I am among the earlier members of the cadre of youths known as the "baby boomers." As an early beneficiary of policies and infrastructure development intended to educate the "boomer bulge," I was able to go to college with relatively low tuition and scholarships to help me close the gap between what I was able to pay and the actual cost of attendance. Having this privilege drew me into higher education as a career and I've always thought of my work in supporting students as central to the proposition that higher education was both a public good and individual benefit. This belief worked for me and many others in the boomer generation.
Unfortunately, some boomers have forgotten that their privileges were supported by a public commitment to their welfare and futures. The result - resistance to funding higher education through taxes and in the worst cases, reluctance to fund their own children's educations.
The recent Inside Higher Education review, "Gerontocracy in America," offered a flicker of hope. Gerontocracy is not seen as asserting possessive personal privilege and denial of opportunity to others. Instead, the author, Samuel Moyn, claims that gerontocracy is structural and because of this can be addressed without offense to anyone who might bristle at being blamed for the current status of our society or education in particular.
The amazing thing about gerontocracy is that it is like other types of prejudice. "... generational bias - like other kinds of bias - is actually strong enough to defeat self-interest. For example, voters old enough to receive Social Security are often the most anti-immigration, even though increased immigration is the easiest way to improve Social Security's finances." Denying entry into the U.S. of younger immigrants who will pay into Social Security are actually the most promising strategy to balance the books before Social Security collapses under too much demand.
The problem isn't boomers themselves but the income polarization resulting from the creation of 401(k) accounts coupled with Social Security benefits. At income polarization's most extreme manifestation, the wealthiest among boomers and younger generations are moving their work and lives around the world to safe havens to protect themselves. Boomers who benefit from structural economic benefits, and who have also accumulated wealth through home ownership and value appreciation, can blindly vote against their own and society's benefit as they vote to protect their status. Especially in the face of fears about health complications in aging and perhaps the devastating impact of unfunded long-term care, boomers are inclined to hunker down, to hoard, when using their resources could help the U.S. economy correct persistent income polarization. As the review of Moyn's books indicates, "a combination of more progressive taxes with greater service provision at the end of life - say, expanding Medicare to cover long-term care - would dislodge money from static accounts and get it flowing through the economy. It would allow families to devote resources to their kids, rather than to private equity-funded chains, and it would give the elderly reassurance that they'll be OK at the end of life."
While the resolution to gerontocracy above is only one speculative attempt, I am compelled by this review to start talking with my boomer peers, reversing the blaming that often occurs, and starting conversation about the true public good and individual benefit from which we emerged as a very large and powerful cohort - large and powerful enough to discern solutions in which we could all take pride - across generations. A more just world could result, with quality education readily available to all, and peace of mind being the bonus we could all collect.
