Intergenerational Dialogues About America's Fiscal Future Refute Kids vs. Canes Conflict

By Andrew L. Yarrow, Vice President, Public Agenda

What do terms such as intergenerational equity and intergenerational interdependence mean when thinking about the future of America’s federal finances and overall economy?

Intergenerational equity and related terms are increasingly bandied about as federal debt and unfunded liabilities top $55 trillion—a sum putatively to be bequeathed to-and drown - future generations. They also come up in increasingly pessimistic views of politicians, pundits, and Americans of all ages that today’s children and youth may well be the first generation in U.S. history to have lower living standards and fewer opportunities than their parents.

While such views may be warranted, they can connote—and often are meant to connote—intergenerational conflict, America’s economy as a zero sum game, young versus old in the scramble for diminishing resources, and a sort of fiscal Malthusianism. However, discussions of intergenerational equity usually ignore the concept of intergenerational interdependence. All generations of Americans are bound together through family ties and other networks. When we deprive a particular generation of needed resources, we end up hurting entire families, communities, and the larger economy.

So, we should reframe the discussion: Instead of just talking about cuts in entitlement spending-which do need to be made-we also should talk about investing in children and young people. If we're so concerned about "our children” and America's future, they-and our nation-can't have a very bright one unless we devote considerably more resources to ensure that young Americans get a good education, have decent health care, strong families, safe communities, a healthy environment, worthwhile job opportunities, an economic jump-start to help them thrive in perilous times, and the assurance that some safety net (aka Social Security and old-age health care) will be there for them far down life's road. Just as we don't want to beggar America's children, we can't beggar our grandparents. Before Social Security, older Americans faced widespread poverty. Social Security (and Medicare and health care in general) require major reforms, but income and health security for many elderly Americans need to be strengthened.

Most young people care about their aging family members and the elderly as much as politicians and pundits claim to care about children. Similarly, most older Americans are not "greedy geezers," and care about their grandchildren and the nation's children in general. The young don't want to put "granny" on the streets any more than older Americans want to deprive our children of the resources to thrive. As one nation, we should invest enough to help people of all ages thrive—particularly those at both ends of life who cannot do so independently.

Intergenerational equity and debates about deficits and federal spending need to be seen as "we're all in this together." In the realm of public finances, intergenerational equity is about sustainability, sharing resources, spending both humanely and with economic prudence, and providing the basics for Americans from birth to death. This isn't about a "cradle to grave" welfare state or creating new kids' entitlements. It's about re-balancing—not only our allocation of resources between the elderly and children, the haves and the have-nots; but also our talk of "intergenerational equity" as more for children, not just less for those 65 and older. And, of course, Americans between 18 and 65 also have needs that we are not meeting.

When pressed, younger and older Americans get it. It's just not the message they generally hear from Washington or some of their peers, whose sub rosa text is "kids versus canes."

In a pilot project of intergenerational dialogues that Public Agenda and Generations United recently conducted in Worcester, Massachusetts, through the Intergenerational Urban Institute of Worcester State College and the Penn State Intergenerational Program in Pennsylvania—and hope to bring to many more communities—20-somethings and over-70-somethings found common ground on underlying values: Our government should live within its means (i.e., fiscal responsibility), but should also provide good opportunities and secure lives for Americans of all ages. As one young Massachusetts woman said: "We were surprised to find that although we were all from different age demographics, for the most part we agreed on the problems and some of the changes that have to take place."

Indeed, the concerns of young and old dovetailed in the comments of a 22-year-old and a retiree at Penn State. Student Ann Mesavage expressed worries about her ability to save for the future, while retiree Ed Klevans said he was concerned about the legacy being created for his five grandchildren. But both agreed that Americans need to come together—now—to create an economically sustainable future. All ages also found common ground about the importance of investing in and taking care of people of all ages in a fiscally responsible manner.

These intergenerational groups grasped the moral issues and principles underlying fiscal responsibility and intergenerational equity. Most important, their dialogue did not simply reflect young Americans’ concerns about the fiscal future as a burden imposed on them by older generations. Rather, younger and older citizens realized they have common interests in reforming the nation’s finances.

Not only are such intergenerational dialogues essential to change the terms of debate about public finances, the economy, and America’s future; but they also highlight the more general importance of bringing together young and old. The notion that young, old, and middle-aged live in different worlds and can’t productively communicate with each other is worse than a fallacy. It is a recipe for misunderstanding, division, conflict, and a world in which yet another element of our common humanity is discarded. Dialogues such as those we conducted are critical to build understanding, respect, and a sense of common purpose among people throughout their entire lives.

As one Worcester dialogue participant said: "We can't have two generations put up against each other; we need to promote generations working together."

Andrew L. Yarrow, vice president and Washington director of Public Agenda, is author of "Forgive Us Our Debts: The Intergenerational Dangers of Fiscal Irresponsibility" and "100 Years of American Child Policy." He can be contacted at ayarrow@publicagenda.org.