Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: pabianice
At 43, she was born in 1959, during the Boomer years

True, but as someone the same age, I'd say that the late boomers have more in common with the x-er's than with the early boomers.

When we went to college, a part time job paid for books, not tuition and living expenses.

There was little advancement at our first jobs, because people 5 years older than us had gotten all the promotions and were nowhere near retirement.

Our first mortgage was at 11% variable rate interest.

The marketing world revolved around the older kids, not us.

We weren't the oldest children, doted on by our parents - we were the younger children, who they kept forgetting to pick up.

Not that it was all bad, after all there was a lot of anonymity associated with it. We got a lot of new school facilities, as they reacted to the boom after 10 years. We don't remember putting colored transparencies on the TV to get color.

As a younger boomer, I've never liked being painted with the same brush as the leading edge boomers, who are epitomized by Bill Clinton...

11 posted on 01/27/2003 2:54:30 AM PST by Kay Ludlow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: Kay Ludlow
I was born in 62.

My experience is characterized by events like the restucturing of the Social Security system to move retirement eligablity to age 70. This will keep the system solvent, until 2032 - when it will be bankrupt.

That will be the year I turn 70.

19 posted on 01/27/2003 1:45:16 PM PST by patton (Amendment 9: All Rights Reserved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson