|
|
|
|
|
|
by Zach_the_Lizard
3427 days ago
|
|
|
>Are the elderly so populous that they can force tax benefits for only themselves? They didn't call it a baby boom for nothing. >If more young people move into an area, rentees or not, they're eligible to vote and should be a large voting block all their own. Young people can't move in if you ban building more housing, now can they? >I'm surprised than in San Fran, supposedly a tech mecca, there isn't a strong opposition coming from young, able bodied tech workers, with oodles of money on their hands. Once they buy, they, too, benefit from these laws. Also: they make up a small portion of the population |
|
|
Perhaps, but young people are the children of baby boomers so there ought to be more of them.
Statistics seem to show that intuition is correct:
"Millennials have surpassed Baby Boomers as the nation's largest living generation, according to population estimates released this month by the U.S. Census Bureau. Millennials, whom we define as those ages 18-34 in 2015, now number 75.4 million, surpassing the 74.9 million Baby Boomers (ages 51-69)" [1]
That still doesn't mean that there isn't a greater than expected share of elderly citizens in San Fran. Parts of Florida are quite like that.
Were you saying that there are more elderly citizens (51+) in San Fran than young?
[1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/25/millennials-...