Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there are numerous ways in which Tim Cook's generation has failed the next generation (at least in the US). * Wages are flat, * Housing costs are up (in large part due to NIMBYism), * College is more expensive (in large part due to Cook's generation cutting subsidies that they got), * Environment is shot- that whole global warming thing isn't going away anytime soon. Generally speaking the baby boomers, as a…
What are you asking for? The world has changed drastically, culture and preferences have changed drastically, and new technological tools make the job and economic landscape entirely different than earlier. That's not Baby Boomers' fault. Are you really going to blame them for not predicting the future well enough? Baby boomers aren't forcing young folks to like living in cities more than suburbs. They're not malicio…
Who changed the culture, preferences, and technological tools? Who made the economic and political decisions that brought us where we are today?
There's inevitably a window where some generational demographic is generally the driving leadership and consumer/citizen force behind societal trends and decisions. The boomers have been that force for some time and they're far from gone.
It's fair to acknowledge that some of the tech / choices made are useful. And, hey, "nobody owes anybody anything" or "no generation owes successive ones" is a values statement, even though it may be sociopathic. "That's not the Baby Boomer's fault" doesn't make any sense (except as an expression of that non-ethic).
> Baby boomers aren't forcing young folks to like living in cities more than suburbs.
> They're not maliciously causing robots and computers to be more reliable than humans at menial repetitive tasks.
> They're not forcing young folks to want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on mediocre private universities when reasonably priced state universities exist (and a world of knowledge for self-teaching is available through the internet)
> And even the global warming thing, our current prosperity--and don't kid yourself, America is pretty freaking prosperous--strongly depended on us exploiting cheap and reliable energy for decades.
But they did preside over changes which:
* moved opportunities (not to mention narratives of opportunity) to cities over suburbs
* remove protections for labor and diminish safety nets for those who've been caught in automation-based change
* enshrined credentialism as a mark of professional opportunity, whether or not a world of knowledge for self-teaching is available on the internet, and then administered both public-supported universities and private universities in such a way that students frequently have to pay more in tuition than they did 30 years ago.
* prioritized individually maximized returns (with some degree of shared prosperity) over sustainability.
> " that prosperity which gives us the bandwidth and resources to think "hey, let's do something about this, either find a way to avoid or prepare or cope"."
Any post WW2 prosperity should have been enough to do some important things about climate change once we understood the relevant dynamics.
> it would have been nice if everyone in the previous generation had a crystal ball and selfless motives.
"Crystal ball", that's neat, it implies we'd need impossible magic to have foreseen economic or environmental consequences 30 years ago.