Scott Alexander reviews comments on his defense of Baby Boomers, clarifying three separate claims about generational fairness and addressing debates about housing policy, Social Security, cultural changes, and whether the structural problems attributed to Boomers are actually universal features of aging populations. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his original post defending Baby Boomers from generational criticism. He clarifies that he should have better separated three distinct claims: whether Boomers had it easier, whether the political system favors them unfairly, and whether they're uniquely selfish. He addresses housing policy (particularly California's Proposition 13), cultural changes like divorce and childcare, Social Security technicalities, and whether anti-Boomer sentiment is justified as a political project. Throughout, he emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between 'natural' and 'marked' policy choices, and argues that many problems blamed on Boomers result from broader structural issues like demographic pyramids rather than unique generational selfishness. Shorter summary

Scott argues against the trend of 'Boomer-hating,' contending that Baby Boomers delivered peace and prosperity, passed on greater wealth to their children, and don't differ significantly from younger generations on most political issues. Longer summary

Scott Alexander pushes back against the growing anti-Boomer sentiment in contemporary discourse. He argues that despite popular narratives, Baby Boomers presided over an era of unprecedented peace and prosperity, and younger generations actually have more inflation-adjusted wealth than Boomers did at the same age. He examines claims that Boomers are politically extreme (both left and right), finding minimal generational differences on issues like climate change, nuclear power, and housing policy. Scott addresses the accusation that Boomers are plundering younger generations through Social Security, showing that benefit generosity peaked in 1972 and has since contracted. He concludes by warning that generational identity politics, like other forms of identity politics, provides a lazy way to hate everything while avoiding substantive policy discussion, and that today's young people will eventually face similar resentment from future generations. Shorter summary