Boomer meritocracy questioned: inheritance and broken social mobility

Boomer meritocracy under suspicion

The generation born between the 1950s and 1960s claims it built its status through hard work. A growing segment of public discourse challenges this, arguing they mistook being born in a boom era for personal genius. The trigger was an opinion piece attributing generational success to individual merit while implying inheritance hinders effort. The response became a reckoning with Spain's official narrative on social mobility.

Social elevator out of service

The core disagreement isn't whether boomers worked, but if their effort alone sufficed for prosperity. One participant bluntly noted his father worked fourteen hours daily but also endured "domestic violence, madness, abuse, and toxic environments." Another clarified not all were idle; many were genuine workers. The dominant thesis suggests that in an economy with little competition, merely avoiding failure was enough to succeed. Today, with fierce competition and strained housing access, starting points outweigh effort.

Some go further, describing a generation that inherited a debt-free country and left it with double liabilities: declared public debt and undeclared obligations like pension rights and inflated rents. The phrase "public money belongs to no one" is cited as emblematic of this management. Contrasts with the Silent Generation are frequent: post-war hunger and hardship, but life expectancy gains that now carry costs.

Is meritocracy real or a systemic myth?

The prevailing view is that meritocracy doesn't exist, or only applies to those with advantages. The free will argument is prominent: since we don't choose our genes or starting line, merit is fiction. Chess analogies recur: training won't let you compete with Magnus Carlsen. The conclusion is that meritocracy hides inequality by pretending everyone starts equal.

A minority but uncomfortable counter-argument states having advantages doesn't steal others' merit. An heir receives voluntary family gifts; a tall athlete has easier basketball prospects. Critics argue quotas, positive discrimination, and legal inequalities are what actually undermine merit. The debate shifts to the state's role rather than inheritance itself.

Inheritance as the new battleground

A striking twist is suspicion that the article defends not meritocracy, but paves the way for taxing ordinary people's inheritances. It's described as an Overton window shift: install the idea first, legislate later. A vivid image counters this: if there's cake for four, they gorge; with four hundred guests, they can't even lick the spoon. The question posed is which era had more diners at the table: 1960 or today's global scenario.

The labor front is another issue. Public administration promotions are accused of being rigged for specific profiles, citing cases where competent engineers were rejected in psychometric tests and interviews in favor of candidates with different backgrounds. The complaint is not just economic but about fair play rules.

Working to pay others' debts

Intergenerational comparison is the bitterest passage. A participant shares he holds the same job as his father, yet at his age, his father was married with four children, a paid-off house, and a nearly paid second home. He has nothing but good health and savings insufficient for housing in high-demand areas. His first real vacation came after forty as an interim civil servant; in the private sector, rest months meant staying glued to phone and computer.

The repeated diagnosis is that past generations worked to prosper, while current ones work to repay others' debts. In this reading, boomers are portrayed as humanity's worst generation, surpassing even communism or the French Revolution according to hyperbolic conversation trends. Mass immigration and Agenda 2030 appear as background elements for potential social conflict, though without supporting data.

EGB, languages, and pride in others' resumes

The dispute gets tangled in a seemingly minor detail: whether EGB (Spanish basic education) included office software classes. One side argues computers weren't like today's and IT was extracurricular at best. The other notes that by 1987, most banks had terminals and ATMs, and many middle-class homes owned PCs. Beyond facts, this reveals the difficulty of comparing worlds with distinct technologies.

No resolution arrives. The conversation stalls on the eternal question: was a generation's success merit or luck? A relative who moved to the US in 1916 without language skills or education and ended up owning motels is cited as proof effort works. Others respond that was simply being in the right place at the right time. Meritocracy remains without a signed death certificate.