The Boomers Took it All. Time to Give Some Back.

For most of American history, there was an expectation that each generation would surpass the previous one. Parents believed their children would enjoy higher wages, own better homes, and live more comfortable lives. That assumption—that progress was inevitable—became known as the American Dream. Yet, for the first time in modern history, this assumption appears under threat. Millennials and Generation Z, despite being better educated than any generation before them, face daunting economic barriers. Housing is out of reach, wages have stagnated relative to costs, and wealth inequality has widened. Many now believe they will be the first generation to fare worse than their parents.

In contrast, Baby Boomers—those born between 1946 and 1964—entered adulthood at a time of unparalleled opportunity. As a younger Boomer, I have always been grateful that I grew up in a golden age where opportunity was everywhere for the taking. At 65, I was a little too young to be drafted to fight in Vietnam and I came of age during the Reagan era where America experienced an incredible economic boom that raised all boats. The Boomer generation enjoyed affordable college, plentiful jobs, and a housing market that rewarded even modest buyers with decades of appreciation. We also voted to expand public benefits such as Social Security and Medicare, ensuring security in retirement. But due to demographic changes (young people not having as many kids), technological innovation reducing the need for workers, the same systems that buoyed us are now unsustainable, shifting burdens onto younger workers.

Our wealth is largely tied to homes and investments and has become increasingly inaccessible to younger folks. Federal debt, social insurance obligations, and inflation further erode economic mobility. With reduced geographic and job movement, pessimism about the future, and widening wealth divides, the upward trajectory of American life is at risk of becoming an anomaly of the Boomer era rather than a permanent national promise.

The Baby Boomer Advantage

The Baby Boomers came of age during a golden cultural and economic period. In the decades after World War II, America experienced rapid growth, robust manufacturing, and rising wages. Rock n Roll was invented and became the soundtrack to our lives. College was inexpensive or, in many cases, free at state institutions. Median wages could support a family on a single income, while also financing homeownership. Mortgage rates were high at times, but so was inflation, meaning real debt burdens often shrank over time. Boomers entered the housing market at a moment when homes were relatively abundant and affordable compared to income. They also benefited from a political economy willing to expand public benefits: the Great Society programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and the expansion of Social Security. These programs promised security in old age, funded by payroll taxes from younger workers.

Crucially, boomers were able to buy into the market before the extraordinary asset inflation of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries that was driven by enormous increases in government deficit spending. Home values soared. According to Realtor.com, boomers now hold nearly half of all real estate wealth in America, with those aged 65+ controlling an estimated $19 trillion in equity. This appreciation effectively gave us wealth simply for staying put. These advantages set the stage for Baby Boomers to accumulate wealth at unprecedented levels. But the story does not end there—the very systems that gave us stability have become barriers for those who follow.

Housing and the Lock-Up of Mobility

The greatest symbol of the American Dream has always been homeownership. For Boomers, buying a first home was attainable by their late 20s or early 30s. For Millennials and Gen Z, however, the goal often feels unattainable. A 2025 report by the National Association of Realtors revealed that Boomers now account for 42% of homebuyers, while millennials’ share dropped to 29%. Many Boomers purchase with cash, having either sold previous homes or drawn from retirement accounts, outcompeting younger buyers reliant on mortgages.  Even more significant, many Boomers are not selling. A New York Post survey in 2024 found that 54% of Boomers never plan to sell their homes. Aging in place, supported by Medicare and Social Security, allows them to remain comfortably housed.  But this decision effectively locks up valuable housing stock. The Center for Retirement Research (2025) warned that without new housing alternatives for seniors, younger families will face increasing scarcity. The consequences are stark. First-time buyers face down payments that often exceed $80,000—an impossible sum for many households burdened by student debt. Mortgage rates, which hovered at 3% in 2021, have climbed to above 6%, pricing out millions of potential buyers.

Geographic mobility has suffered as well. A WSJ analysis in 2025 showed that only 7.8% of Americans moved in 2023, near record lows. In the 1950s and 1960s, moving for work was common, helping families access higher wages and new opportunities. Today, high home prices and locked-in low mortgage rates discourage both selling and buying. Job-linked moves, once a driver of economic dynamism, have plummeted. Housing, which once served as the ladder of upward mobility, now acts as a gatekeeper. This benefits Boomers at the expense of their children and grandchildren.

Technology, Labor Displacement, and Reduced Worker Bargaining

While Boomers built wealth through housing, they also created and oversaw, a technological revolution that reshaped the global economy. Productivity surged, but wages stagnated. In the mid-twentieth century, productivity and wages rose in tandem. A worker producing more value per hour earned higher pay. But from the 1980s onward, that relationship broke. Productivity continued climbing, yet median wages flatlined. The rewards flowed not to labor but to capital—owners of machines, software, and intellectual property.

Boomers, already in mid-career, were positioned to capture these gains. They became the executives, shareholders, and homeowners who reaped the benefits of globalization and automation. Meanwhile, younger generations entered a labor market where secure jobs were replaced with contract work, pensions with 401(k)s, and unions with precarity. The Cato Institute (2024) found that intergenerational income growth has slowed sharply. Boomers enjoyed a 27% income boost over their parents at ages 36–40, but Gen X and Millennials saw much smaller gains. For many young workers, wages have not kept up with inflation, let alone housing costs.

A recent WSJ article observed that “job hopping is out, job hugging is in.” Workers cling to existing jobs, even unsatisfactory ones, fearing the risks of relocation or layoffs. This is a dramatic shift from earlier decades when changing jobs was a primary path to higher pay. The decline in worker mobility reduces bargaining power, leaving younger workers trapped in stagnation.

Public Spending, Debt, and Inflation

The prosperity of the Baby Boomers was underwritten not just by wages and housing but also by an expansion of federal benefits. Medicare and Medicaid were created in 1965 and ensured healthcare the elderly and poor. Social Security, expanded in the 1970s and reformed in 1983, guaranteed retirement income. These programs allowed Boomers to retire earlier and with greater security than previous generations. But these benefits came at a cost. Today, Social Security and Medicare consume more than 34% of the federal budget. As the Boomer generation retires, these obligations will grow unsustainable, with Social Security trust fund projected to run dry by 2034, at which point only 77% of benefits can be paid.

Boomers have effectively secured real assets and guaranteed benefits while leaving younger generations with financialized substitutes—digital platforms, unstable jobs, and mounting public debt. What was once a path to ownership is now a system of dependency. As of August 2025, the national debt stands at approximately $37 trillion, requiring enormous interest payments which now exceed $1 trillion annually and is more than we pay for national defense. With inflation elevated, the Federal Reserve has kept interest rates high. Higher borrowing costs squeeze businesses, students, and first-time homebuyers, while inflating asset prices. Boomers who already own homes and stocks see gains, while younger Americans are priced out.

A WSJ-NORC poll in 2025 revealed that only 25% of Americans believe hard work can improve their living standard, the lowest reading since 1987. Nearly 70% doubt the American Dream is still alive. This collapse in confidence reflects the lived reality of younger generations: mounting debt, stagnant wages, and locked-out housing markets.

Wealth Transfer and Generational Inequity

Even as Boomers retire, their economic influence persists through the “Great Wealth Transfer.” Between now and 2045, an estimated $84 trillion will pass from Boomers and the Silent Generation to their heirs. Yet this transfer is uneven. Families with housing and stock portfolios will pass on significant wealth. Others will leave debt, under-maintained homes, or little at all. Many millennials inheriting homes will face ownership burdens like taxes, repairs, and outdated infrastructure which dampens the benefit. Moreover, inheritance does little to address inequality in the present. Younger generations cannot rely on delayed windfalls when they are locked out of housing markets, struggling with student debt, and unable to build wealth independently.

The Economist (2024) observed that Boomers are “loaded” but often frugal, preserving assets rather than spending. Their wealth is both vast and inert, inflating asset prices while remaining inaccessible to those who most need opportunity. The result is generational inequity. Boomers sit atop immense wealth while Millennials and Gen Z struggle to achieve basic milestones.

The Collapse of Economic Dynamism

Economic dynamism—the ability of individuals and families to move, adapt, and rise—has long defined American life. But dynamism is fading. In the 1950s, 20% of Americans moved each year. By 2023, that figure had fallen below 8%. Families once relocated for better jobs or more affordable housing; today, they stay put, constrained by high housing costs and limited opportunities. Fewer workers relocate for job offers, and fewer families buy new homes. The once-fluid labor and housing markets have calcified, undermining innovation and entrepreneurship. This immobility deepens geographic inequality. Prosperous regions like Silicon Valley and New York remain magnets for talent but are prohibitively expensive. Struggling regions, from the Rust Belt to rural America, stagnate. Without mobility, the “move to opportunity” ethos that defined America becomes a relic.

Cultural Sentiment and the American Dream at Risk

Economic reality is only part of the story. Cultural sentiment reveals the deeper shift. A 2024 Reddit thread asked, “Did Boomers have life easier?” Responses overwhelmingly agreed: Boomers could buy homes on single incomes, attend college debt-free, and retire with pensions. Younger respondents contrasted this with crushing student loans, unaffordable housing, and unstable jobs. Polling confirms this disillusionment. The WSJ-NORC survey shows record pessimism, with only one in four Americans believing effort leads to upward mobility. This sentiment spans income levels and political affiliations. The erosion of belief in the American Dream is as consequential as the economic data. Without optimism, younger generations may disengage from civic life, fueling polarization and resentment.

What Can We Do About This ?

The generational imbalance is not irreversible. We Boomers can support Policy reforms that could restore elements of upward mobility:

Housing Reform

Housing affordability is at the heart of generational inequity. Boomers bought homes when construction was relatively inexpensive, zoning was less restrictive, and labor/material costs were lower in real terms. Today, however, the regulatory burden has made new housing far more expensive, particularly in high-growth states. According to the National Association of Home Builders, government regulations account for roughly 23.8% of the final price of a newly built single-family home nationwide. This includes zoning restrictions, land-use requirements, environmental compliance, impact fees, and permitting delays. During construction: 14.6% of costs are attributed to regulatory compliance. Before construction (permits, zoning, land preparation, impact fees): another 9.2% of costs. In other words, nearly one-quarter of the price tag for a new home is driven not by lumber or labor, but by policy.

The regulatory share of housing costs varies dramatically across states. Notice the difference between the blue states and red states. Voting matters! Just saying.

• California: Regulatory costs are among the highest, often exceeding 30–40% of the cost of new housing in major metros like San Francisco and Los Angeles. Stringent zoning, CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) reviews, and lengthy permitting timelines can add years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to projects. This explains why median home prices in California routinely exceed $750,000, nearly double the national median.

• New York-New Jersey: Dense zoning laws, height restrictions, and union labor requirements contribute to regulatory costs estimated at 25–30% of total building costs. Limited land availability in NYC adds further upward pressure.

• Texas: In sharp contrast, Texas has looser zoning, faster permitting, and lower impact fees. Regulatory costs are closer to the 15–18% range. As a result, Texas metros like Houston and Dallas can build far more housing at lower prices. In Houston, the median home price remains closer to $350,000, despite rapid population growth.

• Florida: Regulatory costs run around 20–22%, with environmental considerations in coastal areas pushing costs higher. Still, a relatively business-friendly permitting environment allows Florida to keep home prices below California’s despite being one of the largest and fastest growing states in the country.

• Midwest (e.g., Ohio, Indiana, Missouri): Regulatory costs are generally lower, around 15–20%, contributing to significantly more affordable housing markets. Median home prices in Ohio remain under $250,000, reflecting both lower land costs and fewer regulatory barriers.

These comparisons show that government policy can be the difference between attainable housing and locked-out generations. Here’s some recommendations

Streamline Permitting: In states like California, multi-year permitting processes inflate costs and discourage builders. Streamlining approvals could shave years and thousands of dollars off housing prices.

Zoning Reform: Allowing more multi-family housing, duplexes, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) would increase supply, particularly in urban cores. States like Oregon and Minnesota have already begun experimenting with eliminating single-family-only zoning.

Reduce Impact Fees: While infrastructure costs must be covered, excessive fees—sometimes exceeding $30,000 per unit in California—should be capped or subsidized to encourage entry-level housing.

Reduce Government Spending: As with many challenges our country faces, the solution starts with reducing the size and scope of government. The bigger the state or federal budget deficit, the more that needs to be borrowed which drives inflation, which drives interest rates which impacts home ownership

For Boomers, buying a starter home required saving for a modest down payment, often achievable within a few years of work. For Millennials and Gen Z, the combination of inflated land values, regulatory burdens and high interest rates has made that milestone unattainable for most. In California, the down payment on a median-priced home now exceeds $150,000—far out of reach for households earning median incomes. Housing reform must begin with reducing the regulatory share of costs closer to the 15% benchmark seen in states like Texas and reducing government budget deficits. Doing this would unlock supply, ease prices, lower interest rates and restore pathways to ownership for younger families.

Higher Education

The cost of higher education illustrates one of the starkest divides between the Baby Boomer generation and their kids and grandkids. For Boomers, college was affordable and often debt-free. For Millennials and Gen Z, college has become synonymous with crushing debt that delays milestones like buying a home, starting a family, or saving for retirement. In 1970, average annual tuition at a public four-year university was about $394 (roughly $3,000 in today’s dollars). At private universities, it was about $1,706 (about $13,000 today). By 2025, average tuition at a public four-year university exceeds $11,000 per year in-state and more than $28,000 for out-of-state students. Private university tuition averages $63,000 per year. The implication is clear. Boomers could often finance their education with a part-time job or modest family support. Today, even with grants and scholarships, most students must take out loans.

In 1980, total U.S. student debt was under $20 billion. By 2025, it exceeds $1.7 trillion, owed by more than 43 million borrowers. The average borrower in the Class of 2023 graduated with nearly $30,000 in debt. This debt has ripple effects. Young adults with student loans are less likely to buy homes, less likely to start businesses, and more likely to delay family formation. For many, student debt is their largest single financial burden, rivaling a mortgage but without the wealth-building benefits of homeownership.

Ironically, the expansion of federal student loan programs—intended to increase access—has fueled tuition inflation. Universities, confident that students can borrow to cover costs, raise tuition well above inflation. Administrative bloat, luxury facilities, and reduced state funding have further driven costs upward. Like the healthcare industrial complex, the cost of higher education can be traced to the primary financier: the government. Anything the government gets involved in always costs a lot more.

Boomers largely escaped this cycle. They graduated debt-free or with manageable balances, entering a job market where wages were rising and housing was affordable. Their children, however, face a double squeeze: stagnant wages and massive debts from the very education that was supposed to enable mobility.

To restore balance, higher education reform must tackle both affordability and the debt overhang. States like Tennessee and Oregon have piloted tuition-free community college programs. Expanding such models nationally could give students two years of affordable education before transferring to four-year universities. Federal aid could be conditioned on cost-control measures, including limits on administrative spending and requirements to tie tuition growth to inflation. Transparency mandates could pressure institutions to justify increases. Finally, not all students need a four-year degree. Expanding vocational programs and apprenticeships would prepare students for high-demand jobs in fields like advanced manufacturing, healthcare, and information technology without incurring massive debt.

In my 2019 book, Locally Grown: The Art of Sustainable Government, I recommend a rare federal policy prescription for a rejuvenation and expansion of the G.I. Bill. Currently, Uncle Sam will cover full in-state tuition and fees at public institutions and up to $29,920 per year at private institutions. Uncle Sam will also pay up to $2,338 per month for a housing stipend. That’s a pretty good deal for serving in the military for a minimum of 3 years. The federal government even provides a sliding scale of benefits for those serving as little as 6 months. In my opinion, our younger generations are less mature than my generation at comparable ages. Serving in the military teaches critical life skills like teamwork and respecting a chain of command that are highly valued by employers. I was off the parental payroll at 18 years old and wouldn’t trade my 2 ½ years’ experience at the Air Force Academy for anything. Getting our kids to serve a few years in the military in exchange for free college would have a dramatically positive effect on our society by producing more mature and responsible citizens of this great land.

For Boomers, higher education was a gateway to prosperity. For younger generations, it has become a financial ball and chain. The irony is sharp: Boomers expanded access to college through policy, but failed to contain costs, leaving their children to shoulder the burden. Addressing higher education and debt is therefore not just an economic necessity but an intergenerational justice issue. Without reform, the very promise of education as the key to upward mobility—the foundation of the American Dream—will continue to erode.

Entitlement Reform

Entitlements are the cornerstone of Baby Boomer retirement security. Social Security and Medicare, both mid-20th-century innovations, now sustain tens of millions of retirees. Yet these programs were never designed to handle the demographic bulge of the Baby Boomers, nor the longer life expectancies of the 21st century. Without reform, they will impose crushing burdens on younger workers and consume an ever-larger share of federal spending.

Social Security Pays benefits to about 67 million Americans in 2025, and Medicare covers to about 66 million seniors and disabled Americans. Combined, these two programs already consume about 34–36% of the federal budget and will rise to nearly half of all spending by 2050 if left untouched.

Boomers timed retirement perfectly. They contributed payroll taxes during decades of growth, then began collecting benefits at the peak of U.S. entitlement generosity. Social Security reforms in 1983 raised retirement ages gradually but left most Boomers eligible at 66–67. Medicare, launched in 1965, had decades to grow into the nation’s largest health insurer before Boomers entered.

Younger workers face a different reality. They pay payroll taxes into systems forecasted to deliver reduced benefits to them. Rising healthcare costs (because of government involvement) means Medicare consumes a larger portion of GDP every year which further squeeze the budget for discretionary spending (education, infrastructure, defense). No single policy can solve the entitlement crisis. A mix of revenue adjustments and benefit modifications will be necessary. Here are the leading options to consider:

Raising the Retirement Age

Life expectancy has increased substantially since Social Security’s creation in 1935 (from ~62 years to ~79 years today). Gradually raising the full retirement age from 67 to 69 or 70 could restore solvency for decades. Even a two-year increase would reduce Social Security outlays by ~13% annually.

Adjusting Payroll Tax Caps

Currently, Social Security payroll taxes apply only to income up to $168,600. Eliminating or lifting this cap could raise hundreds of billions over the next decade. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that subjecting all income to payroll taxes would close about 67% of Social Security’s long-term funding gap. This is politically contentious since it turns Social Security more overtly into a redistribution program.

Means Testing Benefits

Social Security and Medicare currently pay benefits regardless of need. Introducing means testing—reducing benefits for high-income retirees—would target support to those who need it most. It would reduce costs, but undermines the “earned benefit” principle, risking political significant backlash. I worked hard and am blessed to not have to depend on social security to survive but I would personally resent taking away that benefit that I have been promised for decades by the government.  The situation epitomizes the intergenerational equity problem: one generation secures benefits for itself while leaving the bill to its successors. Without reform, the political legitimacy of these programs may erode. If the federal government started showing it can live within its means and increases the value for cost ratio it delivers to citizens, I would gladly support higher taxes to make Social Security sustainable over the long term. However, we are a sadly long way from effective sustainable government.

Workforce and Technology

Boomers were both participants in and beneficiaries of the computer revolution. They saw the rise of automation, information technology, and globalization. These shifts boosted corporate profits and shareholder returns—assets disproportionately held by older, wealthier households. But the downside was profound. Automation reduced the number of routine middle-class jobs. Factory assembly lines were streamlined, and clerical work was digitized. Globalization shifted manufacturing overseas, eroding blue-collar employment in the U.S. Rust Belt. The result is that Millennials and Gen Z inherited a labor market where entry-level jobs are more precarious, often part-time or gig-based, with fewer benefits and weaker wage growth.

If automation reshaped the Boomer workplace, artificial intelligence is poised to redefine the Millennial and Gen Z experience. Autonomous systems and Large Language Models (LLM) like ChatGPT, Google’s Deep Mind, and Elon Musk’s Grok, threaten not only blue-collar but also white-collar jobs. Studies suggest that up to 25% of U.S. jobs may be affected by AI and automation in the next two decades. Fields once considered safe like law, computer engineering and finance, are now vulnerable. The potential for massive productivity growth exists, but as in previous decades, the question is whether those gains will translate into wages for workers or profits for capital owners or something more equitably shared. This disruption compounds existing generational inequities. Boomers benefited from being early career during an era of expansion.  Younger workers face disruption at the start of their careers, making it harder to establish stability. To restore opportunity, workforce policy must focus on adaptation rather than resistance. Key strategies include:

Retraining and Upskilling

Federal and state governments can fund large-scale retraining programs in high-demand sectors like healthcare, renewable energy, cybersecurity, and advanced manufacturing. Programs must be accessible, affordable, and flexible, allowing mid-career workers to transition without losing income.

Portable Benefits for Gig Workers

With gig and contract work expanding, benefits like health insurance, retirement savings, and paid leave must become portable, attached to the worker rather than the employer. This would give younger workers security in a labor market no longer dominated by long-term employment.

Profit-Sharing and Employee Ownership

To ensure technology’s gains are broadly shared, policies could incentivize employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) or corporate profit-sharing. This would allow workers to benefit from automation and AI rather than being displaced by it.

Support for Entrepreneurship

Younger generations often turn to side hustles and startups. Reducing regulatory barriers, offering microloans, and streamlining licensing could spur new businesses. A dynamic entrepreneurial ecosystem could restore some of the upward mobility lost in traditional corporate careers.

For Boomers, technology was a ladder.  For their children, it risks becoming a trap. The challenge for Millennials and Gen Z is not just to adapt but to restructure the economy so that technological progress benefits the many, not just the few. Without smarter policy, younger generations may find themselves locked in a cycle of precarious work, with wealth flowing upward to capital owners—many of whom are Boomers and Gen X. With reform, however, technology could once again become a source of broadly shared prosperity.

Conclusion

The Baby Boomers may be remembered as the last generation to consistently outpace their parents economically; lucky enough to buy cheap houses, snag lifetime pensions, and retire with a cocktail of Social Security and Medicare that future generations may only get to sip watered down. Meanwhile, their kids and grandkids are stuck playing financial “musical chairs” where the music is inflation, the chairs are $700,000 starter homes, and the DJ is the Federal Reserve.

But resignation isn’t an option. The American Dream doesn’t have to be a sepia-toned relic stored in Boomer attics next to vinyl records and rotary phones. We can still modernize it. That means building more homes instead of more barriers, fixing entitlements before they fix us, and treating technology as a ladder, not a trap door.

If we don’t want Millennials and Gen Z to be remembered as the “Generation Airbnb Tenants,” we need policies that restore mobility, sanity, and sustainability to the economy. Otherwise, we risk becoming a nation where the only inheritance left is debt—and maybe a half-paid Netflix account. We Boomers wrote the first draft of postwar prosperity. Now it’s our turn to edit, revise, and—if necessary—redline our footnotes. After all, the future isn’t something we inherit. It’s something we build and building hope is still affordable.