What the Economist Got Wrong In Its ‘Stingy Boomers’ Piece

You may have seen the article — or at least the headline — already. The Economist labels Baby Boomers as “loaded” and asks “Why are they so stingy?”

That ageist language is enough to warrant an entire post. But when you add in the assumptions this piece makes about the behavior of adults over age 65 and their housing decisions, you have a report that totally misses the realities of aging today.

That’s not to say that there isn’t substance in this piece. I wrote another post that looks at what the Economist got right.

But beyond the weaponized ageist language use — which pits one generation against others — this piece makes two other major mistakes.

1. The “Over 65” Grouping

Most of the research cited in this piece looks at the behavior of adults ages 65 and older in aggregate. That’s a problem — considering the entire 65-plus population as a single cohort doesn’t reflect today’s reality.

Boomers view their 60s and 70s differently than previous generations. They expect to live longer, and they plan to work longer, too — because they need the money, or because they want to and can.

The Boomers who are working to save money have seen their parents experience unexpected longevity and struggle to pay for care. And they have seen the cost of that care continue to rise.

Other Boomers feel financially secure but find a sense of purpose, enjoyment or engagement in a job.

The piece’s “over 65” mistake extends to citing an investment index that tracks “share prices of firms which do well when oldies spend big.” This index “includes companies that provide treatments for age-related diseases, leisure and tourism, and anti-ageing skincare products.”

There are millions of Boomers in their mid to late 60s (and older) who aren’t interested in retirement cruises, nor in anti-aging products. Assuming they are is another example of ageism.

2. Home Ownership Assumptions

The piece notes that “Few boomers are downsizing to smaller homes.” That’s true — but it misses some important facts.

First, high interest rates are making it harder to sell and less appealing to buy a new home.

Second, and more important, where are older adults going to go?

I’m not referring to retirement homes. I’m talking about homes that make sense for someone at age 70, 75 or 80. Less than 4% of current U.S. housing offers accessibility for older adults. And builders are not creating much more.

In total, this piece’s assumptions simply don’t account for the needs of today’s diverse society. Adults over 65 are not a monolith. They’re different from each other, and different from previous generations.

Many of the decisions Boomers are making are efforts to align their wealth span, health span and life span. That’s not being “stingy.” That’s being prudent.