Is the sky is falling?” discusses a pending shortage of human resource talent. OMG, we’re gonna run out! This shortage is based on the false belief, created by baby boomers to push those over 65 out of the way.
The references, beliefs, values and convictions of the U.S. have been largely shaped by the 78 million baby boomers born 1946-1964. The major issues of the day, are based on what is important to this cohort. It is this group that controls wealth, directs governments, businesses, and the social values and policies of the nation. This group is living longer and healthier and, as a result, will continue to participate in shaping the issues, long after they turn 65. This group will not desire, and our society cannot support 20 or 30 years of “retirement”, that was previously considered a life of leisure and irrelevance.
This group has shaped the issues on what is important. Baby boomers created the need for large homes in the suburbs, a desire the best education for our children, the demand for SUV’s and the ever growing demand for energy and other resources. They created domestic and foreign policies and have expanded business to global markets. Things are changing.
By living longer and healthier lives, baby boomers will continue to shape the issues and decide what is important, much longer than prior generations. Our society has created a planned obsolescence of elders. “Retirement”, at one time, was a term used to describe 1 or 2 years of before death that has evolved into 30 or 40 years beyond age 65. No more, our society cannot afford to, nor does it desire a life of leisure or irrelevance for this long.
Baby Boomers will create new institutions for their continued participation in life, to be part of the future. So how will things change?
This group will create new social communities of right-sized housing, with more public and reduced demands for personal transportation in more efficient, economically and environmentally sustainable urban environments. These shared resource communities enable lifestyles of lower consumption with lower expenses. To remain relevant, they will continue to update skills through education, beyond an online class, classes strictly for personal development of community colleges that require continued consumption from their over sized homes. Their focus will shift from the size of their paychecks to more meaningful contributions to society.
There will be social barriers for re-entry. Educators, hospital administrators, government officials, or non-profit directors will resist re-entry baby boomers with insidious methods to protect their personal economic value. What industry, government or social institution would accept a re-educated, highly talented and passionate 50 or 60 year old who would work for $20,000 per year, because their economic needs are only $20,000? They are no longer building nest eggs for the future, they are living their future. Values will change to creating the new dream, where people will not be judged by their age but by the content of their character and their ability to contribute. Resistance will manifest itself in such things as oh, well why don’t you volunteer, if you are so passionate about this? Or, you need experience in this industry to advance, you cannot apply what you know to what we do. It is our failure to create low cost, low consumption meaningful living lifestyles, and the exclusion of the human capital that creates shortages.
Our next visionaries, social, economic and political leaders that will create these new, low cost options for the baby boomer population. Existing back to campus attempts focus on a transfer of wealth for entrance fees, and continued high expenses for services. The best option now, is to understand and expand the lifestyle available on Public University campuses, where the cost of living is currently under $20,000 per year.
There is no pending shortage of talent, we have just closed our eyes to our own human capital.
University Lifestyle 
Not a bad idea, but unpractical; if many millions of Baby Boomers started to live on only $20,000 a year the economy would tank even more because there would be less consumption throughout the overall economy, meaning more people would lose their job.
I am all about cutting back on consumption, but the main problem America’s economy faces right now is the fact that people are cutting back on consuming BIG TIME and this means less money circulating in the economy, thus layoffs, deflation, etc.
Thank you Eman, I appreciate your comments. You make a valid point, that I am sure is supported by many.
Historians point to “stages of life”. Some group these into “youth”, which includes playing and learning. This is followed by a householder stage, where family, fame, power and wealth become important. Our economic growth models assume these householders, shall be the warriors who support the young and the old. However, lifespans are increasing, creating a greater burden on those householders. When lifespans were shorter, we created social paradigms where a person would work until 65, then live out the balance of their lives in leisure, called retirement. This paradigm was created at a time when the life expectancy was 62, not 92, as well may become the case now, due to medical technology and living healthier lifestyles.
With increased lifespans and rapid changes in technology, it is easy for people to become obsolete. For example, 60 years ago, 40 % of the population was engaged in agriculture, and 26% in manufacturing. These figures have dropped to 2% and 8%, respectively, and even those who are at the top of their game through “lifelong learning”, are obsolete. They have great skills and knowledge in professions that our society no longer needs.
My proposal is that people should retool, after working in a field after 20 our 30 years. It is difficult to make a strategic career move, to start over in a new, more relevant industry while you are a householder. A talented plant manager, with a $100K income, 3 cars, 2 kids and a large house, would be hard pressed to abandon this, to move into education, health care, government or non profit sectors, where his income might be cut in half. It is easier for a a young single person, with few obligations and expenses and an income of $50K, to switch to another industry that pays $45K to $55K. But there does come a time for many, when their children have left, they have divorced, they no longer need 3 cars or the big house. At 50, they may live another 30 years in good health, an amount of time equal to what they have already worked. They have a responsibility to remain relevant, work and remain functional in society for another 30 or 40 years. This might better be accomplished by starting a new career in something that is needed, rather than expand upon their knowledge in something that is irrelevant. It would be unusual for a person, working in one field, to seek a degree in a field completely different from the one they are employed in. For example, it would be more likely that an engineer, get an M.S. or a MBA, than to get a B.S in nursing or government, teaching, or non profit management. Many try desperately to hang onto what they know, which is obsolete and irrelevant. What employer would assist a supply chain manager to become an urban planner?
To truly “start over”, targeting a competitive salary of $50K, a person needs to reduce their expenses, their consumption and cost of living. One way to accomplish this is to return to a university lifestyle, full time. This is a strategic move, that requires “organized abandonment”. of what has been the path, a thought from management guru Peter F. Drucker. “Yesterday’s breadwinner should almost always be abandoned on a fairly fast schedule,” Drucker asserted. “It still may produce net revenue. But it soon becomes a bar to the introduction and success of tomorrow’s breadwinner. One should, therefore, abandon yesterday’s breadwinner before one really wants to, let alone before one has to.” As Drucker declared: “Of course innovation is risky. But…defending yesterday-that is, not innovating-is far more risky than making tomorrow.”
Many would agree that progress occurs either as a direct or indirect result of education, where society is either building upon past knowledge and practices, or creating new or disruptive technology, social or economic forms. As a society, we invest in public K-16 education through taxes to support our children in public schools, and we like to think that innovations are “born in the dorm”, or will manifest later, as a result of that education.
We reduce the cost of that education to the student, through taxes and supportive legislation and policy.
We are wasting our national human capital, by not retooling, re-educating, abandoning the past, and starting new. This requires right sized living at lower consumption levels. If we do not, we will suffer the consequences of placing a high social burden on society to support both the young and the growing population of old.