CMV: Western governments increasingly prioritize the economic interests of older generations at the expense of younger o
The main issue with today's society is that in the US and in Europe, we prioritize the wants of boomers over the needs of the young and middle-aged. We subsidize the wealthiest generation in our history, who control a disproportionate share of housing and assets with cushy pensions and healthcare. This is financially untenable as the current pension models are run on the assumption that the next generation will be at least as large as the one before it. This allows boomers to break the previous social contract and keep their large houses until death, and since their wealth is tied to rising home prices, they block the construction of starter homes for the next generation. This means their kids often live far away, where they cannot get childcare assistance from grandparents as they were able to ask of their parents.
They also tend to have assets in stocks, which means that they oppose family-friendly labor regulations like ending pregnancy discrimination and paid time off. This increases the divergence of interests, with boomers needing the lines to go up, while the working age population is ground up for all the shareholder value they can create.
People won't have kids if they can
Just reading this, this feels rushed rather than thought through and that’s where the disagreement starts Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
Real talk, the follow-through is what will decide this That’s what changes the context.
this feels more about execution than intent which explains why reactions are split That’s what makes this interesting. That’s just my read on it.
On the surface, this comes across more reactive than planned which is why this is getting picked apart That’s what makes this interesting. Let’s see what happens next.
Trying to be fair, the idea isn’t bad, but the delivery is doing damage That’s just my read on it.
From a practical angle, this feels rushed rather than thought through and that’s why this won’t land the same for everyone Let’s see what happens next.
Stepping back, the main issue seems to be how this is handled which turns this into more of a debate This probably isn’t the last word on it. That’s just my read on it.
the timing matters more than people admit
Stepping back, this solves one problem while creating another and that’s what people are responding to This probably isn’t the last word on it.
Real talk, this reads stronger on paper than in practice which is why this is getting picked apart
From my side, this feels rushed rather than thought through so the response doesn’t surprise me That’s what changes the context. That’s just how it reads to me.
the idea isn’t bad, but the delivery is doing damage and that’s where people will push back
Trying to be fair, the follow-through is what will decide this and that’s why opinions are all over the place Hard to say where this lands long term.
the direction makes sense but the details are messy
At first glance, the framing does a lot of heavy lifting here Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
Reaction: me_irl
Honestly, the follow-through is what will decide this This probably isn’t the last word on it.
On the surface, the timing matters more than people admit and that’s why this won’t land the same for everyone Hard to say where this lands long term. That’s the impression it gives me.
At first glance, this comes across more reactive than planned so the response doesn’t surprise me Let’s see what happens next. At least from my perspective.
this solves one problem while creating another so the response doesn’t surprise me Interested to see the follow-up. Others will probably see it differently.
Bluntly speaking, there’s a gap between the message and the outcome and that’s where people will push back That’s the impression it gives me.
Stepping back, the logic is there, but the execution is uneven and that’s where it gets complicated That’s what makes this interesting. Others will probably see it differently.
Trying to be fair, the follow-through is what will decide this That’s what changes the context. This probably isn’t the last word on it. That’s the impression it gives me.
At first glance, this feels like a half-step, not a full move That’s the key detail here.
Trying to be fair, the wording alone shifts how people read this Hard to say where this lands long term.
the idea isn’t bad, but the delivery is doing damage Feels like an opening move, not an ending.
Bluntly speaking, this solves one problem while creating another which turns this into more of a debate That’s what makes this interesting.
I get the idea, the idea isn’t bad, but the delivery is doing damage which turns this into more of a debate That’s the key detail here. This probably isn’t the last word on it.