertising,and marketing, I think we have to wake up and smell the rust in our education system and insist that our children be educated.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Oops! The Boomers are Coming! - The Boomers are Coming!
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/27/2024 at 06:25:05