The War Against The Young: NY State
show comments
  • Jordan

    Thank you WRM for stating so clearly how the older generation of politicians have, for lack of better words, screwed over the younger generations.

    Public union obligations are just the start. You are forgetting the ~$14T debt plus the unfunded obligations of Social Security and Medicare. (Back in 2006, my congressman would not acknowledge that the Social Security “trust fund” held no actual assets — I’m glad that lie seems to be subsiding a bit.) Furthermore, the younger generations have been priced out of the housing market for the past 10-20 years, and prices are only *starting* to come back down to the range of affordability.

    Note that I said “older generation of politicians” rather than “older generation”. While it seems easy and convenient to blame the Boomers, I am also guilty of having unwittingly voted for some of those who have lied and spent beyond our means. Perhaps you, WRM, as a historian, can make a better case that the Boomers as a whole can be blamed, if that is indeed the case.

    I’m actually quite surprised everything came crashing down much sooner than I thought. I thought the Boomers would not be affected, but I believe they very much are. And Gen-X is simply too small a cohort to pay all of the bills due.

  • Peter M. Todebush

    It’s ironic that Congress mandates ‘Sarbanes Oxley’ on the private sector, with the threat of felony prosecution, while employing accounting procedures that would put most people in jail. The Public Sector must use ‘accrual’ vs ‘cash’ accounting and ‘dynamic’ vs ‘static’ analysis in their economic forecasts. All the entitlements have to be converted from ‘defined benefit’ to ‘defined contribution’. Paul Ryan explains this; it’s the only way out.

  • Heather

    Excellent article about the difficulties that younger workers are facing.
    Some of your facts about demographics are inaccurate, however. The statement “Don’t trust anyone over 30” generally is attributed to Jack Weinberg who was born in 1940, six years before the baby boom started and the statement itself was first said in 1964, the last year of the baby boom. It was actually the so called “Silent Generation” who picked up on this statement.
    Also, the article is geared to young people 18 through 20’s. It’s unlikely that their grandparents are baby boomers, who are now aged 46 to 64. It is most likely that the boomers are their parents.

  • WigWag

    Professor Mead is right about most of what he says in this post, but his predilection to gild the lily is on ample display yet again.

    The Professor says,

    “Investors and the bond markets have finally figured out just how sleazy government finance has been these last thirty years, and they aren’t going to keep lending unless governments start keeping honest books and show the true cost of all the debts they have outstanding.”

    It seems to me that this is a gross exaggeration that is highly unlikely to come true.

    Does Professor Mead really think that investors are about to eschew the market for government securities? Where in the United States can we find evidence of that? In fact, all of the evidence points in exactly the opposite direction.

    The federal government is financing its debt at record low interest rates. Investors are literally falling all over each other to snap up U.S. debt. So anxious are they to lend their money to the United States Government that they are willing to accept virtually no return at all.

    Has Professor Mead checked out the interest rate on recently issued government debt? Interest rates are at historical lows. When S&P downgraded federal debt a few weeks ago, what was the result? Did the purchasers of bonds demand a greater return because they were being asked to accept a greater risk? The opposite is true; they literally threw their money into government bonds and interest rates fell even lower.

    Despite the fact that sovereign debt as a percentage of GDP is significantly higher than it has been in the recent past, the annual cost of financing that debt is far lower than during the 1980s and 1990s because interest rates are so much lower. If Professor Mead is talking about the federal government, he’s got it all wrong; “Investors and the bond market” aren’t threatening to stop lending unless the government keeps honest books; they’re threatening to keep lending money to the federal government even if interest rates fall to zero.

    What about state governments? We all know that many state governments are facing a fiscal situation far more dire than the fiscal situation of the federal government. Which of these state governments is having any trouble at all financing its debt? While a few municipal governments may face bankruptcy, is there any evidence that “investors and the bond market” are threatening to stop lending or even demanding higher interest rates for debt issued by state governments?

    Even the worst of the worst, California, has absolutely no difficulty finding takers for its bonds and despite California’s financial difficulties, the interest rate California pays on those bonds is significantly less than it was during the 1980s and even the 1990s when the state’s finances were in better shape.

    The bond market has spoken and the message that it is delivering is precisely the opposite message that Professor Mead and other harbingers of doom want the public to believe. What the bond market is saying is that both federal and state debt is rock solid and that there is no threat of default. The bond market realizes that there are dramatic differences between Greece, Ireland and Spain on the one hand and the United States or the several states on the other. Mead may disagree; but his point of view has been thoroughly rebuked by the bond market.

    It’s not just me who thinks Professor Mead’s comment about government debt is all wrong, its millions of investors from all over the world who are voting with their feet and putting their money where their mouths are.

  • Jim.

    @WigWag —

    Your advice is so reckless as to be practically, yes, treasonous.

    90% of GDP is the commonly-accepted point of no return for government debt. (It is in fact worse in the US’s case, because since our debt is the highest percentage of *world* GDP — meaning, the highest percentage of the world’s available capital.)

    The US has a halo right now, it’s true. But with a debt of 90-100% of GDP and climbing, ***if we lose our halo, we lose our head.***

    What’s going to happen first, WigWag? Are we going to pay down our debt to lower than 90% of GDP, or is someone else going to pick up the “Safe Haven” halo?

    Considering how difficult it is to balance the budget, much less run surpluses, I do see how any rational human being could believe that we will continue to be a safe haven, unless Cut Cap and Balance is enacted NOW. Are you in favor of that?

    The bond markets are in a pre-crash runup right now. The current crop of traders believe they can dump their Treasuries before the crisis hits. After all, so many other people are buying, there’s bound to be someone, right? They’re voting with their feet, along with all the other lemmings.

    They’ve been left holding the bag before, and they’re going to be left holding the bag this time too — and there’s going to be nothing left of America.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to and affiliated sites.