Mar 12, 2016 4 min read

The Rolling Stones recorded a song called “Time Waits For No One” for their 1974 album “It’s Only Rock and Roll,” and, no question, the generation that grew up with the band has been reminded of that notion over and over again in the last couple of months.

On Tuesday, Bill Wyman, the 79-year-old former bass player for the Stones, announced he was being treated for prostate cancer that, he said, was caught in its early stages. Then, just hours later, George Martin, the Beatles’ esteemed producer, died at age 90. With two of the four Beatles gone and other key figures in their story now departed, the number of first-hand witnesses to the Fab Four’s epic saga is inexorably shrinking.

Then there was the announcement a few weeks ago that Ginger Baker, the propulsive and mercurial drummer for the band Cream, was being sidelined because of serious heart problems. Since New Year’s Eve, when Natalie Cole died, there has been a steady, sorrowful procession of music-makers who have exited the stage permanently: David Bowie; Paul Kantner, one of the founders of Jefferson Airplane; Maurice White of Earth, Wind and Fire; the San Francisco singer and songwriter Dan Hicks; and Glenn Frey of the Eagles.

What has to be particularly sobering to baby boomers and the older members of Generation X who are starting to creep over the half-century mark is these deaths are the result of natural causes like cancer, Parkinson’s disease, heart attacks and rheumatoid arthritis. As columnist Timothy Egan observed in The New York Times last month, “These are the things that kill old people, not demigods with electric guitars.”

For a generation that has tried to extend youth even into their retirement years – witness all the pharmaceutical advertisements that show vigorous, smiling graybeards wielding tennis rackets and strumming electric guitars – the ravages of time and age are getting harder and harder to deny.

And the aging of baby boomers had, and will continue to have, a marked impact on public policy for the next two to three decades at the very least. Sure, there is the effect the continuing surge of retirees will have on Social Security and Medicare. This has been well-documented, and policymakers in Washington, D.C., have shown no real inclination to fully address its implications. But there are other ways the senescence of the cohort born in the two decades after World War II will have long-lasting ramifications.

First, it will probably temper economic growth. Sure, some politicians recently made extravagant promises about how they can kickstart the economy – before he left the GOP presidential race, Jeb Bush said he would deliver 4 percent annual growth, while Mike Huckabee raised him by 2 percent with a promise of 6 percent growth. However, most economists believe the legions of boomers on fixed incomes will keep growth at about 2.4 percent per year.

One way, of course, we can and should nudge the economy forward is through immigration – new arrivals tend to reach our shores when they are young and contribute to the economy longer. They can help cover the Social Security checks and stents the “Woodstock generation” either needs now or will soon.

There will also be a growing number of elderly drivers on the roads. As we have noted before, there should be more stringent testing and rules to make sure older drivers are not a danger to themselves or others.

There’s also a potential bright side to baby boomers entering the autumn of their years – they could be followed by generations that are less confrontational and more pragmatic. Once the former devotees of Barry Goldwater and George McGovern retire, many believe they will be replaced by leaders and policymakers dedicated to problem-solving, not scoring points in a decadeslong ideological battle.

Is that too much to expect? We sure hope not.