This article simply seems to be stoking an ageist division where there needn't be one... The Greatest Gen and Boomers largely had a better set of opportunities than generations since. There are a lot of reasons for this... you could just as easily argue that feminism destroyed the labor market, or that opening trade to repressive countries that treat their own people like quasi slave labor destroyed the economy.

There are lots of reasons why the young today don't have the same opportunities of old. Hell, even with online advancements, it won't even match the early internet era pre and early after the .com bubble burst.

International free trade often isn't... because the labor and living conditions between nations varies a lot. And you cannot tax your way into a more fair market... you can only encourage more competition and enact some level of domestic protectionism.

Most of the people the article is complaining about simply did the right things... worked, steadily and saved or worked in companies that offered retirement options and pensions. But we want to be consumers first... we wanted cheap DVD players, televisions, appliances and phones. So, that's what we got... all the while markets are colluding, collapsing and expanding to extract every bit of potential value out of every product and market there is.

There's room for improvement, but I vigorously opposed socialism as the answer... I think we just need to adjust incentivization and adapt the limitations of liability offered to non-living entities. At this point, for the US, that will likely require a constitutional amendment.