I think there's a book here. I think you're addressing important, urgent issues. But your attitude towards Baby Boomers lacks compassion, feels ageist. I'm 71, and I find your characterization of our generation inaccurate or incomplete. There are so few people in my wide networks that fit your description. The people I know have tried to live their values, formed in the anti-war, civil rights, ecologically aware era of the 70s. You yourself seem to fall into that category as well! The plight you describe is indeed one we all share, but it's not our generation's fault that we are in this dire situation and I don't think we are voting as a bloc to prevent change. I love your thoughtful and often humorous posts and I hope you write this book, but perhaps with a slight shift in perspective.
"but it's not our generation's fault that we are in this dire situation"
Yes, it absolutely is - you did everything possible to make sure we got here - you ignored all warnings in your shortsighted drive to arrive where we are now.
"and I don't think we are voting as a bloc to prevent change"
Then you were deliberately not paying attn. another Boomer trait.
Your refusal to accept any responsibility is absolutely on par for the Boomers - nothing was ever your fault!
This is the reason I refer to the Boomers as the "sellout generation". You had so many ideals and you sold them just as soon as you could get a good price.
Fascinating!! I always enjoy and learn from Lloyd's articles. Today's is specially good, as it provides clarity on older adults and living healthier and happier. Doable. Combining personal and public sector, creating better cities, neighborhoods.
Boomers have been amazing in may ways, even if not on the environment and housing; the first, more lack ok knowledge.
But look at almost all indicators over the past 70 years around the world: access to clean water, life expectancy, education, reduction of extreme poverty, women's rights, racial equality... etc. Not nearly perfect, but huge advancement.
Next for boomers: a movement to leave a much better world than today's. For everyone. Exciting opportunity.
This Boomer (closing on in 76) recognizes pretty well all of what you saying ... the main reason my wife and I are "ageing in place" is simply this. Condos and retirement complexes etc might make a lot of sense were it not for the fact that we would have to abandon our garden and it is, to a large part, having a garden to work in that gives quality to our lives. Quality of life ... it matters whatever age you are.
There's a discussion going on here about short-term hire, electric scooters. One city in Aotearoa has just moved to ban them from the central city.
To some, electric scooters on footpaths can be anything from a nuisance to an infuriating danger. To others, they're an incredibly useful, cheap and clean form of transport.
I think the problem (and therefore the solution) is not with the scooters, it's with the design of our cities.
Old roads were not particularly practical for the first cars. Our cities now are not very practical for anything other than a car.
Some older people need to drive. Eventually we'll all get to a point where we probably shouldn't be driving. But we should have more than Uber and Netflix in our lives.
While an important topic, I'm not going to add to the rest of the comments arguing semantics or the facts you presented.
I'm just going to focus on the thing that I'm sure we all, even the constant contrarians in your comments, care about... Your health. I just want to say that I am very glad to hear it was only a muscle injury and not cardiology related issue. I can imagine it must have been quite an uncertain and scary moment for you and your loved ones. Please take care and look after yourself. I'm going to be dare to speak for everyone when I say we all want you to stay healthy and keep writing on the vital topics you write about. Hope you are healing up well 💚
Ps. Maybe a rowing partner or a cox is in order? 😉 just for peace of mind.
I'm a big proponent of intergenerational communities. But a prerequisite is an infrastructure of building typologies and transportation to support it. I'm a boomer who lives in Manhattan, where it will be somewhat easier to adapt (e.g., speeding up the addition of elevators to more subway stations, though that won't address the issue of my 3rd floor walk-up apartment), but adapting the suburbs is a much tougher problem, both politically and in terms of design. I grew up in a NYC 'burb where we had to drive 3 miles to get a quart of milk. It's hard to imagine ways to refit them. The ADU movement will help. However, making that quart of milk more accessible will require a dramatic increase in density somehow being overlayed on single-family sprawl. (Most of the thinking so far has been focused on villages, dead malls, parking lot infills, and the like, as opposed to the real sprawl subdivisions.) That's not a bad thing in my urban-centric view, but it will be a tough sell.
The premise that Boomers are this aging cohort of mythical status who have accrued all wealth, housing, and power in America is more than a little disingenuous. On a raw number level, the breakdown between generations is thus:
Boomers, 70.09 million people, or 20.93% of the population
Gen X, 65.35 million people, or 19.51% of the population
Millennials, 72.7 million people, or 21.71% of the population
Gen Z, 69.31 million people, or 20.69% of the population
That means that there really aren't that many more Boomers, and certainly doesn't reflect that Millennials are by far the biggest generation today. As Boomers retire, require more healthcare, or die off, everything that has been accumulated by them over the decades—possessions, housing, wealth—doesn't just "disappear", it gets transferred to younger generations. The houses that Boomers can no longer live in will transfer to their Gen X children, or perhaps Millennial grandchildren. And once Millennials begin retiring and becoming part of the "new-old" or "old-old" in a few decades, will this kind of article need to be updated again by someone else?
My point is, one of two things will happen: either younger generations will return to the concept of multi-generation households the way it was before senior-only housing/nursing homes became commonplace, OR innovative capitalists will work to fill the need, which will then be used for Gen X, and then Millennials, etc. It's a continuum, not series of self-terminating circles.
"...will return to the concept of multi-generation households the way it was before..."
I would have inserted "Social Security" at the end of that which allowed seniors to no longer need their families longer than before. And to a degree, Lloyd has already brought this to the fore with his co-housing articles - except it is with complete strangers rather than with family.
You're also right, VB, in that there will be a MASSIVE generational shift in wealth - unless the Collectivists, who do believe that all money should go to the Government as they prioritize the State over families, "withdraw" that inheritance for itself instead of to those family members.
" Lloyd has already brought this to the fore with his co-housing articles - except it is with complete strangers rather than with family."
A point would be that it does not have to be with strangers, I know of several Hybrid schemes with some family members being clustered together with non-family and making it work.
I am not sure how much of that wealth is actually there and how much is book numbers.
Until you liquidate an asset you don't really know how much it is worth IRL. For example, an organisation I work with liquidated an asset, 2 months ago, with a book value of $130K we got $29k for it.
I suspect that will be true with Boomer property that it is currently very overvalued. It will still be a lot, but I do not accept some of the numbers going around.
I agree - the rise in housing values these last 5 years in my neck of the woods has been unbelievable when averaged out (we're in a resort area so spring/summer sees the climbs when the tourists flock in and then the fall/winter dips erase a lot of the runup (but certainly not all of that runup).
If what I hear that (sorry Lloyd for this next part - but just to illustrate a policy that may be coming back but failed 20 years ago) that Kamala's new housing campaign promise/policy ($25K "support" for 1st time house buyers, even more for "1st generation of 1st time house buyers within a family") just brought up memories of the "overly exuberance" of the 2007-2008 housing crash due to Govt policies.
That will certainly repeat, Bob, your $130K to $29K scenario, nationwide again, if not in actual reality, certainly in spirit. Especially if "income reporting" becomes optional again.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy" - Alexander Fraser Tytler
And nothing says largess like Government subsidies in trade for votes.
Or, Boomers could pass the torch to the next generation? Look at the average age in Congress specifically the Senate (the only body that truly matters). Refusal to encourage and help the younger generations never ends up well for the old. I won’t be the one alone wondering why my kids don’t visit me. Food for thought, Boomer!
Yes, I am a Boomer (tail ender) and yes, the average age is quite up there in all three branches of US Govt - thanks to better diets, better healthcare, and the other usual suspects. That said, you've totally missed why that age is so high and it's clear that you don't play in politics much and missed the reason.
Power. Control.
Power over others. Power to shift vast resources. They've become addicted to it and refuse to let it go - some, like over-the-hill-athletes that finally recognize they can't perform as they used to.
Others, like our current President, should have retired a decade ago. That's not a political statement. Rather, an observation of Elder Abuse by his Inner Circle not willing to give up their Power-by-Association. I really do feel badly that he's being manipulated so badly to enrich others' positions. But this is not an unknown endpoint in Politics.
This is a story that needs to be told. Thank you for sending the first missive. I'll follow along as this turns into a book and hopefully a corresponding political movement.
So the 'Greatest Generation' was sub-par at parenting and raised a generation of sociopaths? I live an a reasonably walkable community of 120,000+. Master planned but too large to call a subdivision? We voted no to incorporating as a city a few years ago out of fear taxes would increase. I'm in mid 50s and enjoy living here but am already contemplating can I realistically age here. And as noted in the article the senior communities built around here are in horrible locations, with few amenities, and even more car dependent.
Yet again we have a failure to accept responsibilities for our actions. This did not happen by accident it was driven by policy. But not just policy at the Govt level but personal policy as well.
Not accepting that you will age is a failure of personal policy.
When buying this house, I deliberatly considered how would it suit me as I aged. It's 400m from shops (and a pub). Its 220m from a Bus stop and about 600m from a train station. it's cheap and easy to maintain. It has disadvantages to it, but I weight them up against long term requirements.
When I bought this house, I planned to live in it until I am taken out in a box or a strait jacket.
But this was my policy not forced on me but my personal responsible choice. If Boomers want to rot and go slowly mad in their isolated subdivisions, then I say let them. It was after all their choice. I don't see why even 1$ of my tax's should go to helping them.
Frankly, I agree on the priority that you put on personal Choice. I'm a fan of it, if you couldn't tell, but the flip side IS Responsibility. And yes, that means taking TOTAL Responsibility (you're $1 of tax bit is well stated).
I remember when some of my hamlet's townfolks wanted the town to refurbish the centuries old cemeteries that had gone overgrown. Many were "family" plots going back to the 1600s.
I was on our Budget Committee and when one of the names of the cemeteries was announced as the Weeks family, I turn to one of the family members who was also serving on the board and said "What, you left your ancestors to rot in such a decrepit state of affairs (I know go ahead VB and make the joke) because your family utterly failed at your responsibility to take care of it, but you just voted to make the rest of us take care of them for you???".
True story, and she didn't look me square in the eyes for a couple of months because I said what needed to be said but no one else had the courage to say it.
It applies to what you wrote, Bob - glad you made me think of that story (I think).
"I'm a fan of it, if you couldn't tell, but the flip side IS Responsibility."
Strange you have never demonstrated that before???
Did the budget request go through? When we had a similar issue here, but we got hold of some minor criminals (technical issues like no paying a small fine etc) they were given the choice of 7-14 days in jail or clean up a cemetery. I happened to walk past that cemetery to work a couple of weeks later - the paths were clear, and the graves positively shined. Guess we can work out which option they chose.
In the 80's NZ went under a change of process (it's still hotly debated as some of the side effects weren't and still aren't good.) It used the principle of "User Pays", you want something done it's up to you have to arrange the funding. This led to a major change in how stuff like that is funded.
Oh, I have said it many times, especially back at TH. Choice IS the implementation of Freedom but both require Responsibility for one's actions.
Sadly, it did - by one vote. I still blame Ms. Weeks for avoiding her own Responsibility in this. Even 10 years later, she won't speak to me; I guess she's afraid of what I'd say now. Sure, a TOWN cemetery should be taken care of by residential taxes. But a family plot? Nopers.
I generally am in favor of User Fees as I see nothing wrong with having that small handful of folks that are constantly using a particular "widget" pay for that cost. The hard part is in defining user/fee vs town tax deliniation.
The problem with User-Pays is not the concept itself it's that Politicians/Policy makers tend to overdo it. There are things that should be user pays, some that could be and some that shouldn't be, if you want a functioning society. The problem was because they had initial successes with User Pays, they then lost all restraint and tried to make the whole system User Pays - many of which later and expensively had to be rolled back when it finally realised that the disadvantages were greated than the advantages.
Agree with all that - and don't forget that most important political outlook - pandering. Remember, also, that once elected, a politician's #1 job is to get re-elected.
I once went to a multi-day seminar that was built around that poor fact but stated differently - "politicians only respond to PAIN". Make it PAINFUL for them to not do the right things. And for me, doing the right thing is to simply, but completely, follow the precepts of our Constitution(s). I learned a lot those days.
And I have left a large wake of politicians that still reach for their Tylenol and Motrin on a regular basis simply because of that PAIN principle (some have needed repeated lessons). And the most fun part is figuring out what that PAIN is for each one - then designing the schemes to make it happen. After all, since I don't get paid for what I do, I have to make sure it is amusing for me (which most of them just. don't. get. which adds to the fun).
Never forget that both you, me, Lloyd and VB live in the privileged position of being able to do that, without having to worry that we might have a unpleasant meeting with somebody in an dark alley.
Despite all the complaints about our political system and our politicians we still have that tremendous advantage compared with much of the rest of the world.
I worked with both a Chinese and a Paraguian collegues and they were always very amazed by what we can get away with without having an "accident". It's actually one of the reasons that they moved to NZ with their familys.
BTW, I'm glad your issue was 'only' muscular, not an M.I. I had one eight years ago, followed by a minor stoke a month later. Very scary! All good now ...
"...unable to get their roofs fixed or their lawns mowed because nobody who does these things can afford to live within a two hour drive and there are no decent trains or transit."
Right. You really think that tradesmen, needing LOTS of tools, are going to use trains and public transit to schlep all that they need to do "roofs and lawns"? A complaint in search of reality.
There are many services, particularly personal care, where the providers do not own cars. When my mother was sick (she lived in the city) I had my choice of temporary caregivers. When my mother-in-law was sick (she lived in the suburbs) it was impossible to find anyone.
If personal care providers don't own cars and simply refuse to provide service to people living in the suburbs (where the bulk of people live), to me that says there's a huge market ripe for exploitation by hardworking, forward-thinking people who would get filthy rich.
Exactly what I was thinking - and the Marketplace hates voids and vacuums (lack of air, not lack of sucking). It will get filled and here in NH, there is a flurry of activity by folks actively filling this space. After all, one can have thin margins if one has millions of customers.
However, it seems that Lloyd can't see beyond his New Urbanist nose and is too locked in (or is that frozen in?) that only Govt can provide the transportation infrastructure he wishes to impose on us all (trains and buses) as he aches to rid private vehicles from the Public Square.
I was going to say that if publishers deem the topic as too depressing, it's because not enough weight is being given to the solutions side of things. And every chapter that [presumably] covers a specific topic needs to have a solution proposed at the end of the chapter, rather than bunching everything together at the end of the book. It's the high-low, or sandwich, format for writing.
I’m 77. We need to stop treating death as a treatable disease. A wasteful portion of medical treatment in the final six months with curative intent should be palliative instead.
You mention that the ability to drive is one of the first things to go. If the industry can make autonomous vehicles happen, this will be a game changer and will extend the healthy living of the elderly.
I have to agree with the reviewers/publishers that the majority of the first part of the piece is quite negative/depressing. Even if you believe it to be true, perhaps get to the point quicker. There’s a negative and a positive perspective to anything. Not saying to sugar coat it. Well maybe I am.
My mom used to give my pill on a spoon of honey. That might be the best way to communicate this message. Add some honey.
I think there's a book here. I think you're addressing important, urgent issues. But your attitude towards Baby Boomers lacks compassion, feels ageist. I'm 71, and I find your characterization of our generation inaccurate or incomplete. There are so few people in my wide networks that fit your description. The people I know have tried to live their values, formed in the anti-war, civil rights, ecologically aware era of the 70s. You yourself seem to fall into that category as well! The plight you describe is indeed one we all share, but it's not our generation's fault that we are in this dire situation and I don't think we are voting as a bloc to prevent change. I love your thoughtful and often humorous posts and I hope you write this book, but perhaps with a slight shift in perspective.
Thank you for your comment.
As a 65 year old I have to say
"but it's not our generation's fault that we are in this dire situation"
Yes, it absolutely is - you did everything possible to make sure we got here - you ignored all warnings in your shortsighted drive to arrive where we are now.
"and I don't think we are voting as a bloc to prevent change"
Then you were deliberately not paying attn. another Boomer trait.
Your refusal to accept any responsibility is absolutely on par for the Boomers - nothing was ever your fault!
This is the reason I refer to the Boomers as the "sellout generation". You had so many ideals and you sold them just as soon as you could get a good price.
You are literally proving his point, Boomer!
Fascinating!! I always enjoy and learn from Lloyd's articles. Today's is specially good, as it provides clarity on older adults and living healthier and happier. Doable. Combining personal and public sector, creating better cities, neighborhoods.
Boomers have been amazing in may ways, even if not on the environment and housing; the first, more lack ok knowledge.
But look at almost all indicators over the past 70 years around the world: access to clean water, life expectancy, education, reduction of extreme poverty, women's rights, racial equality... etc. Not nearly perfect, but huge advancement.
Next for boomers: a movement to leave a much better world than today's. For everyone. Exciting opportunity.
This Boomer (closing on in 76) recognizes pretty well all of what you saying ... the main reason my wife and I are "ageing in place" is simply this. Condos and retirement complexes etc might make a lot of sense were it not for the fact that we would have to abandon our garden and it is, to a large part, having a garden to work in that gives quality to our lives. Quality of life ... it matters whatever age you are.
There's a discussion going on here about short-term hire, electric scooters. One city in Aotearoa has just moved to ban them from the central city.
To some, electric scooters on footpaths can be anything from a nuisance to an infuriating danger. To others, they're an incredibly useful, cheap and clean form of transport.
I think the problem (and therefore the solution) is not with the scooters, it's with the design of our cities.
Old roads were not particularly practical for the first cars. Our cities now are not very practical for anything other than a car.
Some older people need to drive. Eventually we'll all get to a point where we probably shouldn't be driving. But we should have more than Uber and Netflix in our lives.
While an important topic, I'm not going to add to the rest of the comments arguing semantics or the facts you presented.
I'm just going to focus on the thing that I'm sure we all, even the constant contrarians in your comments, care about... Your health. I just want to say that I am very glad to hear it was only a muscle injury and not cardiology related issue. I can imagine it must have been quite an uncertain and scary moment for you and your loved ones. Please take care and look after yourself. I'm going to be dare to speak for everyone when I say we all want you to stay healthy and keep writing on the vital topics you write about. Hope you are healing up well 💚
Ps. Maybe a rowing partner or a cox is in order? 😉 just for peace of mind.
I'm a big proponent of intergenerational communities. But a prerequisite is an infrastructure of building typologies and transportation to support it. I'm a boomer who lives in Manhattan, where it will be somewhat easier to adapt (e.g., speeding up the addition of elevators to more subway stations, though that won't address the issue of my 3rd floor walk-up apartment), but adapting the suburbs is a much tougher problem, both politically and in terms of design. I grew up in a NYC 'burb where we had to drive 3 miles to get a quart of milk. It's hard to imagine ways to refit them. The ADU movement will help. However, making that quart of milk more accessible will require a dramatic increase in density somehow being overlayed on single-family sprawl. (Most of the thinking so far has been focused on villages, dead malls, parking lot infills, and the like, as opposed to the real sprawl subdivisions.) That's not a bad thing in my urban-centric view, but it will be a tough sell.
The premise that Boomers are this aging cohort of mythical status who have accrued all wealth, housing, and power in America is more than a little disingenuous. On a raw number level, the breakdown between generations is thus:
Boomers, 70.09 million people, or 20.93% of the population
Gen X, 65.35 million people, or 19.51% of the population
Millennials, 72.7 million people, or 21.71% of the population
Gen Z, 69.31 million people, or 20.69% of the population
That means that there really aren't that many more Boomers, and certainly doesn't reflect that Millennials are by far the biggest generation today. As Boomers retire, require more healthcare, or die off, everything that has been accumulated by them over the decades—possessions, housing, wealth—doesn't just "disappear", it gets transferred to younger generations. The houses that Boomers can no longer live in will transfer to their Gen X children, or perhaps Millennial grandchildren. And once Millennials begin retiring and becoming part of the "new-old" or "old-old" in a few decades, will this kind of article need to be updated again by someone else?
My point is, one of two things will happen: either younger generations will return to the concept of multi-generation households the way it was before senior-only housing/nursing homes became commonplace, OR innovative capitalists will work to fill the need, which will then be used for Gen X, and then Millennials, etc. It's a continuum, not series of self-terminating circles.
"...will return to the concept of multi-generation households the way it was before..."
I would have inserted "Social Security" at the end of that which allowed seniors to no longer need their families longer than before. And to a degree, Lloyd has already brought this to the fore with his co-housing articles - except it is with complete strangers rather than with family.
You're also right, VB, in that there will be a MASSIVE generational shift in wealth - unless the Collectivists, who do believe that all money should go to the Government as they prioritize the State over families, "withdraw" that inheritance for itself instead of to those family members.
" Lloyd has already brought this to the fore with his co-housing articles - except it is with complete strangers rather than with family."
A point would be that it does not have to be with strangers, I know of several Hybrid schemes with some family members being clustered together with non-family and making it work.
I am not sure how much of that wealth is actually there and how much is book numbers.
Until you liquidate an asset you don't really know how much it is worth IRL. For example, an organisation I work with liquidated an asset, 2 months ago, with a book value of $130K we got $29k for it.
I suspect that will be true with Boomer property that it is currently very overvalued. It will still be a lot, but I do not accept some of the numbers going around.
Point taken in co-mingling the co-housing with family members and strangers.
I agree - the rise in housing values these last 5 years in my neck of the woods has been unbelievable when averaged out (we're in a resort area so spring/summer sees the climbs when the tourists flock in and then the fall/winter dips erase a lot of the runup (but certainly not all of that runup).
If what I hear that (sorry Lloyd for this next part - but just to illustrate a policy that may be coming back but failed 20 years ago) that Kamala's new housing campaign promise/policy ($25K "support" for 1st time house buyers, even more for "1st generation of 1st time house buyers within a family") just brought up memories of the "overly exuberance" of the 2007-2008 housing crash due to Govt policies.
That will certainly repeat, Bob, your $130K to $29K scenario, nationwide again, if not in actual reality, certainly in spirit. Especially if "income reporting" becomes optional again.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy" - Alexander Fraser Tytler
And nothing says largess like Government subsidies in trade for votes.
Or, Boomers could pass the torch to the next generation? Look at the average age in Congress specifically the Senate (the only body that truly matters). Refusal to encourage and help the younger generations never ends up well for the old. I won’t be the one alone wondering why my kids don’t visit me. Food for thought, Boomer!
Yes, I am a Boomer (tail ender) and yes, the average age is quite up there in all three branches of US Govt - thanks to better diets, better healthcare, and the other usual suspects. That said, you've totally missed why that age is so high and it's clear that you don't play in politics much and missed the reason.
Power. Control.
Power over others. Power to shift vast resources. They've become addicted to it and refuse to let it go - some, like over-the-hill-athletes that finally recognize they can't perform as they used to.
Others, like our current President, should have retired a decade ago. That's not a political statement. Rather, an observation of Elder Abuse by his Inner Circle not willing to give up their Power-by-Association. I really do feel badly that he's being manipulated so badly to enrich others' positions. But this is not an unknown endpoint in Politics.
This is a story that needs to be told. Thank you for sending the first missive. I'll follow along as this turns into a book and hopefully a corresponding political movement.
So the 'Greatest Generation' was sub-par at parenting and raised a generation of sociopaths? I live an a reasonably walkable community of 120,000+. Master planned but too large to call a subdivision? We voted no to incorporating as a city a few years ago out of fear taxes would increase. I'm in mid 50s and enjoy living here but am already contemplating can I realistically age here. And as noted in the article the senior communities built around here are in horrible locations, with few amenities, and even more car dependent.
Yet again we have a failure to accept responsibilities for our actions. This did not happen by accident it was driven by policy. But not just policy at the Govt level but personal policy as well.
Not accepting that you will age is a failure of personal policy.
When buying this house, I deliberatly considered how would it suit me as I aged. It's 400m from shops (and a pub). Its 220m from a Bus stop and about 600m from a train station. it's cheap and easy to maintain. It has disadvantages to it, but I weight them up against long term requirements.
When I bought this house, I planned to live in it until I am taken out in a box or a strait jacket.
But this was my policy not forced on me but my personal responsible choice. If Boomers want to rot and go slowly mad in their isolated subdivisions, then I say let them. It was after all their choice. I don't see why even 1$ of my tax's should go to helping them.
"..to accept responsibilities for our actions."
Frankly, I agree on the priority that you put on personal Choice. I'm a fan of it, if you couldn't tell, but the flip side IS Responsibility. And yes, that means taking TOTAL Responsibility (you're $1 of tax bit is well stated).
I remember when some of my hamlet's townfolks wanted the town to refurbish the centuries old cemeteries that had gone overgrown. Many were "family" plots going back to the 1600s.
I was on our Budget Committee and when one of the names of the cemeteries was announced as the Weeks family, I turn to one of the family members who was also serving on the board and said "What, you left your ancestors to rot in such a decrepit state of affairs (I know go ahead VB and make the joke) because your family utterly failed at your responsibility to take care of it, but you just voted to make the rest of us take care of them for you???".
True story, and she didn't look me square in the eyes for a couple of months because I said what needed to be said but no one else had the courage to say it.
It applies to what you wrote, Bob - glad you made me think of that story (I think).
"I'm a fan of it, if you couldn't tell, but the flip side IS Responsibility."
Strange you have never demonstrated that before???
Did the budget request go through? When we had a similar issue here, but we got hold of some minor criminals (technical issues like no paying a small fine etc) they were given the choice of 7-14 days in jail or clean up a cemetery. I happened to walk past that cemetery to work a couple of weeks later - the paths were clear, and the graves positively shined. Guess we can work out which option they chose.
In the 80's NZ went under a change of process (it's still hotly debated as some of the side effects weren't and still aren't good.) It used the principle of "User Pays", you want something done it's up to you have to arrange the funding. This led to a major change in how stuff like that is funded.
Oh, I have said it many times, especially back at TH. Choice IS the implementation of Freedom but both require Responsibility for one's actions.
Sadly, it did - by one vote. I still blame Ms. Weeks for avoiding her own Responsibility in this. Even 10 years later, she won't speak to me; I guess she's afraid of what I'd say now. Sure, a TOWN cemetery should be taken care of by residential taxes. But a family plot? Nopers.
I generally am in favor of User Fees as I see nothing wrong with having that small handful of folks that are constantly using a particular "widget" pay for that cost. The hard part is in defining user/fee vs town tax deliniation.
My comment was intended to be humour.
The problem with User-Pays is not the concept itself it's that Politicians/Policy makers tend to overdo it. There are things that should be user pays, some that could be and some that shouldn't be, if you want a functioning society. The problem was because they had initial successes with User Pays, they then lost all restraint and tried to make the whole system User Pays - many of which later and expensively had to be rolled back when it finally realised that the disadvantages were greated than the advantages.
Agree with all that - and don't forget that most important political outlook - pandering. Remember, also, that once elected, a politician's #1 job is to get re-elected.
I once went to a multi-day seminar that was built around that poor fact but stated differently - "politicians only respond to PAIN". Make it PAINFUL for them to not do the right things. And for me, doing the right thing is to simply, but completely, follow the precepts of our Constitution(s). I learned a lot those days.
And I have left a large wake of politicians that still reach for their Tylenol and Motrin on a regular basis simply because of that PAIN principle (some have needed repeated lessons). And the most fun part is figuring out what that PAIN is for each one - then designing the schemes to make it happen. After all, since I don't get paid for what I do, I have to make sure it is amusing for me (which most of them just. don't. get. which adds to the fun).
Never forget that both you, me, Lloyd and VB live in the privileged position of being able to do that, without having to worry that we might have a unpleasant meeting with somebody in an dark alley.
Despite all the complaints about our political system and our politicians we still have that tremendous advantage compared with much of the rest of the world.
I worked with both a Chinese and a Paraguian collegues and they were always very amazed by what we can get away with without having an "accident". It's actually one of the reasons that they moved to NZ with their familys.
Lloyd, take a look at https://www.cbc.ca/news/marketplace/crisis-in-home-care-1.6388152 from a couple of years ago. If (when?) you write your book, carefully consider what is being done in other countries to resolve the issue.
BTW, I'm glad your issue was 'only' muscular, not an M.I. I had one eight years ago, followed by a minor stoke a month later. Very scary! All good now ...
Glad to hear that you're both OK!
Oh Lloyd...
"...unable to get their roofs fixed or their lawns mowed because nobody who does these things can afford to live within a two hour drive and there are no decent trains or transit."
Right. You really think that tradesmen, needing LOTS of tools, are going to use trains and public transit to schlep all that they need to do "roofs and lawns"? A complaint in search of reality.
There are many services, particularly personal care, where the providers do not own cars. When my mother was sick (she lived in the city) I had my choice of temporary caregivers. When my mother-in-law was sick (she lived in the suburbs) it was impossible to find anyone.
If personal care providers don't own cars and simply refuse to provide service to people living in the suburbs (where the bulk of people live), to me that says there's a huge market ripe for exploitation by hardworking, forward-thinking people who would get filthy rich.
Exactly what I was thinking - and the Marketplace hates voids and vacuums (lack of air, not lack of sucking). It will get filled and here in NH, there is a flurry of activity by folks actively filling this space. After all, one can have thin margins if one has millions of customers.
However, it seems that Lloyd can't see beyond his New Urbanist nose and is too locked in (or is that frozen in?) that only Govt can provide the transportation infrastructure he wishes to impose on us all (trains and buses) as he aches to rid private vehicles from the Public Square.
And that's a different Use Case. You specifically mentioned the Trades.
I do, that needs editing. point taken
Lloyd,
Do the book.
First half: the truth/doom-saying
2nd half: the solutions/actions required at all level
I was going to say that if publishers deem the topic as too depressing, it's because not enough weight is being given to the solutions side of things. And every chapter that [presumably] covers a specific topic needs to have a solution proposed at the end of the chapter, rather than bunching everything together at the end of the book. It's the high-low, or sandwich, format for writing.
Better yet, not just ONE solution but profer a small range of choices for each problem.
I’m 77. We need to stop treating death as a treatable disease. A wasteful portion of medical treatment in the final six months with curative intent should be palliative instead.
I’m really looking forward to autonomous cars.
You mention that the ability to drive is one of the first things to go. If the industry can make autonomous vehicles happen, this will be a game changer and will extend the healthy living of the elderly.
I have to agree with the reviewers/publishers that the majority of the first part of the piece is quite negative/depressing. Even if you believe it to be true, perhaps get to the point quicker. There’s a negative and a positive perspective to anything. Not saying to sugar coat it. Well maybe I am.
My mom used to give my pill on a spoon of honey. That might be the best way to communicate this message. Add some honey.
Cheers
There’s definitely a book in this. A more nuanced take on boomers is probably needed, though.