The Economist accuses boomers of committing an "intergenerational heist"

The Economist targets baby boomers regarding an alleged "intergenerational heist" within the European welfare state. What is behind this accusation?

English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published

The publication suggests that the baby boomer generation benefited disproportionately from the European welfare state, creating an unsustainable burden for future generations.

## The Welfare State Under Scrutiny

The accusation is direct: the generation of **baby boomers**, born approximately between **1946 and 1964**, is alleged to have orchestrated an "intergenerational heist" that jeopardizes the sustainability of the European welfare state. The idea is that this cohort, upon reaching its economic and political maturity, shaped the system for its own benefit, leaving behind debt and obligations that now rest on the shoulders of the younger generations.

## A Pyramid Scheme?

The comparison to a pyramid scheme is not coincidental. In these frauds, the initial investors are paid with the money of the newcomers. Applied to economics, it is suggested that boomers, as primary beneficiaries of an expanding welfare state during their most active years and retirement, enjoyed generous benefits largely funded by contributions from later generations who now face greater difficulty accessing similar provisions.

## The Burden of Debt

The aging population, a global phenomenon, aggravates this situation. With fewer active workers for every retiree, the cost of pensions and healthcare soars. While the welfare state has been a fundamental pillar for social cohesion and poverty reduction in Europe, the way it has been financed and the benefits it has provided over decades remains a subject of debate. The publication by **The Economist** focuses on how decisions made in the past could be generating economic and social imbalance for the future.

Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (2 replies).

More summaries

All summaries in English →

Back