The Baby Doomers?

This morning's release of Consumer Confidence for January was the lowest on record (going back to 1967). In order to get a better read on the true state of the consumer, however, it often helps to look at the sub-categories within the report. For example, the age of the person being questioned can play a large role in how he or she feels about things. The charts below show the historical levels of Consumer Confidence broken out by age group.

While confidence levels are at historical lows for each age group, people under the age of 35 (43.6) are considerably less downbeat than those over the age of 55 (34.7). While from time to time we have all put on the rose-colored glasses and reminisced about the "good old days," at the rate things are going, "Baby Boomers" run the risk of being labeled "Baby Doomers."

click to enlarge

Comments

[Dave Wrixon:]

That is because the young to not have the experience to anticipate the arrival of severe pain. You have to live through these things to have a deep understanding of what it is all about.

Jan 27 04:13 PM

[Gene Inger:]

true.. but the nature of the 'growth engines' that are dysfunctional in the U.S. at this time; suggests the older 'Baby Boomers' are more pertinent for now. Let's face it; the decline sets-up good opportunities for those with 'time on their side'; like young singles wanting to buy their first homes, condo's or stocks. Not so for those over middle age (55 which is the new 35). Hence, heaviest spending on big-ticket items usually occurs from the 40 and over crowd; thus recovery is likely tenuous, protracted, and delayed, as we both likely believe. (We remain bearish since turning from bull to bear in February of 2007.. expect lower lows in time)... good work guys by the way!

gene

gene inger
ingerletter.com

Jan 27 04:15 PM

[Lars39:]

Why the low confidence, I thought that sentiment would soar with the new Prez?

Jan 27 04:26 PM

[Socialism c...:]

While we're on the subject of demographics and how that relates to the economy...Nancy Pelosi has it backwards: we don't need more contraception, we need more babies!!:

1) If additional children cost the state more money that it cannot afford in benefits, she should consider that the problem is not the babies, but the entitlement government.

2) Many of the existing entitlement programs have been suffering for years from a declining ratio of workers to recipients. Conceptually flawed, but exacerbated by too few in the younger generations.

3) There is not an overpopulation problem -- the rapid increase in population in the last century has been largely due to increased nutrition and quantum leaps in medical capabilities. This is shown by the slowing in the rate of increase of life expectancy. Ask an actuary.

4) We are barely at replacement levels in industrialized nations -- we do need at least a moderate increase to sustain our population as the Boomers begin dying off.

5) The human person is of intrinsic worth, from conception to natural death, and Pelosi's thinking is flawed by putting an economic cost on human lives. Let's not even *begin* going down that road!! It doesn't lead anywhere pretty.

Jan 27 06:13 PM

[lostintheozone:]

When a person is under 35 they generally don't have a lot of material wealth to worry about because they don't really have any. All they have is their health. If you happen to be over 55 you are probably watching your retirement slip off into the future as your funds lose money everyday. Most of us (over 55) are doomed because our earning years are mostly behind us and not ahead of us. We don't really want to be doomers but the writing is on the wall. Continue to work or take a big hit in income is what most of us will be doing. On the plus side is we will be taking a large part of what's left with us. Those under 35 can fight for the crumbs.

Jan 28 12:00 AM

[Mr. Ed, Jr.:]

The young always think they are invincible, have never experienced anything but pretty good economic times in the U.S., and our schools have loaded them up with faux self-esteem, so their viewpoint is suspect.
As a "Baby Doomer", I think we need to recognize that, as we look around to see who was in charge of so much of this disaster, we will see our fellow "Doomers". That is sort of a depressing realization to me, anyway.
Also, as an aside, I notice that if anyone hints at anything even slightly negative about Obama, the Obamaphiles click that little "thumbs down" thing. So let me just say that I think the new Prez is the tops.

Jan 28 02:00 AM

[investor88:]

Good article with good title. Article title resonates with the times we are in.

Jan 28 02:49 AM

[Tradememe:]

The people under the age of 35 are right to be considerably less downbeat than those over the age of 55. They are smart enough to know that time is on their side and that they can buy stocks or other assets at fire-sale prices.

Jan 28 04:19 AM

[morph366:]

Re Tradememe's comment
What remains of Wall Street certainly hopes you're right

Jan 28 06:31 AM

[sieraromero:]

The young are going to assume our debt. Their young are going to assume our debt. Their young are going to assume our debt, and on and on it goes. We have screwed over the future generations of americans for the benifit of ourselves. We don't care as long as we can keep it together just long enough so that we can get ours. How very sad for ourselves and the future generations. How very sad indeed!

Jan 28 12:10 PM

[Tekton:]

I remember, "Never trust anyone over 35".
Later, "Never trust the government"
Now, "Don't trust anyone."

The one thing that seems consistent now is that all age groups have realized just how the "Over 35, quasi-governmental, self aggrandizing ripoff artists in the finacial sector" have screwed every age group to varying degrees, for a long forseeable future.

I think hanging the term "Baby Doomers" by these two whippersnappers is simply a rejection that someone might have actually seen more, and known more than they do. Give'm 30 years and see what the think then.

You don't learn much, until after you think you knowt all.

Jan 28 01:54 PM

[mkreisel:]

Actually, the worse the bear market, the better it is for those under 25.

Imagine all the great cheap stuffs they could buy!

Bear market kind acts like a brutal generational wealth transfer mechanism.

Feb 02 12:02 AM