logo
Baby Boomers' Luck Is Running Out

Baby Boomers' Luck Is Running Out

Yahoo13-06-2025
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.
At the core of every joke about Baby Boomers lies a seed of jealousy. Unlike younger generations, they have largely been able to walk a straightforward path toward prosperity, security, and power. They were born in an era of unprecedented economic growth and stability. College was affordable, and they graduated in a thriving job market. They were the first generation to reap the full benefits of a golden age of medical innovations: birth control, robotic surgery, the mapping of the human genome, effective cancer treatments, Ozempic.
But recent policy changes are poised to make life significantly harder for Baby Boomers. 'If you're in your 60s or 70s, what the Trump administration has done means more insecurity for your assets in your 401(k), more insecurity about sources of long-term care, and, for the first time, insecurity about your Social Security benefits,' Teresa Ghilarducci, a labor economist at the New School, told me. 'It's a triple threat.' After more than half a century of aging into political and economic trends that worked to their benefit, the generation has become particularly vulnerable at exactly the wrong moment in history.
Perhaps the biggest threat to Boomers in the second Trump administration is an overhaul of Social Security, which provides benefits to nearly nine out of 10 Americans ages 65 and older. In an emailed statement, Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano wrote, 'I am fully committed to upholding President Trump's promise to protect and strengthen Social Security. Beneficiaries can be confident that their benefits are secure.' But in February, DOGE announced plans to cut Social Security staff by about 12 percent and close six of its 10 regional offices; a quarter of the agency's IT staff has quit or been fired. Social Security's long-term outlook was already troubled before Trump, and these drastic reductions make the understaffed agency even less equipped to support those who rely on it. Shutting down field offices means seniors can't get help in person; less staffing means longer wait times when they call and more frequent website crashes. 'When you add hurdles, or cause a slowdown in terms of processing claims, you see losses in terms of benefits,' Monique Morrissey, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, told me. In fact, shutdowns of field offices during the first two years of the coronavirus pandemic corresponded with decreased enrollment in both Social Security and Social Security Disability Insurance, which is available to Americans under 65 who can no longer work for physical or mental reasons.
Social Security cuts will most hurt low-income Boomers, who are the likeliest to rely on benefits to cover their whole cost of living. But even those with more financial assets may depend on Social Security as a safety net. 'It's important to understand that many seniors, even upper-income seniors, are just one shock away from falling into poverty,' says Nancy J. Altman, the president of Social Security Works, an organization that advocates for expanding the program. As a whole, seniors have more medical needs and less income than the general population, so they're much more financially vulnerable. If you're comfortably middle-class in your early 60s, at the height of your earning potential, that's no guarantee that you'll remain comfortably middle-class into your 70s. In the next few years, Boomers who face more medical bills as they stop working might find, for the first time in their life, that they can't easily afford them.
Middle-income seniors are also likely to feel the impact of a volatile market. 'They tend to have modest investments and fixed incomes rather than equities, so the type of wealth that will erode over a high-inflation period,' Laura D. Quinby, who studies benefits and labor markets at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, told me. After Trump announced 10 percent tariffs on all imported goods in April, the three major stock indexes dropped 4 percent or more. They've since recovered, but the erratic market—whipped around by Trump's shifting proclamations about tariffs—scares many middle-class Boomers, who are watching their retirement savings shrink.
In the near future, older Americans might find themselves paying more for medical care too. Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' which has passed in the House but awaits a vote in the Senate, would substantially limit Medicare access for many documented immigrants, including seniors who have paid taxes in the United States for years. The bill would also reduce Medicaid enrollment by about 10.3 million people. Although Medicaid is for people with limited incomes of all ages, it supports many older Americans and pays for more than half of long-term care in the U.S. Most seniors require some sort of nursing home or at-home medical care; one study found that 70 percent of adults who live to 65 will require long-term services and support.
[Read: The GOP's new Medicaid denialism ]
That support may soon be not only more expensive, but harder to come by. The long-term-care workforce is disproportionately made up of immigrants, so the Trump administration's immigration crackdown is likely to reduce the number of people available to take care of seniors—and increase how much it costs to hire them. 'If you have no money, you'll be on Medicaid in a nursing home, and that's that. But if you're trying to avoid that fate, you're now going to run through your money more quickly and be more vulnerable,' Morrissey said.
Seniors with some financial security are more likely to live long enough to contend with the diseases of old age, such as Alzheimer's and dementia. The Trump administration has cut funding for promising research on these diseases. 'Going forward, you'll find less treatments reaching fruition,' Thomas Grabowski, who directs the Memory and Brain Wellness Center at the University of Washington, told me. For now, the UW Memory and Brain Wellness Center, where Grabowski works on therapies for Alzheimer's, has stopped bringing in new participants; as time goes on, he said, they'll have to tighten more. (Kush Desai, a White House spokesperson, told me in an email that the cuts to research funded by the National Institutes of Health are 'better positioning' the agency 'to deliver on medical breakthroughs that actually improve Americans' health and wellbeing.')
Changes at the UW Memory and Brain Wellness Center could have dramatic effects on current patients, including Bob Pringle, a 76-year-old who lives in Woodinville, Washington. In April, he started getting infusions of donanemab, an anti-amyloid medication approved by the FDA last year. The drug doesn't cure Alzheimer's; it's designed to slow the disease's progression, though the utility of donanemab and other Alzheimer's drugs remains controversial among experts. Pringle, for one, has found donanemab helpful. 'With the medication, my decline is a gentle slope, rather than a rapid decline,' says Pringle, whose mother died of Alzheimer's and whose sister lives in a memory-care facility. 'You're always hopeful that somebody with a bigger brain than you have is working on a cure, and the medication gives us some time until then,' Bob's wife and caretaker, Tina Pringle, told me. 'But right now, because of the funding cuts, our outlook is grim.'
[Read: The NIH's most reckless cuts yet]
The unknowability of the future has always been a scary part of getting older. The enormous upheaval that the Trump administration has created will only magnify that uncertainty for Boomers. After a historical arc of good fortune, their golden generation has to contend with bad timing.
Younger generations, including my own, shouldn't gloat, though: Cuts to Social Security and a halt to medical research could well worsen the experience of aging for generations to come. Younger Americans will likely grow old under challenging conditions too. Unlike the Boomers, we'll have plenty of time to get used to the idea.
Article originally published at The Atlantic
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Texas Democrats meet with Newsom to stop Trump's push to 'rig' the 2026 election
Texas Democrats meet with Newsom to stop Trump's push to 'rig' the 2026 election

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Texas Democrats meet with Newsom to stop Trump's push to 'rig' the 2026 election

Gov. Gavin Newsom stood alongside six Democrats from the Texas Legislature on Friday and joined them in accusing President Trump and Republicans of trying to "rig" elections to hold onto congressional seats next year. "They play by a different set of rules and we could sit back and act as if we have some moral authority and watch this 249-, 250-year-old experiment be washed away," Newsom said of the nation's history. "We are not going to allow that to happen." The Texas lawmakers and the governor spoke with reporters after meeting privately at the Governor's Mansion in Sacramento to discuss a national political fight over electoral maps that could alter the outcome of the midterm elections and balance of power in Congress. At the urging of President Trump, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called his state Legislature into a special session this week that includes a call to redistrict the Lone Star State to help Republicans pick up seats in Congress. The move is part of a gerrymandering effort pushed by Trump to prevent the GOP from losing control of the House of Representatives next year. If Democrats take the House, they could derail the president's agenda, which has so far included a crackdown on undocumented immigrants, tariffs on imports, rescinding efforts to combat climate change and undercutting state protections for the LGTBQ+ community, among other policy priorities. Newsom has threatened to mirror Trump's tactics and said he's in talks with leaders of the California Legislature to redraw the state's congressional districts to favor electing more Democrats and fewer Republicans. Texas Democrats, who said they traveled to California to meet with the governor and explain the state of play in Texas, pledged do everything in their power to push back against Trump's plan. "We're going to use every tool at our disposal in the state of Texas to confront this very illegal redistricting process that is going to be done on the backs of historic African American and Latino districts," said Texas state Rep. Rafael Anchía. Another group of Texas lawmakers are expected to meet with Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker in Chicago. Read more: California Democrats may target GOP congressional districts to counter Texas Changing the maps to benefit Democrats is a massive departure from California's work over the last decade to remove political partisanship from the redistricting process. California voters in 2010 gave an independent Citizens Redistricting Commission the power to determine the boundaries of voting districts for the U.S. House of Representatives instead of leaving that authority with the state Legislature. To redistrict before the midterms, the most legally sound option is for state lawmakers to send a constitutional amendment to voters that seeks to allow changes to the voter map outside the boundaries of California's independent redistricting process. The vote would need to happen in a special election before the June primary. Newsom has said he's also exploring a potential legal loophole that could allow the California Legislature to redraw the congressional maps themselves with a two-thirds vote. The governor's office said state law charges the redistricting commission with crafting new maps after a census, which is conducted about every 10 years. But they say the law is silent on everything that happens in between that time period. Newsom's lawyers believe it could be possible for the Legislature to redistrict congressional seats mid-decade on its own without going to the ballot. Read more: Texas Republicans aim to redraw House districts at Trump's urging, but there's a risk The governor's call to fight Trump using his own gerrymandering tactics has drawn a mixed response. Newsom argues that Democrats will continue to lose if they remain the only party that plays by the rules. But others worry about the integrity of electoral outcomes across the nation if political parties in every state resort to naked political gamesmanship to gain control. Texas Republicans have long been accused of crafting political maps to dilute the power of Black and Latino voters, which led to an ongoing lawsuit from 2021. Newsom's effort in California would effectively seek to increase the share of Democrats in Republican-held districts. Redistricting experts in California say redrawing the maps in the Golden State could create the potential for Democrats to flip at least five of the seats held by GOP incumbents. Democrats may have the potential for greater gains from gerrymandering, particularly in places such as California that have attempted to practice nonpartisan redistricting, compared to states such as Texas, where maps are already drawn in favor of Republicans. "It should be no surprise to anybody who covers Texas that every decade since 1970 Texas has been found to discriminate against people of color in its redistricting process," Anchía said. "In trying to do this, it is going to create great harm, not only to the people we represent, to the voters of the state of Texas, but also potentially to all Americans," he said about Trump's plan. It's common for the party in control of the White House to lose seats nationally in the first election after a presidential contest. Republicans hold majorities in the Senate and the House, and losing power to Democrats could be detrimental to Trump's presidency. Trump's job approval rating dropped to a second-term low of 37% in a Gallup poll conducted earlier this month. The dip is just above his lowest approval rating ever of 34% at the end of his first term. Trump has said publicly that he thinks it's possible for Republicans to redistrict and pick up five seats in Texas, with the potential for gains in other states that redraw their maps. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Those who invested in Multi-Chem (SGX:AWZ) five years ago are up 457%
Those who invested in Multi-Chem (SGX:AWZ) five years ago are up 457%

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Those who invested in Multi-Chem (SGX:AWZ) five years ago are up 457%

When you buy shares in a company, it's worth keeping in mind the possibility that it could fail, and you could lose your money. But on a lighter note, a good company can see its share price rise well over 100%. Long term Multi-Chem Limited (SGX:AWZ) shareholders would be well aware of this, since the stock is up 276% in five years. It's down 2.1% in the last seven days. Let's take a look at the underlying fundamentals over the longer term, and see if they've been consistent with shareholders returns. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. While the efficient markets hypothesis continues to be taught by some, it has been proven that markets are over-reactive dynamic systems, and investors are not always rational. One imperfect but simple way to consider how the market perception of a company has shifted is to compare the change in the earnings per share (EPS) with the share price movement. During five years of share price growth, Multi-Chem achieved compound earnings per share (EPS) growth of 32% per year. This EPS growth is remarkably close to the 30% average annual increase in the share price. That suggests that the market sentiment around the company hasn't changed much over that time. Rather, the share price has approximately tracked EPS growth. The graphic below depicts how EPS has changed over time (unveil the exact values by clicking on the image). We consider it positive that insiders have made significant purchases in the last year. Having said that, most people consider earnings and revenue growth trends to be a more meaningful guide to the business. This free interactive report on Multi-Chem's earnings, revenue and cash flow is a great place to start, if you want to investigate the stock further. What About Dividends? When looking at investment returns, it is important to consider the difference between total shareholder return (TSR) and share price return. Whereas the share price return only reflects the change in the share price, the TSR includes the value of dividends (assuming they were reinvested) and the benefit of any discounted capital raising or spin-off. Arguably, the TSR gives a more comprehensive picture of the return generated by a stock. In the case of Multi-Chem, it has a TSR of 457% for the last 5 years. That exceeds its share price return that we previously mentioned. This is largely a result of its dividend payments! A Different Perspective Multi-Chem's TSR for the year was broadly in line with the market average, at 29%. It has to be noted that the recent return falls short of the 41% shareholders have gained each year, over half a decade. Although the share price growth has slowed, the longer term story points to a business well worth watching. It's always interesting to track share price performance over the longer term. But to understand Multi-Chem better, we need to consider many other factors. Consider risks, for instance. Every company has them, and we've spotted 1 warning sign for Multi-Chem you should know about. Multi-Chem is not the only stock insiders are buying. So take a peek at this free list of small cap companies at attractive valuations which insiders have been buying. Please note, the market returns quoted in this article reflect the market weighted average returns of stocks that currently trade on Singaporean exchanges. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Sign in to access your portfolio

Judge dismisses Justice Department lawsuit over sanctuary laws in Chicago and Illinois
Judge dismisses Justice Department lawsuit over sanctuary laws in Chicago and Illinois

USA Today

time16 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Judge dismisses Justice Department lawsuit over sanctuary laws in Chicago and Illinois

WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Justice Department that accused the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago of unlawfully interfering with President Donald Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins in Chicago was a setback for Trump's litigation campaign against local "sanctuary" laws that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. White House and Justice Department spokespersons did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Trump, a Republican seeking to deport millions of immigrants in the country illegally, has sparred with Chicago and other Democratic strongholds over their policies. Democrats, in turn, have criticized the Trump administration's aggressive enforcement tactics, including plainclothes immigration agents covering their faces to hide their identities and arrests of immigrants with no criminal records. Supporters of sanctuary laws have said local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration enforcement would discourage immigrants who are living in the country illegally from coming forward as victims or witnesses to crimes. The Chicago City Council passed an ordinance in 2012 that stops city agencies and employees from getting involved in civil immigration enforcement or helping federal authorities with such efforts. The Illinois legislature passed a similar state law, known as the TRUST Act, in 2017. The Justice Department sued Chicago and Illinois in February, alleging these laws violate the U.S. Constitution's "Supremacy Clause" that states that federal law preempts state and local laws that may conflict with it. Jenkins, who was appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden, rejected that argument in Friday's ruling, saying the city's and the state's policies are protected by the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which ensures that states retain significant powers not explicitly granted to the federal government. The Trump administration on Thursday filed a similar lawsuit against New York City over its local sanctuary laws. A similar case against Los Angeles is pending.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store