●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
bydskoll ( 99328 ) writes:
I think another factor is an aging population. I used to drink a little bit in my younger days, but now I find alcohol just makes me sleepy and melancholy... the exact opposite of fun. So I haven't had a drink for years and really don't miss it.
twitter
facebook
bybjoast ( 1310293 ) writes:
I share this experience. I am in my 30s though, but I drink far less per occasion than I used to do. One drink in an evening is perfect for me nowadays.
byMightyMartian ( 840721 ) writes:
For me, it drives my guts nuts, so I only have maybe a couple of drinks a year at social occasions. Other than that, I have a near full bottle of Crown Royal rye that I haven't opened in four years.
byjsepeta ( 412566 ) writes:
Boomers in the Advertising segment used to take 2 martini lunches when I was out of college. They're no longer working and that's probably a good thing.
bydfghjk ( 711126 ) writes:
Posts are always better with bigotry in the very first word, plus ignorance throughout.
And "boomers" most definitely are still working.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
Only if they never use those checks to buy anything. If it's used to buy - for example - vodka, that money goes into the economy.
byArchieBunker ( 132337 ) writes:
Damn lazy farmers. https://www.usda.gov/about-usd... [usda.gov]
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
"Sitting at home collecting government checks is what sucks money out of the economy."
That's true for corporations, but not for humans. The humans spend that money on living expenses and it goes right back into the economy. Corporations spend it on buybacks and it goes into the pockets of the wealthy. They do also spend some of their money, but they currently have unprecedented cash hoards, so it's much better to give it to normal people because they will spend more of it.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byRobinH ( 124750 ) writes:
Oh, please stop. What you're saying makes no sense. If all you're doing is consuming resources then you're a drain. Think of it this way... a person sitting at home doing nothing goes and buys food with money that came from government assistance. Where did that money come from? It's either tax money taken from people who are providing some kind of value (working in the service industry, or a factory, or running a business) or it's money that was loaned to the government by issuing debt. Now not all re
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
You seem to think the wealthy are something other than a drain. I think your boot leather consumption fetish has caught up with you, there's a lot of toxic compounds used to cure most leather.
bysabbede ( 2678435 ) writes:
Well, they don't place much of a burden on public services, on account of not using most of them, and they provide funding to both governments (bonds/t-bills) and private enterprises (stocks/bonds). They don't hoard money, that would be wasteful. Not having their money invested means losing it to inflation. Their money goes to work in ways that benefit you.
Though to be fair, welfare supports don't actually suck money out of the economy either. You're right about those being spent right away, althoug
byKermodeBear ( 738243 ) writes:
It's so sad to see modern Slashdot filled with lazy commies. Old Slashdot would have had an intelligent discussion about free market economics, maybe name drop Hayek, talk about allocation of scarce resources, discuss supply vs demand economics, etc.
Instead we just get whining from brat who can do no better than "lol ok boomer lol" and blame absolutely everything but himself for his problems.
Yeah, life is hard. And it's harder now than it has been in decades. And yeah, the boomers got lucky. But economics i
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
And yeah, the boomers got lucky.
It's not so much lucky as the boomers' parents perpetrated a swindle against the rest of the world. They looked the other way while Hitler rose, or worse, were war profiteers. The prosperity the Boomers enjoyed was caused by our "allies" getting bombed while we sold war supplies to the Axis, then built up our manufacturing capabilities and rented war supplies to the Allies, and then we all did a bunch of damage to the Axis and gee gosh look at whose country remained untouched and came out ahead?
●r current threshold.
by0xG ( 712423 ) writes:
You're right. Most corporations just bury their money in a big hole to hide it. /s
bysabbede ( 2678435 ) writes:
Don't corporations spend most of their money on payroll so that the employees can meet their living expenses? Every one I have ever worked for has paid me, my coworkers, our suppliers and vendors...
byMachineShedFred ( 621896 ) writes:
Yes, heaven forbid they collect the money from the government THAT THEY PAID INTO THE GOVERNMENT PENSION SYSTEM THEIR ENTIRE LIFE.
Or did you forget that people pay into Social Security through payroll deduction, and it's tracked on an individual account level?
Parent
twitter
facebook
byFortnite_Beast ( 10429778 ) writes:
This. I pay $800/month into social security. In return I will get 70% of $3,000 per month for the rest of my life, after I turn 67. To make this equitable, there needs to be a means test for Social Security. If you're a 401k millionaire, have a pension, nor started drawing before 67, your SS payments should be capped to preserve the funds for the rest of us.
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
"To make this equitable, there needs to be a means test for Social Security."
No, there does not. The only thing needed to make it both equitable and sustainable is to remove the contribution cap.
byBranMan ( 29917 ) writes:
Damn straight! This does not get emphasized enough: We can fix *90%* of the coming deficit in Social Security with one stroke of a pen by eliminating the contribution cap.
Let that sink in - 90% of the problem goes away just like that. I personally hit the contribution cap every year (probably a lot of us on Slashdot do), and I am all for eliminating the cap. It's a pittance at the end of the year that I really wouldn't miss if it wasn't there. And it fixes the majority of the problem.
WHY WAS THIS NOT D
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
"People don't "pay into social security". They are taxed to pay benefits for current recipients. They, in turn, will be paid a benefit when they retire."
That is paying in.
If you don't agree, explain why, using the meanings of the words "paying" and "in"
byjds91md ( 2439128 ) writes:
This tangent is getting a bit heated. You both could use a drink
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
I had a nice IPA a little while ago, to tie in to another thread I participated in earlier. And to reference another, it was relatively mass market beer, too! Sierra Nevada is just fucking killing it with their hazy IPA pack. IDGAF what anyone thinks about Sierra (which back in the way back was mostly thought of in my crowd as the least worst thing you could get at 7-11) but all of the beers in that are at least good, and the Dank is great.
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
byjohnstrass1 ( 2451730 ) writes:
You did not "pay in " to social security.
You, as part of 3.7 workers, paid for the SS benefits of one retiree. We are now approaching 2.2 workers per retiree. So, you actually got a great deal: you paid very little while working and because your (Boomer) life expectancy is longer than WW2 folks. You will suck welfare ( aka, medicare, social security) for a lot longer,
Oh, and because when you (Boomer) were a kid, marginal maximum tax rate was 70% so you got great free or almost free school and college
byRaisey-raison ( 850922 ) writes:
Federal spending after WW2 went from about 14% of gdp then to about 23% of GDP now. State spending went from about 6% then to 6% now. So we're taxing and spending a lot more now.
In terms of spending on higher education, states reduced spending from 0.45% of GDP to about 0.3% now.
A lot of that was because Medicaid costs went up and the Federal government forces costs sharing with states on that.
High marginal rates actually hurts revenue and GDP. Some states have high combined marginal rates of 1.45% + 0.9% +
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
byGrumpySteen ( 1250194 ) writes:
So you're saying we should cut off the billionaires who "make" money simply by owning corporations that get government contracts while doing no real work.
byRightwingNutjob ( 1302813 ) writes:
I'm saying that scapegoating a small number of successful people and believing that "cutting them off" will somehow cancel out your own laziness, stupidity, or bad luck means the communists have got you hook, line, and sinker.
●rrent threshold.
byserviscope_minor ( 664417 ) writes:
Some of them are, but many are not.
Anyhow who was it who had a lunchtime point or two when I first joined the workforce as a young trail end Gen X intern? It wasn't the younger workforce members, so it was pretty much the boomers, maybe the odd member of the silent generation, but it was usually the bolshy mid career types.
Boomer is also an age range.
bynecro81 ( 917438 ) writes:
Boomers in the Advertising segment...
Posts are always better with bigotry in the very first word, plus ignorance throughout.
Not trolling; genuinely curious: you consider the term "boomers" to be bigoted? Can you explain?
byjaaori ( 8910169 ) writes:
The question was not for me, but I can give it a try.
I'm going to assume that you probably, just as me, grew up when a boomer was no more than someone born in the generation post WWII, my parents for example.
There's nothing bigoted about that, we just give funny names to different generations
The issue is that as language as evolved, as it always will, it now took a meaning more of an old person with calcified ideas (you can find that kind of person at any age group). I've seen it being used in pretty mu
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
I assume it was being used descriptively. The majority of boomers as a group have certain things in common. One of those is that, again as a group, they own more stuff than members of other generations. One reason for that is that property was much cheaper when they were earners, so they got more square footage than later generations, which means they had more room for stuff.
Pretending otherwise is denialism.
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
"You are applying the characteristics of a group to the individuals in it."
Groups are made up of individuals, your hand waving about racism notwithstanding.
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
byskam240 ( 789197 ) writes:
Claiming the term "boomers" is bigoted based on that is an awfully big stretch for me. If people are talking shit about Mexicans while referring to them as such (which is the proper name for people from Mexico) does that make the term "Mexicans" bigoted? No, only the negative things they are saying would be bigoted. Likewise with "Boomers", even if it is short hand for Baby Boomer.
● current threshold.
byCan'tNot ( 5553824 ) writes:
Any word can be a slur if you use it that way. And if a lot of people use it that way then it turns into a stereotype.
byAmiMoJo ( 196126 ) writes:
I see "boomer" as more of an acknowledgement that one particular generation has caused a lot of problems for everyone else. Not them exclusively, and not all of them, but the combination of denial about the problems and the attitude that younger people are simply lazy and feckless rather than screwed by decisions made before they were born is unfortunately quite common.
byavandesande ( 143899 ) writes:
Even if they are getting paid for it I don't consider protesting Trump a job.
bycusco ( 717999 ) writes:
More like a responsibility.
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
Even if they are getting paid for it I don't consider protesting Trump a job.
If they were getting paid for it, it would be a job.
Unfortunately, statistically nobody is getting paid for protesting Trump.
TBF nobody is getting paid for supporting Trump, either; Those people Leon is paying are getting paid to act. They weren't randomly selected.
byskam240 ( 789197 ) writes:
There's nothing bigoted about shortening "Baby Boomers" (the literal name of that generation) to "Boomers". Just going off the age range (61-79) I can tell you quite a lot of Boomers are retired by now as well.
bySvnLyrBrto ( 62138 ) writes:
Yeah, but he's not wrong. Being GenX, when I entered the workforce the boomers were still very much calling all the shots. And I caught the tail-end of the 2-martini-lunch days. I had more company-purchased martinis than I could even guess at in the first 3 or so years after graduating college. For my second job out of college, part of the job interview actually took place at a martini bar a block down from the company. Drinking was mandatory. And I was informed after the fact that my martini order wa
byharuchai ( 17472 ) writes:
"shrub's recession"
despite all the things I've read - and said - about Dubya, this is the 1st time I've encountered that phrase
bydrnb ( 2434720 ) writes:
Posts are always better with bigotry in the very first word ...
No, it's not bigotry. It's not based on something they can't control like age. It's absolutely based on ideology and the behavior that results from it. Something many got wrong, failed to admit over time, and continue with their idiocy. Dislike is valid, earned criticism for these boomers.
●urrent threshold.
byskam240 ( 789197 ) writes:
I think another factor is an aging population. I used to drink a little bit in my younger days, but now I find alcohol just makes me sleepy and melancholy... the exact opposite of fun. So I haven't had a drink for years and really don't miss it.
I think this is definitely effecting it to a degree although my own anecdote is me drinking much less as a means of managing my overall health. I do still enjoy tying one on occasionally :) .
Interestingly enough though is that drinking is also declining amongst young people https://news.gallup.com/poll/5... [gallup.com] and this is true in many countries outside the US as well.
byharuchai ( 17472 ) writes:
When I 1st saw this chart of drinking among American adults in WaPo 10 years ago, I was really surprised at just how few people really drink and that the industry is supported by only about 30% of the drinking age population.
Also by just HOW MUCH the top 10% drink!
If they were all to abruptly quit drinking for perhaps 2-3 months the industry would collapse.
https://www.reddit.com/r/coolg... [reddit.com]
byskam240 ( 789197 ) writes:
Good info and what you said is pretty surprising to me as well. Then again my main social circle and myself were heavy drinkers for quite a few years (not so much nowadays but still occasionally) so I think my perception is a bit skewed.
Crazy about the 10 percent drinking almost 74 drinks per week. Makes me wonder what they're quantifying as a "drink".
byBKX ( 5066 ) writes:
A drink is a standard amount of alcohol. It's specifically defined as 1.5 fl. oz. of 80 proof liquor or the equivalent in any other form. This works out to 12 oz. for most American Lagers and 5 oz. for most wines. Mixed drinks typically have two shots of liquor and so are usually two drinks, but this can vary. Regardless of form, a drink contains 0.6 fl. oz. of ethanol dissolved in however much whatever.
byBKX ( 5066 ) writes:
Another interesting thing about that 74 drinks per week statistic is that it works out to almost exactly a gallon of beer per day. I guess they're well hydrated then.
byMspangler ( 770054 ) writes:
Possibly aging related.
Given the quality of commercial beers and the trend to overly hoppy beers I've started brewing my own. It was easier than I was led to believe (but I admit my other degree is in chemistry). Is home-brewed beer included in the data?
In any case I typically drink a beer a week, so the brewers really won't miss my business.
My other alcohol consumption is mostly my homemade blackberry wine which add to my home made grape juice to make a sort of a punch. But that is summer only, and still n
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
As an avid drinker of what some call overly hoppy beers, I didn't get what you're complaining about. Not because I expect you to like them as well, but because there has been a Renaissance in beer styles in America, which collapsed to almost exclusively pilseners during the depression because they are cheap and easy to make. Yes, many hoppy beers are on the scene now, but there's also more of every other style as well. I personally hate sour beer, and in some markets I find you have to wade through the sour
byslarabee ( 184347 ) writes:
Yes, many hoppy beers are on the scene now, but there's also more of every other style as well. I personally hate sour beer, and in some markets I find you have to wade through the sours to find the IPAs.
Your pain with sours would be my pain with IPAs. Many many markets are so dominated by not just IPAs themslves, but the perception that more IBUs makes for a better IPA has twisted so many other styles. Crack open the beer menu at a place bragging they have 32 taps and see 5 are set aside for the mass produced lagers, 14 IPAs, 4 ciders, 1 kombucha, 3 pale ales that might as well be IPAs, 1 red that forgot its malty roots, 1 imperial lager that tastes like Budweiser mixed with a medicinal vodka, a porter a
byjjbenz ( 581536 ) writes:
I'm ecstatic when I can find a place that has a Kolsch or Hefewiezen on tap. Those are some great summer beers.
byMspangler ( 770054 ) writes:
The local markets have a choice between commercial advanced beer substitutes and IPAs. Two decent beers that ate in the storeare Black Butte Porter and Moose Drool.
What I can find as kits is much more interesting especially as low bitterness beers. I can make even lower hop beers if I want simply by reducing what I add at the start of the boil.
As an unexpected benefit the used steeping grains work very well in bread.
bySvnLyrBrto ( 62138 ) writes:
I actually do still have fun and like going out drinking. My issues are twofold:
First, the hangovers are worse and recovery time is longer. Long-gone are the days when I could drink to excess every night of spring break, sleep it off until noon, have a cheeseburger, then go back out to the beach, start drinking again, stay drunk for another 12 hours, and at the end of the week go right back into classes with no decline in grades or perfomance. Now, I have to plan out hangover time at least into the mid-a
byharuchai ( 17472 ) writes:
Not just age alone but the need for prescription meds which comes as part of the wonderful package of senescence.
Up until just a few years ago, I could still down them *almost* as well as I could in my early 30s but since then I've been on several meds & even though I'm not forbidden to drink, I've found that I quickly feel weak & slightly nauseous after just 1 drink.
So, that's it for me, I'm out.
byBringsApples ( 3418089 ) writes:
I wish the human race was dying out, but you DO know that there are more people in their 20s today than there was when you were in your 20s. Right?
byMachineShedFred ( 621896 ) writes:
Also: price.
It used to be easy to find a bottle of decent bourbon for less than $30. Then everyone decided that bourbon was the "in" thing to drink and all the prices shot up for anything that isn't rotgut, if you can even find it on a shelf. And the really good stuff has become an arbitrage play for assholes.
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
Yeah I used to drink only 18+ year old Scotch... Now I just don't drink it any more because it's too rich for my blood. It's tripled over the last decade or so. Or maybe worse now, I haven't looked lately.
byjellomizer ( 103300 ) writes:
It might be a factor. However, the population is growing, and while the demographics are shifting a bit, they are still a lot of kids, reaching drinking age.
However there are milestones that us older folks had while growing up, that no longer seem as important to the younger generation.
Watching a PG13, R Movie, Getting a drivers license, drinking, smoking, Having Sex, Getting Married, Going to College, Getting an Apartment, getting a house... All these are in decline with the younger generation. Some bec
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...