Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Washington’s Failure to Face Generation Imbalance is Divisive

Opinion

 Grandmother and adult granddaughter sitting on windowsill

America's growing generational divide is straining the social contract as younger Americans face housing, debt, and economic challenges.

Oliver Rossi / Getty Images

Outside Pittsburgh, a retired couple sitting around their dining-room table worries about whether Social Security will still be there in ten years. Their daughter and son-in-law, living across town, struggle with a different question: whether they will ever be able to buy a home, pay off their student loans, and raise two children without going bankrupt.

Their fears are real. They are normal responses to an economy and political system that increasingly forces generations to compete for financial security instead of building conditions in which they can thrive.


The United States faces a dangerous generational divide, not because older Americans are selfish or younger Americans are entitled, but because the political system increasingly lacks either the ability or the will to balance the needs of both. Programs for seniors remain politically protected while investments in younger generations are repeatedly delayed, diluted, or discarded altogether.

This political imbalance is creating more than fiscal strain. It is undermining the social contract itself.

A Political System Tilted Toward Seniors

The problem begins with demographics and political incentives. Older Americans vote more frequently than younger citizens. In the 2024 election, Census and CIRCLE, a non-partisan civic research center, showed turnout among Americans over 65 exceeded 70%, while turnout among voters under 30 lagged far behind. Also, organizations representing retirees, most notably AARP, are among the most powerful lobbying forces in Washington, while younger Americans remain politically underrepresented. The result is predictable: preserving current benefits becomes politically sacred, while long-term investments in the future are treated as optional.

While Social Security and Medicare are enormously important programs—millions of seniors depend on them for survival—protecting seniors should not require systematically underinvesting in younger Americans.

Young people face housing costs that have vastly outpaced wages, staggering student debt burdens, delayed family formation, and declining rates of homeownership. Americans under 35 control only about 4% of the nation's wealth, while Americans over 70 control roughly 30%, according to Federal Reserve data. Childcare costs now rival mortgage payments in many metropolitan areas. Public universities increasingly shift costs onto students. Starter homes have become unaffordable in many regions.

Education policy clearly reveals the imbalance. Politicians routinely promise to defend retirement programs while investments in schools, universities, and research are treated as expendable. Federal spending on children has fallen substantially as a share of the federal budget over the past several decades, while state funding for public universities has steadily declined since the 1990s, shifting more of the burden onto students and families.

According to the Urban Institute, federal spending on children is projected to decline as a share of total federal spending in the coming years, even as spending on Social Security and Medicare continues to grow, suggesting a government increasingly consumed by the obligations of an aging society.

The upshot is an undermining of future opportunity. Weakening public education and reducing support for higher education does not merely hurt students; it undermines the country's long-term economic capacity and civic health.

The Civic Cost of Generational Politics

Another peril is democratic thinning: our institutions continue to function procedurally while losing their capacity to generate broadly shared legitimacy and long-term trust. Younger Americans increasingly believe the system is not designed for them. Older Americans fear the protections they earned may disappear. Each side grows more suspicious of the other, even though both are reacting to the same institutional dysfunction.

As NY Times columnist David French recently observed, many older Americans increasingly feel threatened in public life. In an era of "OK boomer" politics, some seniors encounter a hostile message: your generation created today's problems, you refuse to step aside, and the country would be better off without your influence.

The frustration behind these sentiments is understandable. Yet the blame is frequently misplaced.

The real problem is not older Americans. Nor is it younger Americans. The problem is a political system that has become increasingly adept at protecting commitments to older Americans while neglecting future investments that benefit the young. When institutions fail to balance the needs of different generations, citizens begin blaming one another for problems that originate in Washington. The result is precisely the kind of intergenerational resentment that healthy democracies must avoid.

Other countries have begun confronting these tensions more honestly than the United States. Some have expanded child benefits, subsidized housing construction, invested heavily in vocational education, or linked immigration policy directly to demographic needs. In America, by contrast, leaders often prefer symbolic cultural battles over difficult fiscal trade-offs.

Rebuilding the Social Contract

Eventually, however, reality prevails over political messaging.

The solution is not abandoning seniors. Nor is it blaming younger Americans for struggling in an economy increasingly stacked against them. The real challenge is rebuilding a political system capable of balancing obligations across generations instead of pitting them against one another.

That means strengthening Social Security's finances through serious reform, including lifting payroll tax caps and pursuing sustainable immigration policies. It means investing far more aggressively in affordable housing, childcare, education, workforce training, and infrastructure. It also means forcing Congress to think beyond the next election cycle and toward the long-term stability of society itself.

A healthy democracy does not merely preserve the present. It prepares for the future.

Right now, Washington is failing at both.


Robert Cropf is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Louis University.


Read More

The Populist Left and Right Just Bought the Same Housing Policy
white and red wooden house miniature on brown table

The Populist Left and Right Just Bought the Same Housing Policy

At midnight on July 11, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act became law without a presidential signature, the largest housing statute since 1990. President Trump refused to sign it, dismissing it as "a big yawn" and holding it hostage to an unrelated voter-identification bill. The timing matters because the price it is meant to address keeps climbing: the median existing home sold for $440,600 in June, roughly 49 percent higher than in 2020. Democrats say Trump snubbed struggling families. Republicans call it a win for homeownership. Both are selling a law that will do far less than either claims.

Start with the provision everyone is talking about. Section 901, titled "Homes are for People, Not Corporations," bars large institutional investors, defined as entities controlling 350 or more single-family homes, from buying additional single-family houses. It is the populist centerpiece, the line that lets a Republican Congress and a Democratic minority both claim they stood up to private equity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person holds a check from the U.S. Treasury Department.

As America debates Social Security and federal spending, older adults face rising costs and financial insecurity. Here's why retirement policy affects every generation.

MargJohnsonVA/Getty Images

We Will All Grow Old Someday

America is debating budgets, taxes, deficits, and spending priorities. Those discussions are necessary. But amid the political arguments, we cannot lose sight of a simple truth: every budget reflects our values.

Nearly every American hopes to grow old. Yet growing old with dignity has become increasingly difficult for many seniors living on fixed incomes. Rising housing costs, groceries, utilities, insurance premiums, and prescription drug expenses continue to strain household budgets. For many older adults, retirement is no longer a season of security but one of constant financial calculation.

Keep ReadingShow less
As Trump’s Tariff War With Canada Drags On, This Border Community Suffers Without a Voice

A semitruck drives across the Sault Ste. Marie International Bridge from Canada into the United States.

Emily Iris Elconin/ProPublica

As Trump’s Tariff War With Canada Drags On, This Border Community Suffers Without a Voice

On the northeast edge of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, nearly 1,100 people gathered in late June for the International Bridge Walk across the long span that links two cities with the same name: Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. Both the sun and the sentiments were bright.

“We don’t like to say there’s a border there, because we’re twin cities. We’re one family, the countries of Canada and the United States,” Don Gerrie, mayor of the Michigan Sault (pronounced “Soo”), told the crowd ahead of the annual walk.

Keep ReadingShow less
Empty money in wallet.

What does it mean to be the working poor? Explore the gap between poverty and a living wage, why millions of working Americans struggle, and solutions to reduce economic inequality.

photobyphotoboy/Getty Images

The Concept of the “Working Poor” Should Be Unacceptable

What does the phrase "working poor" mean? The first point is that you are working; you have a regular job—you aren't working catch as catch can; you are employed. But despite working, you are poor. What does it mean to be poor? It turns out that "poor” means different things depending on what standard you apply.

Some definitions seem rooted in the old institution of the poorhouse, which was a home for paupers. Thus, dictionary.com defines “poor” as having little or no money or other means of support. To me, that’s the definition of being destitute, not poor.

Keep ReadingShow less