April 27, 2009: March-April 2009
No Country for Old Men
Baby boomers: drop the watercolours, back away slowly
In last spring’s flimsy caper comedy Mad Money, an uneasy truth lingered beneath the slapstick thievery and rolling-in-greenbacks hijinks: the fabled baby boomers, now hitting their early 60s, have no idea how to deal with the diminishing returns of their impending senior citizenship. Pardon me if I gloat.
The film opens with Diane Keaton and Ted Danson, a greying upper-class couple with grown children, flitting around their vast, over-decorated home like panicked pelicans, wattles and all. Ted’s character has lost his job, and Diane’s has never worked. They contemplate getting jobs for which they are overqualified (or simply too self-important) to perform, but are so horrified by this prospect that when Diane finally does get a crappy job, her desperation and complete disbelief in her change of fortune leads her to go on a gluttonous crime spree.
Watching Mad Money, it occurred to me that, as a post-boomer, generation X-er, echo baby — choose your own term — I have performed many jobs “beneath” my education or class standing. And so has everybody I know.
In fact, I can’t think of one person from my generation who has not spent at least half of his or her adult life gainfully underemployed — typically by boomers with a third, or less, of our education and credentials. For clarification, I am, according to most demographic standards, a near-boomer. I prefer the term “post-boomer,” thank you, if the B-word must be used.
I was born in 1965, the year traditionally cited as the end of the post-WWII baby boom. But I have always considered this calendar system woefully imprecise. Boomers are a cultural phenomenon — as they like to tell us every single day — and not a demographic one.
A boomer is someone whose first “English Invasion” pop music crush was the Beatles. Mine was the Sex Pistols (and that’s one hell of a telling gulf). A boomer fondly remembers his or her first colour television. A post-boomer remembers the day the cable was hooked up. Boomers were taken to Expo ‘67 to get their first taste of culture on a grand scale. Post-boomers were taken to … well, nothing.
One of the first bitter lessons we postboomers learned about the adult world is that once a boomer has all the cake he or she wants (practically free university tuition, full universal health care, bountiful entry-level jobs with minimal qualifications, CUSO), they don’t put the rest of the cake in the freezer for a future sweet tooth — they take a hammer to it and shove the mush down the garberator.
But now boomers are edging toward their golden years and you can see the fear steaming out of day spas and rumbling across golf courses like a charged purple haze.
Naturally, they’ve turned a timeless reality into a fresh business opportunity. Bookstores are packed with how-to-age books for boomers. The ever-resourceful Moses Znaimer has dubbed his own pre-walker days his “zoomer” years and created a magazine to sell the brand. Radio stations are converting to Age of Aquarius nap-time programming, and televisions are flooded with gardening and travel shows.
Sherry Cooper’s bestselling The New Retirement: How It Will Change Our Future (the hubris of the boomers demands that everything they do be declared “new” — what next, The New Death?) attempts to counter boomer mortality anxiety with recipes for “wellness” management and, most important, investment profit maximization (one suspects the two goals are mutually inclusive).
According to sherrycooper.com, “boomers will redefine retirement with great energy and creativity, working well beyond age 65 and mostly by choice…healthy goal-driven boomers will seek purposeful leisure…” Am I the only person who finds that paragraph terrifying?
Working “well beyond age 65″? Swell. That’s great news for the economy, transnational trade, all levels of government, the civil service, the CBC, academia, the arts (I could go on here, but it’s too depressing). Seasons 30 to 40 of The Vinyl Café ought to be a riot.
And what exactly is this futuristic-sounding “purposeful leisure”? I read that quote to a fellow post-boomer artist, and he stopped cold, gulped, and said, “Oh God, now they’re all going to be artists … watercolours are back.”
While I don’t condone violence, I can condone a reasonable, humane culling of the aging herd. They don’t have to actually die, just virtually pass away. And here’s how: if you are a boomer, stop. Just stop. Stop working, stop acquiring, stop micro-managing your (and my) universe, stop sucking the life out of popular culture, stop going outdoors in those ghastly Crocs and Tilley Endurable hats, and, please, stop talking about how you’re eventually going to stop and, instead, stop. Now.
You’ve had a good run, flower children, longer than anybody else’s, but the bloom’s off, it’s last call at Alice’s Café, time to relocate. I hear P.E.I. is nice, and it has a convenient bridge. The kind that locks at night.

Stumble This
Email This

BillMetcalfe on Fri, 28th Aug 2009 2:41 pm
A small minority of young people in the sixties were hippies or activists. Many younger writers make comments like "You’ve had a good run, flower children…" when actually being a flower child in the sixties was very, very uncommon.
Most boomers have led ordinary middle class lives, victims of TV and consumerism like most people in generations since. Many boomers are poor. Some are in prison and some are homeless.
The working people who have built our cars and houses and paved our roads for the past few decades– most of those have been boomers. They don't know anything about this discussion and would have no idea what the author of this story or the retirement writers he quotes are talking about.
derek on Wed, 20th Jan 2010 3:19 am
Well put, Bill.
Thank you.
JP Beal on Mon, 22nd Feb 2010 12:22 am
See, here's what Vaughan means: My uppermiddleclass is sooo much more infuckingtune than your uppermiddleclass. You grew up with the sex pistols did you? Changed your life did it? "It Took me Like FIVE YEARS to pay off my student debt!" Now that's rage. A disconnect methinks. You complain about the arrant hairs and the sun spots on the hand that feeds you, so go on and bite it.
Zeph on Mon, 14th Jun 2010 9:05 pm
What a sad angry world of self pity and "everything that happens to me is somebody else's fault" – looking for a scapegoat to blame.
Being on the edge of the "boomer" generation yourself, you sound a bit like somebody half Jewish in Europe a few generations ago, who cranks up the vitriol and stereotypes about evil Jews even more than the pure and obvious Aryans would need to, hoping thereby to be seen as one of the righteous people and not one of "them". "Dehumanize people born a year earlier than me, but I'm OK because I happened to sorta almost be born outside the evil time period". You think that's really going to work with those a generation younger than yourself, that they'll make that distinction? You think the generations after you will think – Oh, they liked "the sex pistols" so they are ok", when to them there's no real difference, both The Sex Pistols and The Beatles are ancient history. Fat chance; the politics of hate is not known for such subtleties.
The first commenter has it right. The so called boomers were very diverse. The ones that were "flower children" were a minority, and for the most part it is their straight cousins that stayed in law school or worked the family business who inherited the reins of power from similar folks in the previous generation, and are already passing it on to similar folks in your "not quite the boomers" generation. Your hatred of "boomers" as an age based class is conveniently blind to the real dimensions of power; convenient to those with the real power to decide who gets the resources.
Look around. People are people; they vary. The dude who knocks you down can come from any generation, and the one who helps you up can too.
I think about my friends who are in the "boomer" age class. None of them that I know had it easy, tho I'm sure that some did (just as some do now) One of my best friends works as a house cleaner – no retirement except social security, needs to keep working as long as she can, worried as her body wears out. But a loving, giving person who enriches her friends and her clients. No living children. If she had been born a bit earlier, she'd be part of "the greatest generation" perhaps; or a few years later she'd be an elite "post-not-near-boomer" like you. How would that matter? Would I care less or more for her?
You might as well pick on religion, or on astrological sign, in finding people to hate as a class. Or you could judge each person as an individual. And in turn you will be judged as an indivdiual, without regard to whether 1965 was "in" or "out" of the boomer label. Would that freedom to be judged by what you do and what you create in the world excite or scare you – compared to defensively trying to convince people that 1965 births are not "really" boomers and are OK? Which is more important for understanding you – the exact time of your birth, or how you have lived in the challenges you have faced?