Boomers Didn’t Ruin Everything. Really.

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: Optimist Economy

Episode: Boomers Didn’t Ruin Everything. Really.
Hosts: Kathryn Anne Edwards (Economist) & Robin Rauzi (Editor)
Release Date: March 10, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode challenges the popular narrative that Baby Boomers are responsible for ruining the U.S. economy. Kathryn and Robin dive deep into the history, mythology, and realities of generational divides—especially the myths around the “Greatest Generation” and the supposed economic sins of boomers. They interrogate the usefulness and origins of generation labels, dissect the political economy of blame, and show why generational scapegoating misses the mark. The hosts call for a more nuanced understanding, grounded in economic fundamentals and solidarity across age groups.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Introduction & Setting the Mood

• Both hosts admit they're in a “terrible mood,” making the attempt to defend boomers a heavy lift.
• Kathryn jokes about boomers being made villains and the temptation for millennials to lay blame.

---

2. Retcon: Reflections & Corrections

Housing Debate Clarified [02:51 – 08:51]

• Robin corrects a previous statement about Michael Dell's philanthropic program for children’s savings accounts.
• Kathryn responds to persistent criticism on her views about housing supply, emphasizing that wealth, not just supply, predicts local home prices:

  “What predicts home prices in a locality is wealth… the top tail of the income distribution predicts housing prices really, really well.” – Kathryn [03:52]

• Cites exceptions like California coastal counties, where both income and supply are extreme issues.
• Acknowledges the complexity and emotional stakes in the housing debate:

  “By not liking their solution, I've made it seem like I don't care about the problem or that… their problem doesn't exist.” – Kathryn [07:13]

• Both urge listeners to consider income inequality's role in housing, not just supply restrictions.

---

3. Calvin Ball & Generational Labels

The Ever-Shifting Rules [09:00 – 18:25]

• Introduce “Calvin Ball” (rules constantly change) as a metaphor for how generations and their identities are constructed.
• Only “Baby Boom” (1946–1964) is officially recognized by the U.S. Census; all other generations are media/advertising inventions.
• They list and lampoon alternative names for Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z, driving home the point that these categories are arbitrary.

  “Someone makes them up for advertising purposes… the reason why we have these generations is to help with storytelling.” – Kathryn [17:47]

---

4. Myth-Busting: The Greatest Generation & Boomer Blaming

Book Rec & Historical Context [10:10 – 13:52]

• Kathryn references Myth in the Greatest Generation by Kenneth, which debunks nostalgic narratives about WWII-era Americans. She highlights flaws such as high divorce, abandonment, racism, and more.

  “If we are myth-making from this greatest generation and making them into heroes that they weren’t, we are making boomers into villains that they’re not.” – Kathryn [11:35]

• The “boomer generation” was mythologized only recently (Tom Brokaw’s book in the 1990s), and their children—the boomers—inherit both glory and blame.

---

5. Why Blame Boomers? Breaking Down the Narrative

Economic and Political Context [19:25 – 34:25]

• The “Boomers Ruined the Economy” Argument:
  • Boomers benefited from cheap housing, rising asset prices, generous welfare state/policies, and then supposedly dismantled these benefits for following generations.
  • They are accused of driving up the national debt, hoarding wealth, and blocking policy progress.
• Robin adds: belief that all resources are now locked up for Social Security, Medicare, and debt payments, leaving little for younger people.
• Kathryn challenges this narrative as oversimplified and politically useful:

  “Who gains from making boomers the bad guys? Why do we have to make boomers into bad economic actors — so we’ll care less if we cut Social Security?” — Kathryn [21:30]

• Diversity Among Boomers:
  • Not all boomers are wealthy or white; many are black, poor, lost jobs or pensions, or died young. The narrative erases internal diversity and vulnerability.

  “You erase vulnerability, you erase diversity, and you erase the economic failings of a generation. That’s problem one.” – Kathryn [23:15]

• Life Cycle Savings:
  • Most boomer wealth is the result of life-long saving for retirement—not from inherited dynastic wealth. The wealth accumulation peaks at retirement age before being “dissaved.”
• Political Choices vs. Generational Fate:
  • Kathryn sharply pivots: the conservative policy turn since 1980 was a function of politics, not age.

  “That’s just a Republican policy. That’s not a boomer policy… Your problem is still with conservatism, not with the people.” – Kathryn [28:28]

---

6. Generational Blame is Politically Convenient (and Wrong)

Zero-Sum Framing & Cynicism [32:07 – 34:53]

• Argue that blaming boomers plays into political hands by fostering resignation or cynicism among young voters, instead of focusing on actionable political reforms.

  “Cynicism and resignation are a free pass for shitty policy… Oh, we’ll never be able to change anything because of the boomers... No, just raise taxes and pay for children's investments.” – Kathryn [34:42, 34:53]

• Robin: Blaming boomers “absolves the current generation from taking action, from running for office, advancing policies, voting in numbers.”

---

7. A Bigger Pie, Not a Smaller Slice

Reframing Economic Success & Policy Goals [35:07 – 38:24]

• Kathryn cites labor leader Walter Reuther:

  “Labor is not fighting for a larger slice of the pie. We're fighting for a bigger pie.”

• Instead of zero-sum competition over existing resources, the goal should be widespread growth and renewed public investment.
• They address housing supply again: the aging of boomers will release a significant amount of housing stock in the next decade (“If you really care about supply, just wait.” – Kathryn [38:03]).
• Acknowledge the complexity and even the “morbid” dimension of the impending intergenerational housing transfer.

---

8. Personal Takes & Memorable Quotes

• On Boomer Success:

  “I will never point to success of a large group of Americans and say that's what's wrong.” – Kathryn [32:07]

• On Policy Change:

  “There is absolutely something we can do about it, if we don’t get brought into these narratives… Just raise taxes and pay for children’s investments.” – Kathryn [34:53]

• On Generational Tropes:

  “If the answer is we need to put people out of their big piggy houses because young people need them — y’all, that’s what the communists did. This is America. If I buy my piggy house, I get to live in my piggy house.” – Kathryn [38:34]

---

9. Lighthearted Closings: Executive Orders & Spiritual Sponsors

Executive Orders [40:46 – 43:23]

• Robin’s Executive Order:
  Ban dogs from parks that are marked “No Dogs”—expresses pet peeves about people flaunting rules.
• Kathryn’s Executive Order:
  A prestige drama about labor leader Walter Reuther and the American labor movement. Calls out Hollywood to give more airtime to working-class stories.

Spiritual Sponsors [46:20 – 48:32]

• Robin: Boomer friends who serve as “older sisters,” showing the value and support from that generation.
• Kathryn: Shared moments of sports community—airport hockey game celebrations; team spirit and optimism.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments with Timestamps

• “[Boomers] are big. Technically, millennials are bigger now because enough of them have died.” – Kathryn [19:50]
• “We could build housing really differently in this country... but the supply deficit of housing is overblown... and that it is a distraction from the degree to which income inequality is warping our housing market.” – Kathryn [08:11]
• “My problem is that however big the pie gets, I’ll never get more.” – Kathryn [37:05]
• “Cynicism and resignation are a free pass for shitty policy. And this is why they give shitty policy a free pass... 'Oh, we’ll never be able to change anything because of the boomers.'” – Kathryn [34:42]

---

Segment Timestamps

• Retcon & Reflections: 01:38 – 08:51
• Calvin Ball & Origins of Generational Labels: 09:00 – 18:25
• Myth-Busting the “Greatest Generation”: 10:10 – 13:52
• Boomers & Economic Narratives: 19:25 – 34:25
• The “Bigger Pie” Argument & Housing Cycle: 35:07 – 39:22
• Executive Orders: 40:46 – 43:23
• Spiritual Sponsors: 46:20 – 48:32

---

Takeaways for Listeners

• Generation labels are arbitrary, invented for convenience and marketing; the Baby Boom is the only official one.
• Mythical success or failure stories of generations—be it the “Greatest Generation” or Boomers—often ignore historical realities and internal diversity.
• Most boomer wealth stems from a life-cycle of saving, not rampant intergenerational theft or dynastic privilege.
• The political choices around the economy and safety net were not set in stone by a birth cohort; they are policy choices, not generational destiny.
• Resignation and generational resentment serve to distract from actionable reforms and structural issues like tax policy and social investments.
• In the end: “We need a bigger pie,” not just to blame others for the size of their slice.

---

For more, visit optimisteconomy.com or join the Substack chat community.

---

Transcript

[A]

This is. This is the worst topic for us to be rolling on on a day when you and I are both in terrible moods about the podcast of like, today, we're going to talk about why boomers don't suck. Honestly, digging deep here. Hello and welcome to Optimist Economy. I'm Kathryn Ann Edwards, economist.

[B]

I'm editor Robin Rousey.

[A]

On this show, we believe the US Economy can be better, and we talk about how to get there one problem and solution at a time. Sorry, I'm already giggling because I'm like, I guess that means the. For our episode today is Baby Boomers.

[B]

It's baby Boomers.

[A]

Yeah,

[B]

It could be. The problem is whiny millennials who complain about baby Boomers.

[A]

Oh, God. Guts deep. Well, you know what? We're gonna talk about Boomers and generations. But first, announcements.

[B]

The only announcement I have is to remind people that it helps us out a lot if you rate the show on Apple podcasts or whatever platform you listen to the podc. If you want to leave us a written review, that's also super. But yeah, that's it.

[A]

Excellent. We also, if the review is really funny. Not. That's the only reason why, like, you should tell us genuinely how we're doing. But if the review is funny, we do love reading them on the show. We do remember Andy five. All. All the backhanded Johnny Five. Johnny Five.

[B]

Johnny Five.

[A]

Johnny Five. All of the compliments about how, like, you guys are trying so hard. I have them filed away as the. Bless her heart.

[B]

You have a file of them. Nice.

[A]

After announcements, we move into retcon for retroactive continuity where we reflect and discuss and correct things that we said in the past episodes. Robin, do you have a retcon?

[B]

I do. We were talking about the Trump accounts last week, and I said in passing that Michael Dell was going to give money out to all kids. And I went to check that. Michael Dell has committed to giving out $6.25 billion to 25 million kids under the age of 10 if their family income is under $150,000. It's $250 that he would put into their Trump account. So it includes a lot of kids who would not get that thousand dollars in the Trump account pilot program. I think he's trying to create an incentive for people to create accounts who aren't part of that pilot.

[A]

I mean, good on him. Yeah, I would prefer it if it came from the federal government. It just automatically enrolled everyone. But I do like the idea of directly transferring wealth outside of the very Wealthy. So good on you, Michael Dell.

[B]

Yeah, I just wanted to make sure I was clear that it wasn't just young kids and it wasn't kids up to age 18 who can in fact open the accounts. It's kids under 10 and if their family income is under $150,000.

[A]

I have one retcon about housing.

[B]

More about housing.

[A]

Want to talk about anymore? I don't know how to say this except for that I think maybe there are some people who listen to the show who really need to hear me say I'm wrong, that supply matters more than income and supply is really important and supply will fix things and they need to hear me say it. I don't know what else to do to get people to stop calling me a stupid in my DMs for pointing out that building a condo tower in every city in America is not going to make housing affordable.

[B]

Well, it reminds me a lot of what you were saying about people got supply and demand. That's all they understand about economic forces. We talked about this in relationship to power, but it's also true in relationship to these levels of income. And it's not a one and done solution. I guess if you tripled the amount of housing and the population didn't grow, yeah, maybe.

[A]

But what predicts home prices in a locality is wealth. Yeah, it is the top tail of the income distribution that predicts housing prices really, really well. And supply comes second. And there's lots of things we can do to make supply better or to make supply more ample, but it's not clear that it would fix that problem. Now I did talk to someone at a conference who I went to in D.C. last week, who was very kind, who's worked a lot on housing, who said that whenever you talk about housing you do have to carve out the California coastal counties that they are different. And California suffers from both the income problem and the supply problems in deep extremes. Home to more billionaires than any other place on earth.

[B]

And it also suffers from not suffers from, but has other constraints about building. For instance, lack of water. I was just up in near San Luis Obispo and they can't build houses there unless they find a way to offset the water use because they don't have enough groundwater.

[A]

I was too cavalier about abundance and supply. And there are lots of really good things that supply and abundance can do. I just that I'm not sorry it's not supply. I'm going back to what I said before. I. I just worry that this supply train is like rolling on through the station. And, like, everyone's, like, jumping on of, like, we just need to build. We just need to build. Like, I know.

[B]

We just need to slash regulations and we just need to. We need to fix zoning. Those things can be true. They still may not be adequate.

[A]

An adequate solution, like, everything you think about housing being built and where it should be built is totally right. People like housing being built are often insecure homeowners who are terrified of their property going down in price, which a lot of people went through in the financial crisis and Great Recession. And they're afraid of losing an investment in their home. And they're so tied to the money that they need to get out of their home that they are antagonistic to anything that could possibly change. All of those things can be true, but it is not clear that that is the salvation for affordable housing, especially if a lot of affordability is predicted by the preponderance of very rich people. So we'll never talk about housing again. This is retcon. We're never talking about housing.

[B]

Yeah. And, you know, it took me a long time to realize that it's a rare thing that you want to hear from people who disagree with you, even if it makes your brain, like, crackle a little bit while you do it. It's hard. I mean, it's hard for me to read the Wall Street Journal opinion page.

[A]

You actually read the opinion page? I don't read the opinion page. I even, like, skip over it. So I don't look at the headlines.

[B]

Not every day and not every article. And I read some of the financial columnists and the economics columnists at the Wal, some of whom I think are very good. Right. I mean, I have little patience for things that are badly done, badly argued. But I like to know how other people think. Maybe it's just because I don't really have super strong opinions on a lot of things. And so I'm curious what other people think. But it's one of the things that made being an OP editor really fun. Right.

[A]

It's. I mean, the housing one's an interesting one because it's agreeing on the problem, but not necessarily agreeing on the solution. Yeah, but then when you don't agree on solution, people think that you're minimizing the problem. Problem. Like you don't care about the problem. And it's not. It's not the same. Like, I care a lot about this problem.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Which is why I don't want to put all of our eggs in the. Just build with fewer restrictions. Basket. By not liking their solution, I've made it seem like I don't care about the problem or that. Like their problem doesn't exist.

[B]

Yeah, people don't examine their own thoughts before they fire off an Internet comment.

[A]

I think, well, I guess maybe my retcon would then just be like, I see you frustrated by arbitrary housing rules that you think aren't necessary. I see you frustrated that there are homeowners in your town who would rather set themselves on fire than allow accessory dwelling units or that you just need a little bit of density in your neighborhood so that other people get to go to the schools. I see you and I see that and I respect it. And it is a problem and it is frustrating and it has consequences. And we could build housing really differently in this country. I hope you will see me when I say that there is an argument that has relatively stable ground that the supply deficit of housing is overblown, it has motivations in being overblown, and that it is a distraction from the degree to which income inequality is warping our housing market in a way that leaves half of America behind. I just want you to see me what I'm seeing when I look at the housing market. And all I am seeing is warping of our economy by this wealth that the government at the federal level endorses. It's not that it's a problem. They are doing a bad job at containing. They have spent the past 25 years endorsing it.

[B]

No. Creating it.

[A]

Yes. All right, Terms and conditions. Do you have anything?

[B]

I don't. Do you?

[A]

So I wanted to go back to Calvin Ball.

[B]

I do still love Calvin Ball as

[A]

a. Yeah, it was a term we brought up a few episodes ago, Calvin Ball, where you change the rules every time you play.

[B]

Every time you play.

[A]

So I think Calvin Ball is a great way to think about where did generations in the United States come from, as well as their moniker. It's Calvin Ball. You change the rule with every generation. It's pretty incredible. So, Calvin Ball, we're just doing a refresh before we get to our centerpiece, which we will also stop in here across promo and then we'll get to the big pilcrow.

[B]

So for our main pilcrow today, we're going to talk about boomers and why people are so angry at boomers.

[A]

Answering the basic question, did boomers ruin everything?

[B]

Particularly the economy.

[A]

They've decided to devote all the economic resources we have into making more World War II movies and documentaries about Woodstock. And that's going to become A third of our economy from here on out, it's easy.

[B]

All right. Why did you.

[A]

Why did I want to do this? Yeah. Yeah. All right.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

One of the most formative books I have ever read in my entire adult life is this book called I have it here. Myth in the Greatest Generation. Oh, yes, by Kenneth.

[B]

I've talked about this book before.

[A]

Uh huh. I don't remember who recommended it to me. I don't remember how I heard about it. I just know that I ordered this book and it is a social history of Americans during World War II. And I mean, it is just jaw dropping. I think the myth that you've heard of the Greatest Generation of the people who, like, they defeated fascism, they made the world safe, and then they went home and they had nuclear families and they didn't get divorced and they all worked. It's this myth of like the.

[B]

But not the women. The women didn't work.

[A]

The women didn't work, obviously, because they knew that staying home with their children was better and they had 2.5 of them. It's very much this. You might not have ever had it written in a narrative that was three sentences long, but you know it. You know that Americans used to be better and now they're not. That we used to be better at family, we used to be better at working, we used to care more about our country. And this book just. I wouldn't say succinctly, I wouldn't say it's like the most beautiful writing I've ever written, but it just says like, this is a complete mythology. Of course. And if we are myth making from this greatest Generation and making them into heroes that they weren't, we are making boomers into villains that they're not. Oh, that was why I wanted to do this episode, because there is someone who benefits from you deciding that someone else is to blame.

[B]

Yeah, for sure. That's always the case.

[A]

So, yeah, they were named the Greatest generation when almost all of them were dead in the 90s when Tom Brokaw wrote a book about them. Yeah. But before that they were not called the greatest generation. So 1. Highest divorce rates we'll ever have, 1945 and 1946, when people come back from the war. Just massive numbers of wars. 2. Lots of child abandonment and lots of abortion during the war, for sure. And there's a quote in here about how the public health commissioner for the city of San Francisco, which is a port city, he. He says that there are years in the war in which he thinks there are more abortions than live births. In the city of San Francisco, there's rampant cheating on partners. This is where Dear John letters come from. There's a in amongst soldiers in World War II to have pictures of naked women so that if you do get a Dear John letter, you have smut to send back to your soon to be ex wife or girlfriend. Incredibly high rates of desertion.

[B]

You mean desertion in the military?

[A]

Desertion in the military? I mean, like, people in the military just deserting. Really high rates. And there's also, like, they do surveys of troops of like, why are you here? And the most common response was, they were drafted. And then we get into, like, the race stuff of just how deeply racist this generation was. And they bring up things like at a production site in Detroit, might have been an airplane facility. I don't remember. Anyway, a black guy got a promotion and, like, 15,000 white people walked off the job. There's race riots at this time. Like, it's a very ugly version of a time that we associate a lot of good things with. Yeah, these were just people. Yeah, a lot of them were racist. They weren't perfect. And he doesn't say it to, like, criminalize them. He's just like. You don't hear about this part. Like, we've completely dehumanized these people into these same saints to which we aspire, and we were never that. So who gains from you thinking that you're a failure relative to people who never existed? Obviously, I'm accepting everyone's grandpa, who is clearly better, but those are the hits, the highlights of myth and the greatest generation.

[B]

Okay, so the boomers, they're kids, right?

[A]

Mostly, yes. So, Calvin Ball, I brought this up in terms and conditions. The idea that every time you play the game, you make a new rule. That is definitely the case with generational type idols. Okay, so there is only one generation that has a name in the United States, according to the Census bureau and the population reference Bureau, and that is the baby boom. 1946, 1964. 18 years of extremely elevated birth rates.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Goes all the way to 1964. So it's not just they had kids the year they came home from the war. This is a longer period after that. Everything else is invented by either authors, columnist, or advertisers. And they're invented for the purpose of storytelling. So I think I wanted to make sure to give a shout out to those names that didn't make it. So, okay, you are a Gen Xer.

[B]

I am. I am a Gen Xer.

[A]

Okay, but you were Also Baby bust. Sure. This one's my favorite. The 20 nothings. Grunge kids in the 13th gen before you became Gen X.

[B]

It's funny that Gen X is the one that stuck.

[A]

Which one do you prefer?

[B]

I don't know. I mean, I remember the 20 something cover of Time magazine came out when I was in college and it was just like everybody of course gets a little annoyed because it was a play on 30 something, the TV show. And as you say, they're invented. But it did sort of. I do remember thinking that it didn't capture my experience personally, but it did capture the experience of a lot of people my age, which was their parents got divorced, they were latchkey kids. But again, it's not, you know, none of those things were universal. But you know, per our earlier conversation about feeling seen or not, I think in a way it did make me. It did make me feel seen when I was 21 or 22. I do say Gen X, so I guess that's the one I prefer.

[A]

I feel like Baby Bust is quite harsh.

[B]

Yeah. I mean, but it really was. It was like a big drop off in population size. And we are, we suffer politically for it.

[A]

But consequences of that, y' all would have been busters. It would have been boomers and busters. I think busters is actually like you could. There's some power there to busters. Yeah, yeah. I am a millennial. You are 1985. So no matter the definition of millennial, I'm in it. We were Gen X2. Gen Y. Gen Y. I remember Echo Boomers. Digital natives.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

The Net generation Nexters instead of Xers. We're Nexters and the trophy kids. Yeah. Gen Z has also been called Igen Multi gen. Homeland Gen.

[B]

Homeland Gen because they were born after the creation of Homeland Security.

[A]

They were all just huge Claire Danes fans.

[B]

Yeah, seriously.

[A]

I think I would have liked being either echoes or trophies or Xers or Xers Nexters. I mean. Cause trophy kids is a comment on both our parenting and ourselves and that like we got lots of trophies, but then our parents gave us lots of trophies.

[B]

Oh, oh. I was thinking about trophies, like being trophy wives. You know, like something like.

[A]

No, but I think there's that too of like how much emphasis is put into child rearing and like the pressure on kids. And so that was my. I wanted to do a little bit of Calvin Ball on Generations are not a thing. Someone makes them up for advertising purposes. I mean, I read a really interesting article from the Population Reference Bureau about, you know, the reason why we have these generations is to help with storytelling.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

It's to give people an identity and to give an identity to a set of people whose experiences might be different as a way to really foster and catalyze storytelling. But I think that there's an aspect to which, like, the story is wrong. And when you're young. Right. You just, like, let me count the ways of, like, millennials were mischaracterized in my youth, but I think that there is a degree to which we don't do as much, like. And what did we get wrong about the boomers? And so I wanted to. I wanted to talk about that because I think the boomers are presented with what's wrong with the economy, for sure.

[B]

And it's, you know, it's interesting because I feel like, like a lot of that conversation, I went back to read a bunch of articles, you know, did boomers ruin everything? Did boomers ruin the economy? A lot of them from boomers.

[A]

Yes. There was one in the Wall Street Journal that was like, congratulations, boomers, you own America now.

[B]

Yeah. Robert Reich did a whole riff about boomers, and I take a lot of their point. But a lot of the anger really does seem to be millennials angry at boomers, at least recently. And I think, think. Not that I want to bring it up, but I think a lot of it has to do with housing.

[A]

Oh, come on. Nope, we're not doing it. Talk about something else.

[B]

But anyway, somebody wrote this, which is like, the dynamic of boomers waiting for millennials to say you were right and the converse. Waiting for you to say you're sorry. Right. Like, there's a parent child generational thing that's going on there with this argument to which the actors just kind of stand back, put up her hands, and go, okay, you guys, have it out, have it out.

[A]

There's a great. There's a great SNL skit about this where they make fun of all the generations and host says, I'm an Xer. We just sit back and watch it burn. Fade into the background and watch it all come down. So the basic premise of the boomers ate the economy and there's no more for the rest of us, I think, has a few features. One, they're big and bad.

[B]

They're big.

[A]

They're big. Technically, millennials are bigger now because enough of them have died.

[B]

Yeah, I saw that they crossed the over boomers. It was just like a few years ago, right?

[A]

Yeah. Very recent. But now millennials are the largest living generation to the extent that you think that they real thing and also what year did they end that classification?

[B]

You can make them bigger or smaller, depending on.

[A]

I can actually make millennials real big. It's everyone born after 1965. So the boomers, they're big, they're bad. They came of age in the late 70s, early 80s when the US was going through a rough economy, but they got houses for cheap and dealt with really high interest rates, but then held onto those houses and now they're all worth millions. They were the first to get exposure to 401ks and they rode the market to wealth and retirement. They benefited from a generous welfare state that they then dismantled in their wake. They benefited from a progressive tax system that they also dismantled in their wake to give a lot of tax cuts as they hit their prime voting years. Basically, the boomer story is they're going to benefit from government investment when they're young and take it away from people as they get old and rich. And that is why boomers have ruined the economy.

[B]

Yeah. The only thing that I think I would add that you missed is the debt. All of this was financed with the national debt.

[A]

Right.

[B]

So they've. The millennials are squeezed out of making any policy decisions now because all the money can only go to Social Security, Medicare, interest on the national debt, and. And the US Military.

[A]

Yeah, yeah. The spending on the elderly is an interesting one too, because for me there's this like, who gains from making boomers the bad guys? Why do we have to make boomers into bad economic actors so we'll care less if we cut Social Security? I mean, I think that's like slightly conspiratorial, but the link to they have so much money and the economy favored them and also they get Social Security and Medicare is great, like first level, like foundation building for. We shouldn't have Social Security.

[B]

Yeah. No. The Wall Street Journal op ed, I don't know if it's the same one, but it did exactly that. It started at all the things that they voted for. And you think that it's going on this direction of like, we need to help millennials. And then it's just be like, we need to cut Social Security.

[A]

Yeah. So the answer here is to not have Social Security or Medicare because old people are mean and they had enough money on their own.

[B]

Right.

[A]

I think the first things to say about this characterization that I think have to be said out loud is that you would not know from what we just said that there are black boomers and that their economic trajectory is incredibly different from their Rich white brethren. I think that you also wouldn't know that there are poor people who are boomers. Boomers that don't own houses, that don't have retirement accounts, who suffered from things like their pension was taken away, they never had access to a 401k and then their job was shipped overseas. Yeah. By the time they were 50.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And a lot of the reason why you don't hear about them is because a lot of them are already dead. I think we, we have picked a story and we have erased the people who don't fit in it. And that is problem one, is that you erase vulnerability, you erase diversity, and you erase the economic failings of a generation. That's problem one.

[B]

Well, you erase the people for whom that economy failed.

[A]

Yes, you erase the people.

[B]

I mean, like, there is a huge amount of wealth being held by the elderly in this country right now. And they need it. Right. They. They need it, they save for it. It needs to support them in their retirement. That's. That's what we told them to do.

[A]

Yeah, the, the economic term behind this is called life cycle savings. And the idea is that you save up money while you work to disave. We actually call it dis saving when you. I know it's kind of a fun. I mean, in our context, not spend, dry, not. We don't spend, we dis save. I don't know about y' all being spending this weekend. I've been dissaving this weekend. But we, you know, you basically the, the wealthiest you are in your life is on the day you retire, and you have at that point accumulated wealth and accumulated savings so that you can then draw that down and dissave until you die. And the idea of a life cycle cycle savings is that all of the wealth that you build up is then depleted. So there are economists who have tried to look at wealth, assets, savings in the US and determine how much of it is life cycle savings versus, like inherited accumulated wealth.

[B]

And what do you know what they find?

[A]

Yeah, it depends on who looks at it and when. But the general consensus. I'm like afraid to say that now. Yeah, I think it's mostly life cycle really. Up until this point. It's, It's. I mean, there are very wealthy people who have handed down dynastic wealth. Yeah, but there's not 100 million of them. I mean, there, I think there, I think there were 80 million boomers. That's just a knowable fact. How many baby boomers were there? Okay, 76 million people saving for retirement. To the degree that they can. And some of them being quite successful at it explains more of the wealth than just dynastic wealth. Like there are Bezos and Musk and Gates and Dells of the world. There are those people, there are more billionaires now than there ever have been. But the 70 plus million people saving for retirement is also a lot of money. And so the idea is that a lot of the wealth has been life cycle. So the reason why the Wall Street Journal says that they own the America now is because they're, a lot of them are right at the peak of their wealth because this is because they're either retiring or they have retired. For current reference, it's 2026. So the oldest boomer is 80 and the youngest boomer is 62. So you, you are getting a lot of people who are right at their wealth peak.

[B]

Yeah, they're right. They're at peak financially of contributing and not dispending.

[A]

Dis saving.

[B]

I'm sorry, dis saving.

[A]

Dispending is when you save. Come on, Robin. Economics is pretty simple.

[B]

Right, right. Sorry. So anyway, we want them to have this money but I do get, I get the feeling that people are mad that they're living long and spending it all and not, not spreading it around. There's a whole, I read this whole article about, you know, inheritance and that, you know, there are new added. The new attitude and I don't think that it's new. The new attitude among boomers is spend it before you die. Right. You've earned this money, enjoy it. And that of course again in this like broad paintbrush with which generations get painted. It's an extension of them being the me generation. Right. Which was the other selfish and self involved and all about live for the moment, don't plan ahead. Which of course if they weren't planning ahead, they wouldn't have accumulated.

[A]

Accumulated quite so much wealth.

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

I mean I think of this as like boomers are an example of like there's a lot that we can get right in our economy if we try and we can have a generation that has money, that has houses, that lives a long time. I guess part of me feels like there's almost like a parallel to workers and unions when you tell a low wage worker in an awful job making the minimum wage like, you know, what's the problem? Someone out there is unionized and making good money. Like that is not beginning of the problem that someone else is succeeding. It's that you have been set up to fail. And so it's, it's easy to point to success as the problem and as the culprit when really it's that someone has held you back. And I think that it conflates with boomers of, like, it's their fault that you're being held back. And also they're really successful.

[B]

I mean, I think that the blame gets laid on them. And I'm not saying this is fair, but is because they were also in control of the politics. You've got multiple, multiple boomer presidents, boomers dominating Congress. And the feeling is that it wasn't just that they benefited from the program, but then they also made these decisions. Like, as you have Talked about these 25 years of tax cuts, those were voted on by largely boomer politicians.

[A]

Well, that one even makes me more mad because, like, y', all, that's just a Republican policy. That's not a boomer policy. That's a Republican policy. And now they're like, oh, no, no, these aren't the droids you're looking for. Like, Republicans didn't pass tax cuts. Boomers did. Like, don't you forget whose fault it is that we've absolutely decimated the federal budget for tax cuts to rich people, your parents. I mean, like, I know it plays, but that's not what's wrong.

[B]

Right.

[A]

The political argument that boomers came into office and then made things more conservative gets painted to. Because they're all, like, very conservative, selfish me People who just want to eat up wealth as opposed to, like. Yeah. I mean, boomers are also quite liberal. And there were lots of liberal boomers as well, including liberal boomer presidents. And if they tilted more conservative, your problem is still with conservatism, not with the people.

[B]

We should probably blame Gen Xers who voted for a bunch of these Republicans because we were brainwashed by, I don't know, Reagan in the 80s.

[A]

Okay, yeah, this is fair. I do think if we're making the political argument Xers are more conservative than

[B]

boomers, we're a problem. And it makes me worry sometimes about peak Xers were eight years of Reagan. It makes me worry about the people who are in that age now growing up under Trump. What deep messages are being planted that will surface when they're 40 and actually start to vote.

[A]

I don't know. The difference is that people really love Reagan still, and they always. There's a lot of idolatry around Reagan, and I am. You think there's gonna be myth making idolatry around Trump?

[B]

I think there already is.

[A]

Oh, yeah. But I mean, that's Now I'm talking about in like 20 years.

[B]

You think it's just gonna fade away?

[A]

Oh, yeah, because he's a fraud, a 34 time convicted felon. He's a hateful person in his politics that he knows how to get people mad. But you don't have a legacy being mad or destroying things. Legacy comes from hope and what you can build. He is not building anything. In fact, the only thing he's building are things he puts his name on, like Trump accounts, and that's not going as well as he wants. And also they'll take it away from him to make sure people can have it. Like, I just. He is not going to make a legacy that's positive. I think people view Reagan as having won the Colts war.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Of having, like, taken control of big spending Democrats, of having saved Social Security, of bringing like honest folksism to politics. After Nixon, which, like Nixon, like, I, I don't think you see a lot of young people out here or a lot of people amongst the boomers who are like, you know who I love? Nixon. Like, you do not find people out there that are like, oh my God, Nixon. Those were the days. Like, you didn't grow up in the Nixon era. Like, it, it, like, yeah. I mean, the guy's a disgrace. I think Trump's gonna go the same way. Like, his legacy will just get smaller and smaller over time. And Nixon, Nixon actually gives me a lot of hope of how little. Like, he just, he just does not have many defenders.

[B]

No.

[A]

Anyway, boomers, I think I don't. I mean, obviously I will laugh at Boomer jokes. I will make Boomer jokes. I will make them to my boomer mother with pride and glee. She knows me, believe it or not. She understands that this is just what I'm like. But I will never point to success of a large group of Americans and say that's what's wrong.

[B]

Well, it does seem like an argument that's sort of like we. Yeah, because they succeeded. Nobody else can.

[A]

And that's not true. Like, they succeeded and maybe we have to succeed in a different way, but that doesn't mean we can't have success or that their success impedes ours.

[B]

Right. I mean, like, because that is absolutely the argument that gets made.

[A]

Yeah. But there is. Let's make it really clear. Hold on. I'm sorry, did you just say housing again? Are you trying to trigger me? Are you trying to trigger me? Hold on. Really quick, really quick. You know why we don't have a child tax credit that eradicates child Poverty, not Social Security. Right. Like why we don't have universal Medicaid, so every child in the United States has health insurance at least until they turn 18. It's not Social Security Security. Why we can't have child care. It's not Social Security. And I think that this like pitting one versus the other in a zero sum world. Right. Is a great way for you to forget that the reason why we don't have these things is because Congress doesn't prioritize them and they'd rather give a tax cut. And that is not a boomer policy. Like, there's something special about being born in 1955 that means that you are going to tear down investments in children's. That is a conservative Republican policy. That it is not the government's job to help people. And y', all, spoiler alert. If they had been successful in 1983, they would have ended Social Security.

[B]

You're saying in the, when the last time that we, we revamped Social Security in 1983, when the trust fund was about to run out of money.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Then that the, the Republican plan was really just to just get rid of it.

[A]

Yeah. I mean, but like, maybe the more relevant reference would be they tried to privatize Social Security in the Bush administration and he had a plan to privatize it to change basically the entire as of Social Security and it failed. And I think that now the success of Social Security is held up as a problem for every other avenue as

[B]

opposed to it all comes back to Social Security with you.

[A]

It does, doesn't it? But I, I, I think that the conflation of conservatism with baby boomers does conservatives a favor because you blame your parents and becomes less about tax policy choices as opposed to people.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, I do, I feel like also it absolves the current generation from taking action, from running for office, advancing policies, voting in numbers. You know, you just keep reading, they're like, well, this will be the year that the younger people vote.

[A]

You know, cynicism and resignation are a free pass for shitty policy.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And this is why they give shitty

[B]

policy a free pass. Us.

[A]

Yes, yes. Like, oh, we'll never be able to change anything because of the boomers. And so, like, there's no point in voting. Like, that's a very different story of like, you are empowered. You can make a difference. We can have different policy environments. There is absolutely something we can do about it. If we don't get brought into these narratives of remember old people, a long, long Time ago, in the greatest generation, they were great. And then people old, now they're evil. Like it? No, just raise taxes and pay for children's investments. Sorry. I wanted to end with a quote that, for me, encapsulates the boomer argument. You're laughing because I'm going to a quote. But the former head of the uaw, Walter Reuther, he was, like, an absolutely formative labor leader in the U.S. multiple assassination attempts on him. And he was vital in not only growing the power of the UAW and then the AFL cio, but using labor's voice in the civil rights movement and in the United Farm Workers movement. He spoke on the 1963 rally, the I have a Dream rally. He was one of the people that spoke before King, and he said, I think it was in the 40s or 50s. Labor is not fighting for a larger slice of the pie. We're fighting for a bigger pie. It's like, a really simple quote, but it has stuck with me in so many ways of, like, this is gonna sound so dumb, but, like, when it's a pie fight of, like, boomers have too big a slice of pie, like, millennials, we need a bigger pie. We don't need to take their slice. We just need a bigger pie. And we need policies that fight for a bigger piece of. And that. I carry that with me through these types of discussions of, like, here's what's wrong with boomers, and can we just go back to making fun of them for being obsessed with World War II?

[B]

Well, I mean, I think that the problem with the bigger pie metaphor in this day and age is that the bigger pie just keeps getting sucked upward right, to the wealthiest, and that the boomers embody that. But I think your point is right, and it's a nice note to end on.

[A]

No, but I think that the pushback is important. Right? Like, my problem is that however big the pie gets, I'll never get more.

[B]

Yeah, that's. I mean, the pie is going to service the national debt no matter how big it gets.

[A]

I genuinely think if we just had, like, few different choices in our tax policy, we could make investments in children and in the workforce that would actually grow the pie. And I don't talk about housing, but, you know, if you want to know a really morbid thought, I actually know where about 15 million homes are going to come from in the next 10 years. And those are the ones that boomers vacation when they die. The secret supply argument that no one wants to talk about, which is very morbid. And I don't celebrate it, but the highest home ownership rates in the United States are amongst a group of now 70 million people that will not be on this earth more than likely in the next 15 years. So if you really care a lot about supply, just.

[B]

Just wait.

[A]

Just wait. But I. It's, it's funny. It's. It never comes up in the supply discussion of what is the relative housing stock over a 10 year or 15 year trajectory. And given the changes of, like, the, the actual size of the population and homeownership rates by demographic, by age cohort groups. Yeah, we actually have a big release of supply coming.

[B]

But, yeah, it's interesting that we haven't figured that part of it out. I mean, the people that people don't. They're not downsizing out of their houses because we have put policies in place

[A]

that discourage it or they don't want to. And they like their house. Yeah. And they like their house where it is, which. And they feel like maybe I live in a house that's too big, but, like, that's also okay. I don't want to create an economy where when I turn 60, someone tells me I'm not allowed to live in the house that I live in because that's what young people need. Yeah, it's, you know, whatever. I get to live in my big piggy house. Like, I get to. I'm an American. I get to do what I want. Like, I. If the answer is we need to put people out of their big piggy houses because we need more like y'. All, that's what the communists did. This is America. If I buy my piggy house, I get to live in my piggy house. And that is not why you don't have a house. And then I'll die and someone else gets my piggy house. And the circle of life continues.

[B]

Your children can fight over your piggy house or cleaning it out, which is really what they fight for.

[A]

I have filled my piggy house with so much stuff that you will have to go through many books, so I

[B]

can't even tell you how. How close that cuts.

[A]

All right. I should say that I have cleaned out the house of a very beloved person after they died. And it was a brutal process. So I don't mean to undercut it.

[B]

Yeah, it's hard.

[A]

I clean up my childhood home when my dad died. So that's one more house in the suburbs. People. Break. Okay, so we're going to take a quick break. A whole lot happened there. Robin and I are still working Through a lot of feelings that come with hosting a show that tries to be positive about the economy in 2026. And sometimes you throw your hate at us, and it doesn't really put us in a good place to talk about optimism. In addition to me getting lots of comments about how dumb I am, Robin has also gotten some comments. And you know what? When you say bad things about me, my feelings get hurt. When you say things about my friends, I burned down your home. And that's where we are anyway, so we should take a quick break to process all that working. Break. Really?

[B]

We need to take a break. Break, break, break, break out.

[A]

All right. We like to end the show with executive orders.

[B]

We do.

[A]

Robyn, what's. What's yours?

[B]

This is really, really petty. So I feel.

[A]

Oh, my God, Yes, I'm here for it. Where. Stop. I need to get popcorn. And then. And then go.

[B]

They've just had it with people and their dogs. If there is a sign at the park that says, there are no dogs in this park, that doesn't mean you and your dog with your Frisbee are exempt from that. I live in a neighborhood with a dog park, and a quarter mile down the road is a park that literally says, no dogs in this park. And I looked in it the other day, and there was, like, five people playing with their dog. Go to the dog park. Park.

[A]

Go to the dog park.

[B]

Go to the dog park. I can't decide what the fines would be if it was my executive order, but it would. It's just short of. You lose your dog.

[A]

We have a dog. I love my dog. My dog is. She's so sweet.

[B]

She's real sweet.

[A]

And, yeah, I'm also, like, dog owners. Be better. Be better.

[B]

Do people bring dogs into the grocery stores where you live? People bring dogs into the. Into, like, the grocery store. And I'm. I'm like, on what planet do you think that that's an acceptable behavior? Nobody in Spokane took their dogs into the grocery store. This is an LA thing.

[A]

This is an LA thing that just

[B]

is like, oh, people.

[A]

What I love about dog owners almost all the time is just how much enthusiasm they have for their dog. That sometimes blinds them to how we consider it their being. But dogs do make the world better, and we fundamentally believe that here on Optimist Economy, which is why we'll send a free dog to any spiritual sponsor.

[B]

I hope you can be. I hope you can match that in pettiness.

[A]

No, I was going for my usual takedown of Hollywood that we need, like, prestige drama About Walter Reuther in the mid century labor movement. Oh, my God. Does this guy need a Netflix mini like seasons of a miniseries? Like, if you'll, if you'll shell out for like seven seasons or where there's six about the British royal family? Can we give, like, some treatment to the working class in the U.S. i would watch six seasons about the labor movement in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. Like, I would throw down. Go. Do not spare any expense on costume.

[B]

I mean, yeah, for sure.

[A]

Here's a tidbit. He survived his assassination attempt in his home, barely. They shot him with a shotgun through, like, the window at his kitchen sink. And the only reason why he didn't die is because he was turning to talk to his wife. And so he got hit. Instead of getting hit full on in the chest, he got hit in his right arm.

[B]

Oh, my gosh.

[A]

He really struggled to use it for the rest of his life. So if you met him, he introduced himself with his left hand, because he did. He couldn't move the right arm because of all the shotgun pellets in there. And then not that much later, this similar attack was made on his brother, who also survived. And the FBI was like, sorry, this is Hoover's FBI. These are liberals. We don't, we don't need to keep this that hard. It's like, it's not a real crime if you try to kill a liberal. That's. That's not a real crime. Coretta Scott King spoke at his funeral and gave one of the eulogies. So, I mean, like, we just. We have these, like, titans of American history who don't get the same treatment as the British monarchy.

[B]

I know more American stories. And I'm with you. I think that that would be Walter Reuther. Who would you cast as Walter Reuther?

[A]

Oh, that's a great question. Obviously, I have a lot of thoughts on casting. You do? Generally, he looks like he's from the 40s.

[B]

Exactly. You could have cast him in the 40s.

[A]

Okay. You know what? This guy actually looks like Bill Pullman. His son is an actor named Lewis Pullman. And I think Lewis Pullman could pull off a mid century face. Now here's the question. Look up John Lewis, labor leader. He was the head of the United Mine Workers. Look at this guy's visage. Who plays him?

[B]

A pair of eyebrows.

[A]

I mean, I mean, you need like, eyebrow wigs. You need eyebrow wigs for this one there.

[B]

Yeah, there are so many. It's like there's so many great labor stories to Tell and, and like, the only person who ever did any, I think is, like John said, sales, right?

[A]

Or how about MLK was assassinated at a wildcat strike of sanitation workers in Memphis. Like he was there for a strike. Why can't we do some kind of, like, lens of history, but about the striking sanitation workers in Memphis and like, what happens as King comes and then is assassinated?

[B]

Like, it's not enough for you to have a podcast. You, you actually need it. You need an entertainment studio. You know, I think that I'm sure that Warner Brothers is for sale. If we could just, you know, get this is. It comes down to you optimist, a few donor dollars. I bet that we could rival the offer from Netflix to buy Warner Brothers.

[A]

Should you give us millions of dollars

[B]

and you would like to see more

[A]

labor, more labor stories on film. We will start a production studio now. We'll drop. We'll drop Trump's FCC approve it? I don't think so.

[B]

But, you know, if it's not, if it's not broadcast, who cares? We don't need the fcc.

[A]

That's a fairly good point.

[B]

Spiritual sponsors.

[A]

Spiritual sponsors on this episode about the boomers and people who don't know how to walk their dog. Who is your spiritual sponsor?

[B]

Actually, my spiritual sponsor, I was thinking about this and I've been thinking about this for a while, is my baby boomer friends who are a few years older than me and who especially in the last few years have given me kind of great advice about things and who, you know, I'm an oldest daughter, so I don't have a big, an older sister and they have all really filled that gap for me.

[A]

Oh, that's such a good sponsor. I'm coming back again with the Olympics.

[B]

I'm sure, sure by the time this airs, it'll be like, you know, World cup season.

[A]

But then they need to be reminded my spiritual sponsor is once again the Olympics. I had one of the most like thing that you wish would happen in a high stakes sports moment, which I was in a public place, I was in an airport. And I have this very formative memory of being at an airport during the Michael Phelps relay race in Beijing in 2008. And I mean, like, people weren't getting on the plane because the race was. And people were like shouting from the gate of like, go. It was amazing. And then he won and then we boarded and had to be on an airplane. But it was really great to have that, like, sense of community. So I was at the airport and I watched the US Women win hockey real time and heard throughout the terminal, just like hollers when that amazing witchcraft of a play went in. And that was a very special moment. So my spiritual sponsorship is. Whoever shouts. Shouted. Yeah. In the terminal when that shot went in it really. And then there's like the. The hollers. It was. It was great. That is my spiritual sponsor. I know that our productions, at least one of our production staff was highly vested in the game to the point that if it had played at a different time, we would have had to have move recording for sure. So Sophie Lalonde is an amazing women's hockey fan and edits the Optimist Economy podcast. And Andy Robinson creates our online videos that you can see on TikTok, Instagram, YouTube and LinkedIn. Snapping the two of you,

[B]

of course. Thank you to everyone who donates to keep those two paid. You can donate. If you'd like to become a sponsor of our show at any level that is comfortable for you, you can do [e-mail] and if you're interested in chatting with other optimists, we have a chat going on Substack. And so if you just become a follower of our show on Substack, you can talk to them in the chat room. That's it for our show.

[A]

That's it. That's it.

[B]

We're done.

[A]

Look how red I am relative to the start of the show. Look. I mean, look how red I am. Look at my big old red face. We got it. Not just a near spit take. She spat out her water, folks. And how did she do it? When I made a comment about my appearance, Boom.

[B]

I don't know what did that. Oh, Christ.