Oh you're leaving?Well,...one thing for absolutely POSITIVE,...if we were the ones who started the fire we will also be the ones who throw gas on it and burn the whole shit to the ground on our way out!
Well get a move on.
For those who love to blame boomers for EVERYTHING wrong in the country....
- Thread starter Stone
- Start date
Well get a move on.
EXTREMELY Stupid meme by the way. Someone born in 1949 would have been 19 years old in 68. The draft was rolling in 68 for Vietnam. Average age for a trooper in 68 was 19. Therefore the very first statement in the meme you posted is HORRIFICALLY WRONG. Obviously the meme was produced by a moron of some sort, or someone who cannot add or has no knowledge of history.
Is this you being bored to the point of falling asleep, sixty-minute-man?
No,...its me tearing apart a VERY stupid meme you posted in record time because the level of stupidity in it was prolific and made it just that easy to tear apart........
In your incontinent old man dreams, perhaps.
Say, sixty-minute-man, how many times have you used that same Charlton Heston gif meme, Boomer?
You were. Mine was $2/hr.
Masons worked cheap back then, I guess.
Oh,...so it wasn't a stupid meme ? So there was no war to be fought in if you were born in 1949? hmmm........sure could have fooled these guys.
The meme was stupid. Just admit it and take your licks,....its no big deal. The first statement it made was woefully incorrect.
Nobody said "there was no war to be fought in if you were born in 1949", sixty-minute-man.
Did they?
Would a person born in 1949 necessarily be 19 in the summer of 1969?
No, a person born in 1949 would not necessarily be 19 in the summer of 1969, as they could also be 20 years old depending on their exact birth date.
Age Breakdown
- 20 years old: Anyone born between January 1 and the summer months of 1949 would have already celebrated their 20th birthday by the summer of 1969.
- 19 years old: Only those born later in the year (late summer through December 1949) would still be 19.
God damn, you're stupid, Boomer.
Y O U:
The meme:
The FIRST statement the meme makes is stupid and misleading and CLEARLY WRONG. Surely you must know that. If you don't know that then you need a break from the internet. A constant diet of message board warring isnt good for anyone. You aren't thinking correctly. Go get some rest now before I call your mom and she cuts off your WWW access.Nobody said "there was no war to be fought in if you were born in 1949", sixty-minute-man.
Did they?
Would a person born in 1949 necessarily be 19 in the summer of 1969?
No, a person born in 1949 would not necessarily be 19 in the summer of 1969, as they could also be 20 years old depending on their exact birth date.
Age Breakdown
- 20 years old: Anyone born between January 1 and the summer months of 1949 would have already celebrated their 20th birthday by the summer of 1969.
- 19 years old: Only those born later in the year (late summer through December 1949) would still be 19.
God damn, you're stupid, Boomer.
Y O U:
The meme:
cawacko
Well-known member
Plenty of young people blame Boomers for the high cost of things like housing, and on that they’re not wrong.
Too bad you can't substantiate your old man blather.
Yet here Y O U still are, sixty-minute-man.
You don't get to dictate what's acceptable for others, especially when you don't even practice what Y O U preached.
But I do,....Im Stone,...I get to do that.
Try asking some, if you know any, sixty-minute-man.
I just did. Now I will AGAIN by asking YOU. So,....WHY? why is it our fault?
Many young people blame Boomers because housing (and related costs) became far less affordable during the decades when Boomers held peak political, regulatory, and homeowner power—and the results are measurable.
From the 1970s–1990s onward in the US (and similar trends in Canada, UK, Australia), real house prices rose much faster than young-adult incomes in most major metros. Homeownership rates for people under 35 fell, while existing homeowners (disproportionately Boomers) saw large equity gains. This is not mainly “Boomers individually decided to price gouge their kids.” It is the product of policy and demographic choices that concentrated benefits on those who already owned assets.
Key mechanisms:
Student debt, healthcare costs, and slower real wage growth for non-college or early-career workers compound the squeeze, but housing is the largest single driver of the “I can’t get started” complaint.
Not every Boomer voted for strict zoning or benefited equally—plenty rent, live in low-cost areas, or face their own retirement shortfalls. Many of the same supply constraints are still enforced by Gen X and older Millennials who now own homes. Immigration-driven demand, investor purchases, and remote-work shifts into certain cities also matter. Some high-cost places (San Francisco, parts of coastal California, Toronto, Vancouver, London) show extreme versions of the pattern; others are less severe.
Younger cohorts also face choices and trade-offs Boomers did not at the same age: higher college attendance and debt, different family formation timing, preference for high-productivity/high-amenity cities that have the strictest land-use rules, and political coalitions that sometimes prioritize other goals (environmental review, historic preservation, anti-growth sentiment) over rapid housing production.
The blame is not pure mythology. Restrictive housing supply, combined with policies that rewarded existing asset holders, produced a large intergenerational gap in housing access. Calling it simply “greedy Boomers” is incomplete; the more precise description is that a large, politically powerful cohort of homeowners defended rules and monetary outcomes that protected their equity at the expense of later entrants. Fixing the underlying supply problem requires changing the rules that still protect incumbents of every generation, not just generational score-settling.
grok.com
The core economic pattern
From the 1970s–1990s onward in the US (and similar trends in Canada, UK, Australia), real house prices rose much faster than young-adult incomes in most major metros. Homeownership rates for people under 35 fell, while existing homeowners (disproportionately Boomers) saw large equity gains. This is not mainly “Boomers individually decided to price gouge their kids.” It is the product of policy and demographic choices that concentrated benefits on those who already owned assets.
Key mechanisms:
- Supply restrictions. Local zoning, density limits, height caps, lengthy permitting, and “neighborhood character” rules expanded dramatically after the 1960s–70s. These were often defended by existing homeowners who wanted to protect property values and amenities. The result: housing production lagged population and household formation in high-demand areas. When demand rises and supply is inelastic, prices spike. Boomers were the dominant voting and homeowner cohort during the decades these rules tightened.
- Monetary and fiscal policy that inflated assets. Post-2008 ultra-low rates, quantitative easing, and repeated interventions kept mortgage rates low and asset prices high. Homeowners (again, older cohorts on average) captured the capital gains; first-time buyers faced higher entry prices. Renters and young buyers absorbed the downside of higher prices without the equity upside.
- Demographic weight. The Baby Boom was a large cohort that bought homes in volume during earlier, cheaper periods, then aged in place. Their sheer numbers amplified demand for existing stock and political pressure against new supply near them.
Student debt, healthcare costs, and slower real wage growth for non-college or early-career workers compound the squeeze, but housing is the largest single driver of the “I can’t get started” complaint.
Why the blame sticks to Boomers specifically
- Timing and power: The restrictive land-use regime and the post-crisis monetary response happened while Boomers were the largest adult cohort and held disproportionate local political influence (homeowner associations, city councils, planning boards). Later generations inherit the constrained supply.
- Visible wealth transfer: Older owners saw paper wealth rise; younger non-owners did not. Surveys repeatedly show large gaps in home equity and net worth by generation at the same age.
- Narrative simplicity: “Boomers blocked housing and got rich off it” is an easy causal story. It fits progressive inequality framing and also some populist critiques of asset inflation. Media and social platforms amplify intergenerational grievance more than dry explanations about zoning elasticities or central-bank balance sheets.
Counterpoints and nuance that matter
Not every Boomer voted for strict zoning or benefited equally—plenty rent, live in low-cost areas, or face their own retirement shortfalls. Many of the same supply constraints are still enforced by Gen X and older Millennials who now own homes. Immigration-driven demand, investor purchases, and remote-work shifts into certain cities also matter. Some high-cost places (San Francisco, parts of coastal California, Toronto, Vancouver, London) show extreme versions of the pattern; others are less severe.
Younger cohorts also face choices and trade-offs Boomers did not at the same age: higher college attendance and debt, different family formation timing, preference for high-productivity/high-amenity cities that have the strictest land-use rules, and political coalitions that sometimes prioritize other goals (environmental review, historic preservation, anti-growth sentiment) over rapid housing production.
Bottom line
The blame is not pure mythology. Restrictive housing supply, combined with policies that rewarded existing asset holders, produced a large intergenerational gap in housing access. Calling it simply “greedy Boomers” is incomplete; the more precise description is that a large, politically powerful cohort of homeowners defended rules and monetary outcomes that protected their equity at the expense of later entrants. Fixing the underlying supply problem requires changing the rules that still protect incumbents of every generation, not just generational score-settling.
Boomers Blame Housing Costs | Shared Grok Conversation
Why do many young people blame Boomers for the high cost of things like housing?
grok.com