Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"Survivor": Millennials vs. Gen X
#81
(09-30-2016, 06:48 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
Eric The Green Wrote:Although, as is the case among all of us in the USA, including among Boomers, that "richest" wealth is concentrated at the top.
I think the Silents have the most wealth.

Quote:Although Gen X has had more to lose in the recession, millennials are having the hardest time making economic gains in the first place.

Uh, not quite. It's location,location,location. Some states' bubbles are larger, some states' bubbles are smaller, the ones in the Oklahoma don't exist at all, go ask Rags'er when he's on the ball. Cool Big Grin Tongue



 


Quote:Boomers are having a hard time being able to retire or keep working. Although this is a generations site, so it is to be expected to attribute conditions and traits to generations, when it comes to the economy and politics, the divide is less between generations, and more between political parties and the red and blue "tribes."

When are you going to blame the Federal Reserve for blowing all of these stupid bubbles?

Quote:That's where we should be placing the "blame;" on the Republicans. It is their policies, and their imitation too often by Democrats, that have brought about less equality and economic mobility in our society, ever since the charming, ruggedly-handsome actor deceived us into adopting trickle-down economics and free trade, and convinced us that government is the problem.

That's one place to point a finger. Here's some more.
1. The Federal Reserve and their EZ money policy.  What a nest of idiots.  Low interest rates DO NOT work in a debt besotted economy.
2. Sally Mae.  Why can't they figure out that degrees in "fashion merchandising" , "general studies", history, etc. won't be enough to pay the loan back.
3. Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae.  Why do these agencies even exist? They do nothing but fuel housing bubbles.

No, the housing bubbles depend on location, as you said. And 2nd mortgages still get tax deductions, for one thing. And free trade > China boom > rich Chinese buying up houses.

But if interest rates were higher, mortgage rates would be higher too, and it would be even harder for millennials to get a start than it is now. The Fed is useful, up to a point. Lower interest rates are needed when the economy is slow, higher rates when it is high. I think the conventional wisdom is right on that; no sense in going conspiratorial-theoretical on that. I don't see the connection between housing prices and QE either. More bank loans does not necessarily mean high housing costs, unless the banks are making dangerous loans to home buyers again. Are they?

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae existed and still exist to make it easier for people to get loans. But like so much else, they had abusive and greedy leaders in the 00s.

I got a better idea. Let's just blame everything on Taramarie.

(that's better than blaming everything on Hillary, as Trump did in the debate)
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#82
(09-30-2016, 11:15 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-30-2016, 06:48 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
Eric The Green Wrote:Although, as is the case among all of us in the USA, including among Boomers, that "richest" wealth is concentrated at the top.
I think the Silents have the most wealth.

Quote:Although Gen X has had more to lose in the recession, millennials are having the hardest time making economic gains in the first place.

Uh, not quite. It's location,location,location. Some states' bubbles are larger, some states' bubbles are smaller, the ones in the Oklahoma don't exist at all, go ask Rags'er when he's on the ball. Cool Big Grin Tongue



 


Quote:Boomers are having a hard time being able to retire or keep working. Although this is a generations site, so it is to be expected to attribute conditions and traits to generations, when it comes to the economy and politics, the divide is less between generations, and more between political parties and the red and blue "tribes."

When are you going to blame the Federal Reserve for blowing all of these stupid bubbles?

Quote:That's where we should be placing the "blame;" on the Republicans. It is their policies, and their imitation too often by Democrats, that have brought about less equality and economic mobility in our society, ever since the charming, ruggedly-handsome actor deceived us into adopting trickle-down economics and free trade, and convinced us that government is the problem.

That's one place to point a finger. Here's some more.
1. The Federal Reserve and their EZ money policy.  What a nest of idiots.  Low interest rates DO NOT work in a debt besotted economy.
2. Sally Mae.  Why can't they figure out that degrees in "fashion merchandising" , "general studies", history, etc. won't be enough to pay the loan back.
3. Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae.  Why do these agencies even exist? They do nothing but fuel housing bubbles.

No, the housing bubbles depend on location, as you said. And 2nd mortgages still get tax deductions, for one thing. And free trade > China boom > rich Chinese buying up houses.

But if interest rates were higher, mortgage rates would be higher too, and it would be even harder for millennials to get a start than it is now. The Fed is useful, up to a point. Lower interest rates are needed when the economy is slow, higher rates when it is high. I think the conventional wisdom is right on that; no sense in going conspiratorial-theoretical on that. I don't see the connection between housing prices and QE either. More bank loans does not necessarily mean high housing costs, unless the banks are making dangerous loans to home buyers again. Are they?

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae existed and still exist to make it easier for people to get loans. But like so much else, they had abusive and greedy leaders in the 00s.

I got a better idea. Let's just blame everything on Taramarie.

(that's better than blaming everything on Hillary, as Trump did in the debate)

Grow up Eric. You are as much of a child as my mother is. That is sad at your age as it is at my mother's age.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#83
Eric The Green [/quote Wrote:   No, the housing bubbles depend on location, as you said. And 2nd mortgages still get tax deductions, for one thing.

Yup.  I agree and I also think 2nd mortgages should not be subsidized by tax dollars.  2nd.... OK, here's another thing to nuke:


2nd mortgages are also  tax deductible.                  

Quote:And free trade > China boom > rich Chinese buying up houses.

I agree with that.


   But if interest rates were higher, mortgage rates would be higher too, and it would be even harder for millennials to get a start than it is now.

Not if bubbles pop......
   :: Rags rubs hands together :: Actually, that's part of my master plan to pop all housing bubbles. Big Grin
   1. Raise interest rates to 5% which is normal.
   2. Destroy foreign speculative demand.
   3. Destroy demand for 2nd houses

   4. Once all of those bubbles pop, I then plan on letting TBF banks, you know, fail. The FDIC can make depositors whole, so no biggie.

   5. House prices should crash enough that we'll have lots of happy Millies.
   
Quote:The Fed is useful, up to a point. Lower interest rates are needed when the economy is slow, higher rates when it is high. I think the conventional wisdom is right on that; no sense in going conspiratorial-theoretical on that.

There's one problem.  It hasn't worked dude. Cool  The FED has a problem. It can make $ available, but can't direct where it flows. So far it's gone to excess reserves [dead money], stockie market bubble, housing bubble, frakking bubble, and the like.


Quote:   I don't see the connection between housing prices and QE either.

1. It does because the FED is buying mortgage debt that artificially depresses the interest rate.
2. QE also caused a frakking boom here. So in Oklahoma we had QE -> [frakking boom] ->  EQ Big Grin
QE = quantitative easing
EQ = earthquakes
So,  QE causes earthquakes in Oklahoma!


Quote:   More bank loans does not necessarily mean high housing costs, unless the banks are making dangerous loans to home buyers again. Are they?

The law of supply/demand?


Dangerous home loans: yup.  Nothing changes.






[url="http://nypost.com/2016/03/12/obama-is-setting-us-up-for-another-housing-crash/"  Oh, but they are. [/url]



Quote:   Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae existed and still exist to make it easier for people to get loans. But like so much else, they had abusive and greedy leaders in the 00s.



Sorry, I do not think any government should be subsidizes house purchases. That's corporate welfare for house builders, real estate agents, banks which get fees, landscapers, etc.

Quote:   I got a better idea. Let's just blame everything on Taramarie.

   (that's better than blaming everything on Hillary, as Trump did in the debate)


I have no dog in the Eric vs. Taramarie kerffufle.
---Value Added Cool
Reply
#84
(10-01-2016, 12:09 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
Eric The Green

   No, the housing bubbles depend on location, as you said. And 2nd mortgages still get tax deductions, for one thing.
[/quote Wrote:Yup.  I agree and I also think 2nd mortgages should not be subsidized by tax dollars.  2nd.... OK, here's another thing to nuke:


2nd mortgages are also  tax deductible.                  

I agree, but what I meant by 2nd mortgages was actually the same person getting tax deduction for more than one home. I think the deduction should be granted only for one's primary residence, not to speculators who buy and flip houses. That has been a primary cause of the housing bubble. Just making that clear in case I was not clear.

Quote:
Quote:   But if interest rates were higher, mortgage rates would be higher too, and it would be even harder for millennials to get a start than it is now.

Not if bubbles pop......
   :: Rags rubs hands together :: Actually, that's part of my master plan to pop all housing bubbles. Big Grin
   1. Raise interest rates to 5% which is normal.
   2. Destroy foreign speculative demand.
   3. Destroy demand for 2nd houses

   4. Once all of those bubbles pop, I then plan on letting TBF banks, you know, fail. The FDIC can make depositors whole, so no biggie.

   5. House prices should crash enough that we'll have lots of happy Millies.
   
possibly your magic might work.

Quote:
Quote:The Fed is useful, up to a point. Lower interest rates are needed when the economy is slow, higher rates when it is high. I think the conventional wisdom is right on that; no sense in going conspiratorial-theoretical on that.

There's one problem.  It hasn't worked dude. Cool  The FED has a problem. It can make $ available, but can't direct where it flows. So far it's gone to excess reserves [dead money], stockie market bubble, housing bubble, frakking bubble, and the like.

I'm not so sure that the fracking boom can be laid at the door of the Fed. High oil prices plus the innovations in fracking tech are certainly causes.

Quote:
Quote:   I don't see the connection between housing prices and QE either.

1. It does because the FED is buying mortgage debt that artificially depresses the interest rate.

The Fed had to buy mortgages to get rid of the 2007-08 bubble. So now prices are rising again. Low interest rates may be one factor in this, but only one, and the Fed's action was needed at the time.

Quote:
Quote:   More bank loans does not necessarily mean high housing costs, unless the banks are making dangerous loans to home buyers again. Are they?

The law of supply/demand?

Dangerous home loans: yup.  Nothing changes.

Not so sure

Quote:Sorry, I do not think any government should be subsidizing house purchases. That's corporate welfare for house builders, real estate agents, banks which get fees, landscapers, etc.

Not sure Mac and Mae were "subsidizing" houses; just helping people get loans. Not quite the same. So I don't agree; sorry Smile maybe someday I'll change my mind tho; it's not set in stone (like Taramarie's Wink oh sorry...... ) (ruff ruff, dog)
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#85
maybe someday I'll change my mind tho; it's not set in stone (like Taramarie's"

Eric that is bullshit and you should know that. You call me a "gangster" yet you are calling for people to gang up on me and "blame" me for bullshit that is happening in your country that is having an idiot moment. You also call for a childish gang up on politicians you disagree with. I sit and listen to everyone and THAT is where we have our disagreement. Your mind is set in stone on ideas on music. I will give you credit for listening to newer music as I do not bullshit about you and address what you have said in the past. But when given a different perspective on why certain music is the way it is you ignore it and say there is no excuse. Your mind is set in stone on that. It is also set in stone about many other things. Shall I name them off one by one for you? I have been here long enough to know what you harp on about. EVERYONE has something that they stand by and I stand by LISTENING TO EVERYONE NOT JUST LIL OLE ME. This is why we have problems if you have not noticed. YOU ARE CLOSED MINDED WHEN IT COMES TO CULTURAL IDEAS. I AM NOT AS I PREFER TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCES EVEN IF I DO NOT LIKE THE SOUND. I think you actually enjoy your bitch slaps. Too bad it does not slap you into reality.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#86
(09-30-2016, 07:01 AM)Odin Wrote:
(09-27-2016, 06:49 PM)Bronsin Wrote: What's the over/under on how many of the millennials still live in their parent's basement?

You know that this is because of economic reasons and not laziness or immaturity, right? Rolleyes

Maybe for some that is the case, but it has reached an almost epidemic proportion. There are plenty of jobs out there for people who want to, or HAVE to work.

Where I live there are help needed signs all over the place, and they have been up for months advertising jobs that range from $10-14 hr, and people won't fill the positions because that's not where they want to work. Money is green. They need to get that through their thick heads. When the housing bubble burst, I saw more than one person my age, in a fairly new car or SUV, delivering pizza's and working fast food because they were going to lose that car, or their house, when their jobs fell apart. Millennials would just move back home, if they ever left in the first place.

Here's my old man pulpit and how I was raised: When you were 16 you got your driver's license, and a job. After graduation, you got out of the house. This wasn't up for debate, and I didn't have to be pushed out either. I wanted nothing more than to GTFO of my Mother's house at the soonest opportunity. And that wasn't just me, that was every single one of my friends. You either went to work or college. Staying at home and sitting on your ass waiting to win the lottery was NO option.

Case in point, my niece and nephew, who at 20 and 21 yrs old, FINALLY got their drivers license, and only have gotten jobs because their new step-father has had a bellyfull of them sitting around the house, and their mother takes them both to work, at the SAME place. How convenient........... Of course, they both have all the latest gadgets and are on everything that's considered social media. Oh, and they are both a couple of doughballs.
Knowledge doesn't equal Understanding, and the Truth is the Truth no matter what you think of it.
Reply
#87
(10-01-2016, 11:10 AM)Bronsin Wrote:
(09-30-2016, 07:01 AM)Odin Wrote:
(09-27-2016, 06:49 PM)Bronsin Wrote: What's the over/under on how many of the millennials still live in their parent's basement?

You know that this is because of economic reasons and not laziness or immaturity, right? Rolleyes

Maybe for some that is the case, but it has reached an almost epidemic proportion. There are plenty of jobs out there for people who want to, or HAVE to work.

Where I live there are help needed signs all over the place, and they have been up for months advertising jobs that range from $10-14 hr, and people won't fill the positions because that's not where they want to work. Money is green. They need to get that through their thick heads. When the housing bubble burst, I saw more than one person my age, in a fairly new car or SUV, delivering pizza's and working fast food because they were going to lose that car, or their house, when their jobs fell apart. Millennials would just move back home, if they ever left in the first place.
This statement reminds me of the great communicator, the great deceiver, and his assistant who had my name, holding up a newspaper during his recession in 1981, and proclaiming how many want ads for jobs there were. There's nothing new about putting down the poor and economically-hurting and blaming them for the problems that the Republican politicians themselves and whom they represent constantly create.

Quote:Here's my old man pulpit and how I was raised: When you were 16 you got your driver's license, and a job. After graduation, you got out of the house. This wasn't up for debate, and I didn't have to be pushed out either. I wanted nothing more than to GTFO of my Mother's house at the soonest opportunity. And that wasn't just me, that was every single one of my friends. You either went to work or college. Staying at home and sitting on your ass waiting to win the lottery was NO option.

Such silliness here. Yeah, go out and buy the cheapest house in the neighborhood, which probably costs a million dollars, or rent a small apartment for a thousand or two or three, with the income from a job that pays $7.25 an hour. Good luck with that.

Quote:Case in point, my niece and nephew, who at 20 and 21 yrs old, FINALLY got their drivers license, and only have gotten jobs because their new step-father has had a bellyfull of them sitting around the house, and their mother takes them both to work, at the SAME place. How convenient........... Of course, they both have all the latest gadgets and are on everything that's considered social media. Oh, and they are both a couple of doughballs.

Millennials live in their gadgets and on social media; no doubt about that. Certainly not the best training for Survivor, or maybe not for surviving in the real world either. But they have these gadgets and social media thanks in part to some smart and enterprising millennials.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#88
(10-01-2016, 12:09 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: I have no dog in the Eric vs. Taramarie kerffufle.

You don't need a dog; just your sense of humor (it was a joke, son; mostly on myself). Of course, we know who has none (sense of humor, that is; I don't actually know if she has a dog or not)
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#89
(10-01-2016, 02:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(10-01-2016, 11:10 AM)Bronsin Wrote:
(09-30-2016, 07:01 AM)Odin Wrote:
(09-27-2016, 06:49 PM)Bronsin Wrote: What's the over/under on how many of the millennials still live in their parent's basement?

You know that this is because of economic reasons and not laziness or immaturity, right? Rolleyes

Maybe for some that is the case, but it has reached an almost epidemic proportion. There are plenty of jobs out there for people who want to, or HAVE to work.

Where I live there are help needed signs all over the place, and they have been up for months advertising jobs that range from $10-14 hr, and people won't fill the positions because that's not where they want to work. Money is green. They need to get that through their thick heads. When the housing bubble burst, I saw more than one person my age, in a fairly new car or SUV, delivering pizza's and working fast food because they were going to lose that car, or their house, when their jobs fell apart. Millennials would just move back home, if they ever left in the first place.
This statement reminds me of the great communicator, the great deceiver, and his assistant who had my name, holding up a newspaper during his recession in 1981, and proclaiming how many want ads for jobs there were. There's nothing new about putting down the poor and economically-hurting and blaming them for the problems that the Republican politicians themselves and whom they represent constantly create.

Quote:Here's my old man pulpit and how I was raised: When you were 16 you got your driver's license, and a job. After graduation, you got out of the house. This wasn't up for debate, and I didn't have to be pushed out either. I wanted nothing more than to GTFO of my Mother's house at the soonest opportunity. And that wasn't just me, that was every single one of my friends. You either went to work or college. Staying at home and sitting on your ass waiting to win the lottery was NO option.

Such silliness here. Yeah, go out and buy the cheapest house in the neighborhood, which probably costs a million dollars, or rent a small apartment for a thousand or two or three, with the income from a job that pays $7.25 an hour. Good luck with that.

Quote:Case in point, my niece and nephew, who at 20 and 21 yrs old, FINALLY got their drivers license, and only have gotten jobs because their new step-father has had a bellyfull of them sitting around the house, and their mother takes them both to work, at the SAME place. How convenient........... Of course, they both have all the latest gadgets and are on everything that's considered social media. Oh, and they are both a couple of doughballs.

Millennials live in their gadgets and on social media; no doubt about that. Certainly not the best training for Survivor, or maybe not for surviving in the real world either. But they have these gadgets and social media thanks in part to some smart and enterprising millennials.

Laffin'........................
Knowledge doesn't equal Understanding, and the Truth is the Truth no matter what you think of it.
Reply
#90
(10-01-2016, 03:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(10-01-2016, 12:09 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: I have no dog in the Eric vs. Taramarie kerffufle.

You don't need a dog; just your sense of humor (it was a joke, son; mostly on myself). Of course, we know who has none (sense of humor, that is; I don't actually know if she has a dog or not)

Shows how much you know me then. ZERO.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#91
(09-30-2016, 06:48 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
Eric The Green Wrote:Although, as is the case among all of us in the USA, including among Boomers, that "richest" wealth is concentrated at the top.
I think the Silents have the most wealth.

The initial article I cited said Boomers.  Others say Silents.  They seem to be based upon a 2013 report from the Federal Reserve, which I found best examined in this article:

http://www.demos.org/blog/9/8/14/wealth-...-age-group

Here is mean wealth broken down by age group:
[Image: 2013meanwealthage.png]
The below-35 age group is the least wealthy and has a mean net worth of $76k. From there, it just goes up and up, topping out in the 65-74 age group at $1.06 million.
Here is median wealth broken down by age group:
[Image: 2013medianwealthage.png]
These median wealth figures tell the same story as mean wealth. The below-35 age group has the lowest median wealth at $10k. The 65-74 age group has the highest median wealth at $232k.

So it looks like the wealthiest group are those born from 1939 to 1948, mainly the very latest Silents, War Baby cuspers and Aquarian Boomers.  If anyone has better information, let me know.
Reply
#92
Those graphs don't mean much, when the fact remains that for all groups, the wealth is distributed so that most of it is owned by the very wealthy. If the top 1% own most of the wealth, then even if all of that 1% are in their 60s and 70s, that's still a small proportion of those in their 60s and 70s. That's why it's worth pointing out that there's no real generational divide, except in some peoples' minds. The divide is political, between those who believe in the trickle-down theory which has created the inequality, and those who don't. That's all that matters today.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#93
(10-02-2016, 10:24 AM)gabrielle Wrote:
(09-30-2016, 06:48 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
Eric The Green Wrote:Although, as is the case among all of us in the USA, including among Boomers, that "richest" wealth is concentrated at the top.
I think the Silents have the most wealth.

The initial article I cited said Boomers.  Others say Silents.  They seem to be based upon a 2013 report from the Federal Reserve, which I found best examined in this article:

http://www.demos.org/blog/9/8/14/wealth-...-age-group

Here is mean wealth broken down by age group:
[Image: 2013meanwealthage.png]
The below-35 age group is the least wealthy and has a mean net worth of $76k. From there, it just goes up and up, topping out in the 65-74 age group at $1.06 million.
Here is median wealth broken down by age group:
[Image: 2013medianwealthage.png]
These median wealth figures tell the same story as mean wealth. The below-35 age group has the lowest median wealth at $10k. The 65-74 age group has the highest median wealth at $232k.

So it looks like the wealthiest group are those born from 1939 to 1948, mainly the very latest Silents, War Baby cuspers and Aquarian Boomers.  If anyone has better information, let me know.

Both those graphs tell the same basic story:  people start saving around age 30, save until they are fully retired between 65 and 75, then start drawing down their saved wealth.  To tell which generation was the best off, you'd have to have figures on what they had or will have at the peak of their wealth.  Those figures would be hard to come by for the 75+ group, and impossible to come by for those under 65.
Reply
#94
(10-02-2016, 06:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Those graphs don't mean much, when the fact remains that for all groups, the wealth is distributed so that most of it is owned by the very wealthy. If the top 1% own most of the wealth, then even if all of that 1% are in their 60s and 70s, that's still a small proportion of those in their 60s and 70s. That's why it's worth pointing out that there's no real generational divide, except in some peoples' minds. The divide is political, between those who believe in the trickle-down theory which has created the inequality, and those who don't. That's all that matters today.

Then why do you keep calling Generation X materialistic when there is absolutely no basis for it?  Why is that when there is talk of the materialism of Baby Boomers, it is "oh, it's just a small portion of people in their 60s and 70s who are in the 1% income range," but the "typical Gen Xer is pecuniary"?  That's bullshit.
Reply
#95
(10-02-2016, 10:16 PM)gabrielle Wrote:
(10-02-2016, 06:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Those graphs don't mean much, when the fact remains that for all groups, the wealth is distributed so that most of it is owned by the very wealthy. If the top 1% own most of the wealth, then even if all of that 1% are in their 60s and 70s, that's still a small proportion of those in their 60s and 70s. That's why it's worth pointing out that there's no real generational divide, except in some peoples' minds. The divide is political, between those who believe in the trickle-down theory which has created the inequality, and those who don't. That's all that matters today.

Then why do you keep calling Generation X materialistic when there is absolutely no basis for it?  Why is that when there is talk of the materialism of Baby Boomers, it is "oh, it's just a small portion of people in their 60s and 70s who are in the 1% income range," but the "typical Gen Xer is pecuniary"?  That's bullshit.

Materialism exists within all generations as he should realize. My own boomer mother is in financial strife and takes her stress out on me when i am trying to help her while work towards my dream too. Sometimes I feel like leaving her to go it alone but I cannot do that to my mother. So I put up with it. I look forward to Eric's response to your comment. He is an interesting character.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#96
(09-30-2016, 03:05 PM)taramarie Wrote: Bingo. That is correct and yet older people who do not get that use it as a means to bully younger people into leaving when they can't financially. In my case my mother cannot live without my money (her debt) and we are having a housing crisis here in NZ too. Even renting is costly. So guess where I am atm? Better to spend my time at University (as jobs are scarce too) and prepare to get my dream job when the crisis hopefully blows over.

Why is there a housing crisis, there? I would think you guys have plenty of room?
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Reply
#97
(10-01-2016, 11:10 AM)Bronsin Wrote: Maybe for some that is the case, but it has reached an almost epidemic proportion. There are plenty of jobs out there for people who want to, or HAVE to work.

Where I live there are help needed signs all over the place, and they have been up for months advertising jobs that range from $10-14 hr, and people won't fill the positions because that's not where they want to work. Money is green. They need to get that through their thick heads. When the housing bubble burst, I saw more than one person my age, in a fairly new car or SUV, delivering pizza's and working fast food because they were going to lose that car, or their house, when their jobs fell apart. Millennials would just move back home, if they ever left in the first place.

Here's my old man pulpit and how I was raised: When you were 16 you got your driver's license, and a job. After graduation, you got out of the house. This wasn't up for debate, and I didn't have to be pushed out either. I wanted nothing more than to GTFO of my Mother's house at the soonest opportunity. And that wasn't just me, that was every single one of my friends. You either went to work or college. Staying at home and sitting on your ass waiting to win the lottery  was NO option.

Case in point, my niece and nephew, who at 20 and 21 yrs old, FINALLY got their drivers license, and only have gotten jobs because their new step-father has had a bellyfull of them sitting around the house, and their mother takes them both to work, at the SAME place. How convenient........... Of course, they both have all the latest gadgets and are on everything that's considered social media. Oh, and they are both a couple of doughballs.

I think you are getting things mixed up, here. Plenty of Millennials living with their parents DO have jobs, it is just that those jobs pay very poorly and in a lot of areas are too low to be able to afford an apartment. Adults living with their parents is less common up here in Fargo than in other places exactly because housing costs are very low up here. I was able to move out of my parents' house and rent a studio apartment for $250/mo.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Reply
#98
(10-02-2016, 10:16 PM)gabrielle Wrote:
(10-02-2016, 06:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Those graphs don't mean much, when the fact remains that for all groups, the wealth is distributed so that most of it is owned by the very wealthy. If the top 1% own most of the wealth, then even if all of that 1% are in their 60s and 70s, that's still a small proportion of those in their 60s and 70s. That's why it's worth pointing out that there's no real generational divide, except in some peoples' minds. The divide is political, between those who believe in the trickle-down theory which has created the inequality, and those who don't. That's all that matters today.

Then why do you keep calling Generation X materialistic when there is absolutely no basis for it?  Why is that when there is talk of the materialism of Baby Boomers, it is "oh, it's just a small portion of people in their 60s and 70s who are in the 1% income range," but the "typical Gen Xer is pecuniary"?  That's bullshit.

Strauss and Howe noticed it too. As soon as Gen X started dominating their classes, they wrote, the students' attitude was not philosophical and question authority and such, but quick, how can I use it to make some money. Gen X were "sharp-eyed survivalists" according to them. Gen X are "pragmatic individualists" and "entrepreneurial." Most people agree on that. I didn't bring up "pecuniary" in this thread though; that was how Rags described himself, and I pointed out that the Survivor villain who best exemplifies this is Russell Hanze, who is the epitome of the worst traits of Gen X. But Xers admire him for his strategic ability to win by any means that he can, and many call him the best player ever. The Survivor game itself is a typical Generation X expression, since Gen X are "survivalists."

But there's no doubt, all Americans and maybe all people in today's materialist society have a strong dose of materialism, and boomers were famous for throwing off their anti-materialism in the 80s and becoming yuppies. They went materialist right along with Gen X as it came of age. So everyone knows all of that. But the graphs you posted are baloney, if you want to say that this supposed wealth gap (as some have over the years here) is because boomers have grabbed all the wealth, and that's why millennials and Gen X are suffering. No, if anything, THAT's the "bullshit." And Warren Dew is right too; older people saving money is just the normal course of life; although even so, some few people can save a lot more than others. Generational rivalry and blame is misplaced blame; the politics of the typical 3T libertarian philosophy is to blame. Republican blocking of all liberal policies, and Democratic compliance with Republican policies (as in Clinton's going along with repeal of Glass Steagall); those are to blame. Inequality created by Republican policy is to blame. It's up to all generations now to look beyond materialism to what is best for all generations. That means, go left politically.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#99
(10-03-2016, 07:12 AM)Odin Wrote:
(09-30-2016, 03:05 PM)taramarie Wrote: Bingo. That is correct and yet older people who do not get that use it as a means to bully younger people into leaving when they can't financially. In my case my mother cannot live without my money (her debt) and we are having a housing crisis here in NZ too. Even renting is costly. So guess where I am atm? Better to spend my time at University (as jobs are scarce too) and prepare to get my dream job when the crisis hopefully blows over.

Why is there a housing crisis, there? I would think you guys have plenty of room?

Plenty of houses, not affordable. Many professionals are leaving Auckland due to it as it is worse over there than anywhere else and we all are experiencing it. Also keep in mind many buildings went down in Christchurch. We now have  many who are homeless. We have filled several parks with hooverville like teeny tiny homes for at least some of them. They are homeless and more than likely jobless (work loss from the earthquakes).
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
(10-03-2016, 12:28 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(10-02-2016, 10:16 PM)gabrielle Wrote:
(10-02-2016, 06:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Those graphs don't mean much, when the fact remains that for all groups, the wealth is distributed so that most of it is owned by the very wealthy. If the top 1% own most of the wealth, then even if all of that 1% are in their 60s and 70s, that's still a small proportion of those in their 60s and 70s. That's why it's worth pointing out that there's no real generational divide, except in some peoples' minds. The divide is political, between those who believe in the trickle-down theory which has created the inequality, and those who don't. That's all that matters today.

Then why do you keep calling Generation X materialistic when there is absolutely no basis for it?  Why is that when there is talk of the materialism of Baby Boomers, it is "oh, it's just a small portion of people in their 60s and 70s who are in the 1% income range," but the "typical Gen Xer is pecuniary"?  That's bullshit.

Strauss and Howe noticed it too. As soon as Gen X started dominating their classes, they wrote, the students' attitude was not philosophical and question authority and such, but quick, how can I use it to make some money. Gen X were "sharp-eyed survivalists" according to them. Gen X are "pragmatic individualists" and "entrepreneurial." Most people agree on that. I didn't bring up "pecuniary" in this thread though; that was how Rags described himself, and I pointed out that the Survivor villain who best exemplifies this is Russell Hanze, who is the epitome of the worst traits of Gen X. But Xers admire him for his strategic ability to win by any means that he can, and many call him the best player ever. The Survivor game itself is a typical Generation X expression, since Gen X are "survivalists."

But there's no doubt, all Americans and maybe all people in today's materialist society have a strong dose of materialism, and boomers were famous for throwing off their anti-materialism in the 80s and becoming yuppies. They went materialist right along with Gen X as it came of age. So everyone knows all of that. But the graphs you posted are baloney, if you want to say that this supposed wealth gap (as some have over the years here) is because boomers have grabbed all the wealth, and that's why millennials and Gen X are suffering. No, if anything, THAT's the "bullshit." And Warren Dew is right too; older people saving money is just the normal course of life; although even so, some few people can save a lot more than others. Generational rivalry and blame is misplaced blame; the politics of the typical 3T libertarian philosophy is to blame. Republican blocking of all liberal policies, and Democratic compliance with Republican policies (as in Clinton's going along with repeal of Glass Steagall); those are to blame. Inequality created by Republican policy is to blame. It's up to all generations now to look beyond materialism to what is best for all generations. That means, go left politically.

I am trying to point out that Boomers are just as interested in making and having money as other generations, and that Generation X is no more materialistic than other generations.  There is really no way to prove otherwise.  Interviewing a few high school students back in the 80s doesn't cut it.  Going by personal observations and general impressions doesn't cut it.  Rags calls himself "pecuniary," but he is speaking of himself as an individual.  And no, the charts I posted don't prove that any generation is more materialistic than others.  I suppose, as Warren Dew suggested, one could compare figures of all generations at the peak of their wealth, but even then it would be doubtful one could use it to come to a conclusion about who is the most "materialistic" generation. 

Stereotyping an entire generation as "pecuniary" is bigotry, Eric.  Calling a "villain" on Survivor a typical Gen Xer is bigotry.  ("Xers admire him"--which Xers would that be exactly?  What percentage of the entire Gen X population do they constitute?)

It's not just you, though.  These forums are rife with bigotry.  I am beginning to believe that generational theory promotes prejudice.  I am not surprised to learn, from another thread, that the academic world has largely ignored it and that it has mainly been taken up by the business world--another gimmick used to peg their employees and market to their consumers.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)