19 August 2026

ALAN HAYES

 

SOCIOLOGISTS and economists note that blaming an older generation for the current housing shortage in Australia, along with everything else that has seem to have gone wrong over the past few decades, offers a simple narrative for complex institutional and market failures, deflecting responsibility away from lawmakers and structural economic dynamics.

 

Yet, still I keep hearing, those of us who were born between 1946 and 1964 are to blame for just about everything wrong with our country - unaffordable housing (because we bought up most of the housing stock and now refuse to leave), the depletion of social security (because we’re now collecting it), the national debt (because so much of it is being spent on social security, Medicare, aged care and other benefits for us), inequality (because apparently we have so much money), and climate change (because we’ve been polluting longer than anyone else alive).

 

All of this dribble seems to be confirmed by a headline I accidently caught with my eye in The Economist - a British news and current affairs journal published in a weekly print magazine format and daily on digital platforms – why people over the age of 55 are the new problem generation.

 

I never saw myself as part of a problem generation – now or over the past decades. I’ve managed to live a sustainable lifestyle – growing as much as possible the food my family consumed, and, most importantly, minimising our carbon footprint. Long before it became the current government’s flavour of the month, I was harvesting and storing my own water (that which fell from the sky) and harvested the power of the sun for heating and electricity. Maybe I was ahead of my time, but I believed, as I do know, that you have to tread gently on the earth so as to leave behind for future generations what each previous generation has enjoyed.

 

But never let it be said that you can’t let a good headline get in the way of the facts. So, there we have it – The Economist blaming the entire Boomer generation for causing the socio-economic problems of today, because they were partying too hard in their youth. Boomers were too wild, too crazy and too irresponsible back in the day.

 

The Economist opined that compared to all those younger generations since, we were drinking more, using drugs more, and, heaven forbid, thought about a worthwhile career. Apparently, Boomers spent most of their time going to wild orgies, and yes, still today, their reveries continue at retirement-community parties where sometimes they even — oh my goodness! — are having sex.

 

To justified their claims, the venerable British publication quotes Lynette, a resident of Latitude Margaritaville (an assisted-living community near Hilton Head Island in South Carolina, USA) who burbles: “There was a toga party this past weekend. There was a live band, and it was a riot.” Barbie, another resident of the community, compares living there to “starting college all over again” with “drinks on the driveway, cocktails on the concrete.”

 

The Economist then went on to report that “today, older adults are more likely to participate in the hook-up culture of casual encounters and condomless sex, which might be further encouraged by the availability of drugs for sexual dysfunction, the commonality of living in retirement communities, and the increased use of dating apps for seniors.”

 

I’ll be damned – I guess being married to the same beautiful and wonderful lady for 55 years means I missed out on life. I would argue otherwise, and like many, many other Boomers, whom I’ve had the pleasure of meeting over the decades, have contributed beneficially to society.

 

A societal thorn

 

Since its founding in 1843 by Scottish businessman and banker James Wilson, The Economist has been staid if not prudish. If memory serves, it intensely disliked the 1960s and the Boomer culture that revelled in it. But it seems to have burst its britches over what’s become of us Boomers in the roaring 2020s.

 

The Economist seems to have little else to now do than report on, what it perceives to be, societal problems that are allegedly the fault of the Boomer generation. But is it not the societal thorn?

 

It seems that the conclusion of The Economist article reveals that its staid and prudish reporting has not diminished over time and that instead of embracing the 21st century it is caught up in a Victorian-era time warp.

 

So, in conclusion The Economist waxed on that the Boomer generation, who is now aging disgracefully, were disgraceful in their youth, and in middle age.

 

It would seem, however, that if all Boomers are behaving badly now, there is really not much to be done about it. If some of them choose to frolic at toga parties, no one will stop them. Except, ultimately, time.

 

Which is, as you would expect from a publication still promoting a Victorian-era lifestyle, an understated British way of saying that the solution to the Boomer problem is for the Boomers to just go ahead and die. Then contemporary inflation, high interest rates, and soaring education costs, which actually stem from global economic shifts, monetary policies, and supply chain disruptions, rather than individual actions of older citizens will simply disappear.

 

The problems we face today stem from long-term policy decisions regarding tax structures, public spending, and social safety nets, have occurred over decades under the leadership from multiple generations. It is these policies that have shaped current deficits and affordability gaps - not wild, continual partying of a generation over the decades.

 

I'm of the opinion that The Economist was not only a bit harsh in its reporting but fundamentally wrong. And I’m suspicious of how The Economist identified its sample of wild and crazy Boomers, because the Boomers I know are anything but out-of-control party animals. Because ‘getting much’ now refers not to sex but to sleep.

 

Most Boomers I’ speak to tell me that they can’t even make it through and early television program without falling asleep, and camaraderie is asking each other: How is the back? Heart? Knees? Prostate? Haemorrhoids?

 

As for drugs, sex, and rock-and-roll, all I can say for certain is that everyone I speak to tells me that the need to make an idiot of themselves in the 1960s was the elusive myth of someone else’s lifestyle. I don’t discount that there was a wild-child element - an element that persists with every generation - that came at the same time the Beatles changed the music scene and that Woodstock in America was no more than drugs, sex and rock n' roll. But most Boomers, like myself, were more interested in building careers and families, rather than party their lives away or hide away in the hills of Nimbin. Not surprisingly, most of the Nimbin hippies eventually fitted into society as respected members of the community - some even becoming business entrepreneurs.

 

The endearing quality of the Baby Boomers was that they loved fashion and culture - a fact The Economist fail to recognise.

Name (First & Last):

Email:

Submitting Form...

The server encountered an error.

Subscription received.

SUBSCRIBE