[Pastiche]

Here's a great book review about a book published by a British parliamentarian about the ensuing conflict with the baby boomer generation:

The Pinchsets out to show how the baby boomers – those, like Willetts, who were born between 1945 and 1965 – have "stolen their children's future" through their cultural, demographic and political dominance. Willetts does not quite succeed in proving this charge of intergenerational theft. But in marshalling his case he takes you on such a fascinating journey through British society that you do not feel remotely shortchanged.
His stated thesis is that the big generation of boomers has concentrated wealth, adopted a hegemonic position over national culture and failed to attend to the needs of the future. They have, in effect, broken the inter-generational contract. It is certainly true that the boomers have done well out of the welfare state, being set to take out, Willetts suggests, approximately 118% of what they'll put in. But this makes them no worse than previous generations, including those born between 1900 and 1920.

More on concentration of wealth: http://www.economist.com/culture/dis...ry_id=15495760

Half the population are under 40 years old but they hold only about 15% of all financial assets. People under 44 own, again, just 15% of owner-occupied housing. Comparing the financial and housing wealth of different age groups in 1995 and 2005 the Bank of England found that those aged 25 to 34 had seen their wealth fall, whereas those aged 55 to 64 had seen theirs triple. It helped that inflation was galloping when the older group was borrowing to buy homes, but slowed thereafter.

If pensions are counted, the situation is even more skewed. Lushly funded final- salary schemes are now broadly closed to new members, in the private sector at least. Baby-boomers can chuck the day job at 60 or 65 and head off into the perma-tanned sunset (they will probably prove freakishly long-lived), borrowing against the inflated value of their houses as they do so. Their children must slog on towards an infinitely receding retirement age, squirrelling away money for their meagre defined-contribution pensions as a growing proportion of state spending is devoted to the needs of a massive generation of the elderly.

Here's an article by Maclean's a while back that just boiled my blood, apparently Generation Y is the most entitled generation:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/01/14/d...80%99s-my-job/

Emboldened by these dual advantages, Millennials set their expectations high. Not only did they want fun, fulfilling work, with flexible hours, good salaries, and ample vacation, they wanted to be celebrated, too. Literally, feted. Savvy employers had taken to embracing measures like prize packages for a job well done, “public displays of appreciation,” and, in the case of one manufacturer in Texas, retaining a “celebration assistant” in charge of helium balloons and confetti.

The comments to this article are better than the article itself:

I think Gen Y largely grew up more socially alienated than any generation before it. They don't have the sense of community offered by religion, they grew up in gated communities or ghettos (large gap between rich and poor), their parents moved around more than any generation before them, rising crime meant hanging around with the neighbourhood kids was harder than before and as much as technology puts them in constant contact with more people, it probably reduces the quality of that contact. That is, I think, the opening for employers - they need to foster cooperation and social integration for Gen Y'ers, and give them a sense of belonging to a team. Gen Y may LOOK like it is all about unbridled individualism and selfishness, but look at how they go about it collectively (and how easily folks like the sellers of Che Guevera t-shirts co-opt them) - Gen Y is just looking to fit in