But I also refer to the boards and investors. We'd love to think it's all a young person's VC game, but behind all that money is still, more often than not, someone who panics in Boomer.
Maybe it's just me, but I feel like the use of "boomer" as a derogative to be reductionist and ageist, not to mention most of the time incorrect, as I've seen it applied all the way to Millennials.
To be fair, I criticize them for the shit they did when they were my age too, so I'm criticizing them as a cohort, not because of their current age.
Are you sure that the people doing the criticizing are the same people giving out the trophies?
> so I definitely mean it in a derogatory way against people their age
The way you had used it, as commentary on middle managers, seem to include people from Baby Boomers all the way to Millennials.
> I'm criticizing them as a cohort, not because of their current age
In which case it sounds like using the age identifier would be incorrect.
I criticize them as a generational cohort for being the most entitled, wasteful, short-sighted generation that has ever lived, and has done more to screw up the entire world they are handing on to their children than anyone in history.
They have done this at every stage of their lives, but especially once they were old enough to be having children.
I don't mean as a cohort, I mean as individuals. I have my doubts that the exact same person who has given out participation trophies is the one who criticized. I think you are mixing two separate groups into one, by using their birth years as a commonality.
Also, I suspect that participation trophies is a Western creation, perhaps even an American phenomenon, and the Boomers who are not part of those cultures did not participate in those actitivities.
To quote the Princess Bride, "you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means".
Those are filled with people who are clinging to their roles well past their usefulness, because even though they're ruining social supports like Medicare and Social Security by pulling out multiples more funds than they ever contributed, they also failed to save anything of their own or are otherwise refusing to retire and leave the workforce (even though they've already started receiving "retirement" benefits).
FYI, people don't get to "pull out" funds from social security. You get paid what the government computes you'll get.
> they also failed to save anything of their own or are otherwise refusing to retire and leave the workforce
So which is it? They failed to save therefore they can't retire, or they could retire but are "refusing to"?