# New Study Shows We Really Are Worse Off Then Our Parents



## Makalakumu (Jun 5, 2007)

[URL="http://www.economicmobility.org/newsroom/"]http://www.economicmobility.org/newsroom/[/URL]



> According to the report, men who were in their thirties in 1974 had median incomes of about $40,000, while men of the same age in 2004 had median incomes of about $35,000 (adjusted for inflation). Thus, as a group, income for this generation of men is, on average, 12 percent lower than those of their fathers&#8217; generation. While factors other than cash income also contribute to economic mobility, these data challenge the two-century-old presumption that each successive generation will be better off than the one that came before. The findings rely on new analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.


 

They aren't taking into account so many things. First of all, it takes TWO incomes to get by these days, so this 12% really isn't inflation adjusted or even adjusted for everyday life. Secondly, they aren't taking into account the things that have grown faster then inflation....health care, higher education, energy prices, etc. 

IMHO - the picture would be a lot bleaker if this was taken into account.  Anyway, this alone is alarming.  What does this say about the viability of the American Dream?

Your thoughts?


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 5, 2007)

I don't know who 'we' is, but I am much better off than my parents.


----------



## Carol (Jun 5, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> I don't know who 'we' is, but I am much better off than my parents.



Same here.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 5, 2007)

well, the runaway housing market here in the San Francisco area is a big factor.  When it costs close to a million dollars to buy a broken down shack (no exaggeration), even if my inflation adjusted income were much higher than my father when he was my age, we would still be completely unable to do it.  As it is, we barely even dream of it now.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 5, 2007)

We as in "average joe."  Also, I wonder if you looked a little deeper, you might be putting a rosy color on things.  Think about the money you pay for education, health care, energy prices, all of the things that have risen faster then inflation.  

It's staggering when you think about it.

This is a program that was on NPR this morning.  Check out some of the resources at the bottom of the page for more info on this.

You can listen to the call-in show here.


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 5, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> We as in "average joe." Also, I wonder if you looked a little deeper, you might be putting a rosy color on things. Think about the money you pay for education, health care, energy prices, all of the things that have risen faster then inflation.
> 
> It's staggering when you think about it.
> 
> ...


 
There is no "average joe".  We're talking about real people.  Individual actions determine individual results.  Now if you want to lump everyone together and take the average, maybe the headline should be "some people are worse off than their parents".  But I'm not ready to wail and rend my clothes because someone else's kid is bringing down the numbers.


----------



## Kacey (Jun 5, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> I don't know who 'we' is, but I am much better off than my parents.



Me too.



Flying Crane said:


> well, the runaway housing market here in the San Francisco area is a big factor.  When it costs close to a million dollars to buy a broken down shack (no exaggeration), even if my inflation adjusted income were much higher than my father when he was my age, we would still be completely unable to do it.  As it is, we barely even dream of it now.



That sucks - and some of it has to do with the location; I have a single income, and I own a house, and while Denver is a high cost market, it's nothing like what you're describing.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 5, 2007)

In my own case, I realize that a bit of perspective is necessary, and the assessment does not carry across the board.

For example, in the little daily things, I know we are much better off than my parents were at my age.  We think nothing of going out to eat at a decent restaurant, at least a couple times a week, while my parents always ate at home.  It is much easier for us to buy things like a CD or DVD on a whim, while my parents would not have bought a cassette tape or VHS tape, and didn't even have a VCR until much later than most.  We can spend the money to go to a movie much more easily than my parents did, even tho movies cost much more.  We also travel and pursue expensive interests like scuba diving much more freely than my parents did at my age.

It is the very big things that, at least in my area, are out of our reach.  The housing market is just simply out of our reach, no matter what.  But my parents bought their first home when they were in their late 20s, while I am 36 and have no hope of buying a home in my city, or even anywhere near my city.

A couple other factors work into this picture, however.  My parents had 5 kids, and we have none, and I expect that goes a long way in us having money to spend on the little things on a daily basis.

On the other hand, we are a fully two-income family, I work for a big financial company, and my wife is an attorney.  My mother did work and bring in some income, but never at the same level as my wife does.  You could say that my parents were mostly a single-income household for much of the time.  

I think these factors fill in the picture more fully.  Given our larger income at this age and no children, I would definitely expect to be able to spend more easily on the daily little things.  But I would also expect to be able to realistically buy a house and pursue that aspect of the "American Dream".  That arena in particular is just so screwey and messed up.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 5, 2007)

It is in fact an economic truism that we (as in the 'adult' generations of 'now') are not in fact better off than our parents.

From my own experience, my salary is only about the same as what my (semi-skilled) father used to earn, despite the fact that I'm in a highly skilled profession doing what only perhaps a few dozen people in the country can do.

In order to make ends meet, both my partner and I have to work whereas my father comfortably supported a family of five on his wages alone.

The closing argument is that my father bought his house when he got married ... he paid *cash* for it.  My mortgage is such that I shall just about finish paying it off before I retire (and it eats more than 50% of my monthly income).

EDIT: Ah, I see *FC* has made much the same points as me but I was a little later to the posting-party :lol:.


----------



## Ceicei (Jun 5, 2007)

Plus who invented interest??  Interest, IMHO, does not benefit the "people"; it benefits the corporations.  Interest does more harm than good.  Look at how much a person would have spent when their homes/vehicles/large purchases are finally "paid off".  :barf:

This could easily be made into a separate thread discussing the issues of interest.

- Ceicei


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 5, 2007)

Ceicei said:


> Plus who invented interest?? Interest, IMHO, does not benefit the "people"; it benefits the corporations. Interest does more harm than good. Look at how much a person would have spent when their homes/vehicles/large purchases are finally "paid off". :barf:
> 
> This could easily be made into a separate thread discussing the issues of interest.
> 
> - Ceicei


 
exactly right, which is why I kicked my own *** to get my college loans paid off as quickly as possible, and insisted that my wife do the same to get her lawschool loans paid.  I was able to single-handedly pay my college loans (about $35,000) in about 4 years, and once we were married, my wife and I paid off her lawschool loans (about $65,000) in about 4-5 years as well with some help from her family, and we did the same for our car when I received a small inheritance when a family member passed away.

Get rid of debt, don't pay the interest.  If you pay the interest for the full term on a long term loan, you will usually pay at least 50% more in the end, and it could be almost double the original loan.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 5, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Same here.



Here too.


----------



## Nobody (Jun 5, 2007)

The part of we that is me is not making it, not even anywhere close to what my dad made when he was my age!

Ah! An those school loans an credit cards are probably never going to get payed with the way things are a going.  Look out debtors prison here i come! Yes this just plain bother me, wow is me!  I just can not find any job above low pay as 7 usd an hour just ain't going to get it ever.

I don't get it honestly how to even start at a job/career or find one, i think i just don't know how to sale my abilities to a company.

Yea! i am not happy about it at all.  Right now at the age i am i should have some type of a life- a house, a wife you know the rest but owe well some people just fail to get it!  

I don't really know how to get an maintain employment, that pays enough to live.

I will probably keeep trying.


----------



## Carol (Jun 5, 2007)

Like me, my mother was also college-educated but didn't have anywhere near the professional respect and career opportunities that I have as a professional woman currently.     

Personally I am doing better than both my parents combined.  Now if I only hadn't lost the condo to divorce...grrr...


----------



## Kacey (Jun 5, 2007)

The other thing to consider, of course, is that individuals can buck the trend without changing the concept.  Just because some of us are doing better than our parents does not change the general trend.

For example, part of why I am doing better than my parents is because I have had the same job for 11 years - my father only kept one job longer than 3 or 4, and while, granted, that stretch lasted 8 years, when he lost a job, we tended to move, usually to another state.  Added to which, I am much better at budgeting than he or my mother ever have been.


----------



## tellner (Jun 5, 2007)

There really isn't any doubt. By all measures (this study is only one of many) real median income peaked in the early 70s. Household income has fallen somewhat and that's, as he points out, with two wage-earners. The debt-to-income ratio is higher than ever. The percentage of income spent on interest payments is out of sight. The percentage of the population covered by health insurance and the percentage with pensions provided by work is lower than it has been in at any time in the last half century. The percentage of those living below the poverty line is up.

At the same time wealth *and* income inequality are the highest they have ever been. We resemble a Third World country more than we do any of the developed nations.

These are all absolutely indisputable.


----------



## Nobody (Jun 5, 2007)

I have no! :whip:verkill:


			
				Tellnor said:
			
		

> health insurance and with pensions provided


 
What exactly are these.:yinyang:


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 6, 2007)

Kacey said:


> The other thing to consider, of course, is that individuals can buck the trend without changing the concept. Just because some of us are doing better than our parents does not change the general trend.
> 
> For example, part of why I am doing better than my parents is because I have had the same job for 11 years - my father only kept one job longer than 3 or 4, and while, granted, that stretch lasted 8 years, when he lost a job, we tended to move, usually to another state. Added to which, I am much better at budgeting than he or my mother ever have been.


 
Yep.  And that's really the point - that some people make better choices than others.  That's why I take exception to articles like this that suggest that 'we' are worse off.  Because it suggests that the problem is endemic to the system rather than a result of people's financial choices.  

To the posters who say they are worse off than their parents:  were your parents spending money on internet access and martial arts lessons?  Cable tv?  CDs & DVDs?  Cell phones?  We must be the only 'Third World country' where the po' folk dress in Sean Paul.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 6, 2007)

My father obtained a six-figure income and Company Officer status (Vice President) with an incomplete high school education.  It was after he left that position and took up real estate as a side hobby that he had to obtain his GED because it was required in California for a real estate license.  Point me to someone who could do that today that didn't invent some incredibly useful gadget or software package.

With an incomplete college education, it has been nigh impossible for me to obtain decent employment - and certainly not in any kind of supervisory capacity - with two years of college.

Interest rates, increased taxes, energy scams, Reaganomics, creative loaning and legalized loan sharking along with the increased cost of education ....  Man!  

I think we're a bit better off than our parents were but mainly because my husband was smart about some real estate decisions he made as a young man, the five jobs he had at 17 years of age, the luck of the draw that the company he works for is still a union job and hasn't been bought out in the 25 years of his employ there, and the fact that we refuse to buy every single little gadget and cable we don't even watch.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jun 6, 2007)

I dont know how some people can go on living when all I ever seem to hear from them is how much life sucks, how the planet is being destroyed, how Bush is turning the US into the third reich, 9/11 was a government plot, we are worse off then our parents economically, peak oil is going to have us in a Mad Max situation shortly, etc, etc, etc.

I cant determine if its fear, a dark obsession with the negative, warped Liberalism or what. There has always been and will always be things wrong with the world, and while they shouldnt be ignored, focusing all your thoughts on them is not the way I want to approach (or live) my life.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jun 6, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> To the posters who say they are worse off than their parents: were your parents spending money on internet access and martial arts lessons? Cable tv? CDs & DVDs? Cell phones? We must be the only 'Third World country' where the po' folk dress in Sean Paul.


 
Dude, dont you know that relativism only applies to issues of morality and ethics?? :uhyeah:


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 6, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> I dont know how some people can go on living when all I ever seem to hear from them is how much life sucks, how the planet is being destroyed, how Bush is turning the US into the third reich, 9/11 was a government plot, we are worse off then our parents economically, peak oil is going to have us in a Mad Max situation shortly, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> I cant determine if its fear, a dark obsession with the negative, warped Liberalism or what. There has always been and will always be things wrong with the world, and while they shouldnt be ignored, focusing all your thoughts on them is not the way I want to approach (or live) my life.


 
I think mostly it's a political viewpoint that has adopted all the trappings of a religion.  You got your original sin - colonialism, slavery.  You got your basic wickedness - racism, greed, religious oppression, abuse of environment.  And you got your hope of salvation - Repent, mah brotha!  And join-ah!  The hive mind-ah! of Leftism!  Hallelujah!


----------



## tellner (Jun 6, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> I dont know how some people can go on living when all I ever seem to hear from them is how much life sucks, how the planet is being destroyed, how Bush is turning the US into the third reich, 9/11 was a government plot, we are worse off then our parents economically, peak oil is going to have us in a Mad Max situation shortly, etc, etc, etc.



Because life is definitely worth living. And because despite the best efforts of evil people change for the better is still possible. The question is what you do with the facts. You, it seems, are saying "They make me feel bad, so I'll listen to the comforting lies and feel good." Some people sink into depression. Others choose to take it as a call to action. Most just get on the best they can.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jun 6, 2007)

You have no clue regarding anything I have seen or done in my life. Or how I choose to live it.

Interesting how anybody who doesnt drink the lefts kool-aid has their "head buried in the sand". Must be nice to have the corner on "truth".


----------



## Kacey (Jun 6, 2007)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Karen Cohn
-MT Senior Moderator
*


----------



## Nobody (Jun 6, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> Yep. And that's really the point - that some people make better choices than others. That's why I take exception to articles like this that suggest that 'we' are worse off. Because it suggests that the problem is endemic to the system rather than a result of people's financial choices.
> 
> To the posters who say they are worse off than their parents: were your parents spending money on Internet access and martial arts lessons? Cable TV? Cd's & DVDs? Cell phones? We must be the only 'Third World country' where the po' folk dress in Sean Paul.


 
I can openly admit that one i am worse off than my parents i have no job an am using a computer at a library.  don't have a cell phone or cable TV, don't have TV, don't have any DVDs..... Used to study martial arts under an instructor some time back have been at it sense i was young, most of the people i trained under would let me train free to when i meet an trained with them when i was around 20 to 30 range.

Seriously, who is Sean Paul? 

I am not a liberal either so,  i say those who have made it should have the right to kill the poor of there country for real even in America!  I am in agreement that we are not bad off in this country for real but in relation how much is made by some people that have jobs that do relate to jobs to day they are being paid less cause production is no longer a big standardized thing in America we are a service nation now mainly service oriented work is out there.  Bluntly if you do not possess a skill in B.S. sales or anything like it you get to live on the street like i do.

An yes i agree we are not so bad off in comparison to other places in the World.  Here when we compare are ability now to what we had when my father got his job an life going it is harder to do now than way back when.  That i believe is why you have people still living at home in there 30 an 40 in America.  The thing that sucks for me is i can not give back what my parent have done in life for me which does just bother me.  i personally can say i again, i just don't get what it is that is needed to make it in life relating to getting an keep the type of job that is were i have skills at.  I have an associate in Applied Science of Electronics an tried to find jobs they don't exist or i don't know what is need something.
I don't blame anyone but myself in this area it is something i have not yet figured out.  As you say bad choices,  after all what is a good choice.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jun 6, 2007)

Though it's not true for me (or for several other people who've posted), that's not the first study to say that median incomes are down.  It may be a system problem, but suspect choices are another factor.

For many of our parents, it went like this.  Finish high school.  Go to college.  Get a job.  Work that career.  By 35 you're looking at 10 years in the same career, often with the same company.

Fot lots of us, it went like this.  Finish high school.  Go to college.  Drop out for a year or so and move back in with the parents.  Go back to college.  Spend a couple years finding ourselves in the Peace Corps, or in Europe.  Get a job.  Decide we don't like that job.  Go _back_ to college.  Get a new job.  By 35 we're just beginning our careers.

Debt-to-income ratios are very high and responsible for much of the feeling of want amongst us middle class workin' folk these days, but that's a matter of choice and good decisions.  In our parents' day, consumer debt wasn't as freely available -- a $500 credit limit was very high.  Today, it's not hard to have access to 10s or even 100s of thousands of dollars of high interest consumer credit.  It's easier to fall into that trap now, but still a matter of decision.

Honesty (and you can say I'm taking the rosy view here) I find the _luxury_ of starting our careers later an indication that we're actually better off.  My wife and I live on one (teacher) salary, and throw the rest of the money into savings. It can be done.  It's just a matter of discipline and smart financial choices.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jun 6, 2007)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Fot lots of us, it went like this. Finish high school. Go to college. Drop out for a year or so and move back in with the parents. Go back to college. Spend a couple years finding ourselves in the Peace Corps, or in Europe. Get a job. Decide we don't like that job. Go _back_ to college. Get a new job. By 35 we're just beginning our careers.


 
Thats a great point. Many young people are , for lack of a better term, coddled these days. My parents were expected (if not pushed) to get a job, move out and move on with their lives. These days, young adults get allowed to live as "kids" late into their 20's. In my parents generation, it was common to get married in the early 20's, these days people ask "whats your hurry" when you get hitched at 30. I will never let my kids fall into the trap I did though. Getting a credit card in college.


----------



## Nobody (Jun 6, 2007)

Yea i can sort of agree except i am one that became a veteran instead of straight of to college an a lot of what i did is not stay at jobs.  They were not in the field i wanted an still to this day i am just not finding what is related to my college degree.  i also never have depended on my parents like that just not what i would do i would rather have my right to what i did and not have them saying you should, you know the argument thing.  Maybe if i had a different thinking you know take it easy type!  An yes, they still say thing like that even with me not living at home, you should have, why do you have to.

Hey, there is one positive i get to be buried at Arlington regardless, there is a good thing.  I am not sure i think, thay put any body who was a veteran there maybe it has changed.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 6, 2007)

You raise an excellent perspective there, *Bushido*, one that I'd not considered myself at all (which given that I've been wearing my old Economist hat for the past couple of days is a tad embarassing ).

I can see that such a pushing of the career curve back a decade could make a difference to a number of people, perhaps enough to skew the data.

I do think that in at least some of the cases, it is going to be the situation that people have not seen through the smoke and mirrors of the financial institutions and have taken on a debt burden they should have avoided.

I still stand by my original post about my own position tho'.  I have avoided debt all my life, have been overdraw (by £100) *once* when I bought my first car in my late 'teens, have what is considered to be a 'good' job and am still struggling to exist even with my missus's income as well.  

Primarily, that is because the cost of property is astronomical in this country and servicing that mortgage makes me thankful that we don't have kids to support too .

So, in my case, I am quite markedly worse off than my father was at my age and I like to think that I have not made any rash or foolish decisions along the way.  Then again, I do live in what is widely touted as "Rip-off, Britain" where we work longer, for less, and get taxed more than many of our contempories .

To try and answer the disbelief of some posters here is difficult because we all tend to draw on our own experiences and immediate surroundings when making judgements.  In some instances, there is also an automatic 'gainsaying' reflex to information that does not match a persons world view.

Sadly, I do believe, as I think I've said here before, that vehemently arguing a subject over the Net is an excercise in futility because mere glowing phosphors {or LCD pixels :lol:} are not going to change a persons ingrained attitudes.

I would like to invite informed comment from any other economics or business gradutes we have here at MT tho'.  I'm sure *Tellner* and I can't be the only ones and it'd be interesting to see what you think (especially if you trained in a different era to us (late '70's, early '80's for me) when economic thought was in transition).


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 6, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> I don't know who 'we' is, but I am much better off than my parents.


We means per capita and as a whole. I'm glad you are kickin' ***.
Sean


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jun 6, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> I do think that in at least some of the cases, it is going to be the situation that people have not seen through the smoke and mirrors of the financial institutions and have taken on a debt burden they should have avoided.



I agree completely.  

In Orwell's 1984, he talks about the importance of a wartime economy.  Only during war, he says, can you get the population to produce at a massive level while never amassing enough personal wealth to retire or to challenge the power elite.  In the world of that novel, three superpowers were engaged in a sustained war in order to create that situation.

Orwell would have been awed by the elegance of the consumer debt system.  Who would have imagined how quickly we'd put off retirement by 10 or 15 years just to buy that TV today instead of next year?  Rising debt to income ratios produce the exact same effect as Orwell's idea, without even having to have an enemy.  _Want_, it would seem, is an even stronger motivator than _hate._


----------



## Darksoul (Jun 6, 2007)

-I'm going to say that in some ways, we are better off than our parent's generation but perhaps worse in others. This cannot be a black and white response, there are too many variables! Younger generations have better access to things that were not available before, technology, for example. Sure older generations have access now though how many make use of it. My grandfather didn't have much use for a computer. However, a few years later after he died, my grandmother began using e-mail. This might all depend on the person, environment, circumstances, attitudes, etc.

-I'm 27 years old, have about $14,000 in debt between college and a car. 4 year college degree and an '01 Saturn, nothing fancy mind you. There are things I must pay for, like food, gas, car insurance, loan payments, rent. There are other things I do not need to purchase, as in extra material possessions. Some gadgets are nice to have but I don't need them. And that is perhaps one of the things I agree with Bushido on: the "want" in society. I don't want to have all those things out there, dont' need them. Therefore, I save money, unlike many others my age, and put it into an IRA. 

-My nagging question is why don't people save money? (Obviously if you're poverty level or have the right circumstances where you cannot save, I understand. But many people could save and choose not to.)

A--->


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 6, 2007)

I am actually better off then my parents, but there are some circumstances that pulled my parents family out of the norm.  Thus, I grew up in a family that lived below the poverty level for a good part of my childhood.

With that being said, I can tell you for a fact that for people who find themselves in situations like mine, there is no mercy, there are no handouts, and there is absolutely no help from anyone but yourself when it comes to climbing back up the ladder of economic mobility.  

And this study shows that this is only getting harder.

Further, I think we need to go back even further then 30 years to really get a sense of how much we have lost in terms of our standard of living.  I'm 30 years old.  I went to college for 10 years.  I have three bachelor degrees in science and one Masters in Education.  With the amount of money that I make I'm able to "finance" a three bedroom house, two modestly priced cars, and a few odds and ends.  Note the key word here, *finance*.  Also, we don't have all of the fancy gadgets that you can get and we don't want them.  The basics are fine.

When my grandfather was thirty years old.  He didn't have a high school diploma.  He worked for the railroad.  He bought a plot of land, built a house, bought two new cars, a boat and all of the odds and ends his family needed outright, in cash.  Back in that time, this was a commonplace practice.  Everyone did it that way.

Now days, living like this is nigh impossible.  Why?  The destruction of the buying power of the US dollar.  Inflation, fractional reserve banking, outright usury have transferred the bulk of the wealth from the people to the elite.

For more information, see this.  There are also some good solutions there...


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jun 6, 2007)

Ya know Upnorth, for once I agree with you. That is the biggest difference between about 2 generations ago and today. We live at a higher standard now but we dont OWN that standard. Things have been designed so that you wind up constantly paying for things. However, while Im no economist, perhaps thats the "natural" progression of things as more people want to buy more stuff or are placed in a situation to NEED more stuff to keep pace with society. My grandparents also lived in a different time with different necessities. While we may not "need" all the stuff we have, who wants to be the first to give up their car, their cell phone, their computer? Its always the OTHER GUY who has more than he needs or uses more than his share. ME on the other hand...


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jun 6, 2007)

But Im also invested in a retirement plan and a 401K so while those corporate barrons have us over the barrel, Im making $$ on it too.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 6, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Things have been designed so that you wind up constantly paying for things.


 
Your whole post is a great post and I'm sure you are not surprised that I'm quoting this particular line.  I just want you all to think about this.  If you look at the history of our monetary system, you start to find a subtle and very powerful force that has shaped the policy of this country since 1913 (and before).  

And you can research about this all you want with the vid I posted on this thread.

I'm just a normal guy.  I want the best for my kids and I want them to be able to inherit the same standard of living that I have worked so hard for.  The problem that I see is that the system that we are using puts us further and further behind at every opportunity.  

We have evidence of this with this study and with numerous other studies, so what do we do?

The answer lies in a radical restructuring of how we do banking and how we make money.  These two seemingly innocuous things are probably the most important issue in America today.  If our monetary system fails, then really nothing else matters.  One's ideology doesn't mean squat.

So, what do we do about this "subtle and pervasive power" as Woodrow Wilson puts it?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 6, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> But Im also invested in a retirement plan and a 401K so while those corporate barrons have us over the barrel, Im making $$ on it too.


 
Back in my grandfather's day, you'd never be expected to invest into a retirement account.  The company and social security was more then enough.  One of the reasons that social security is not enough now days is because of the erosion of our dollar.  The amount that was paid back then is not what is needed now.  

So the system goes bankrupt.

This begs the question, is social security broken or is our monetary system broken?  

Or course, "broken" implies some sort of accident.  I would never want someone to think that anything about our current system is anything but deliberate.

Do a search on Jekyll Island and you'll see the origin of what I'm talking about.


----------



## Catalyst (Jun 7, 2007)

Just some random thoughts:

1.)  If this place is so bad, why are people from Haiti risking their lives in leaky boats to get here?  Why are people walking across deserts in the Southwest to get here from Mexico.

2.)  My Father was born before the great depression and lived through it and fought in World War II.  My parents were savers not spenders.  *They knew what hard times really were*.  My Dad couldn't have cared less if he had any gadgets - he was just happy to be alive after fighting the Japanese in the Pacific.  Peace, Freedom and enough to eat were luxuries when he was growing up.

3.)  As someone said earlier, the definition of a necessity vs. a luxury item has changed.  My parents never had more than one car and there were 6 of us in the family and we somehow managed to survive.  It comes down to personal choice - do you want to save or do you spend?

4.)  I think the rise of consumerism after WW II has contributed to the situation.  When I was growing up, the only sneakers were Keds or PF Flyers.  Now-a-Days if you don't give your kids $200 Nike Air Jordan Sneakers you're "damaging" them.  I'll be damned if I'm gonna spend more on kid's sneakers than on the shoes that I wear to work.


----------



## tellner (Jun 7, 2007)

Catalyst said:


> Just some random thoughts:
> 
> 1.)  If this place is so bad, why are people from Haiti risking their lives in leaky boats to get here?  Why are people walking across deserts in the Southwest to get here from Mexico
> 
> ...



1) Puh-leaze. The fact that things are truly hellish in Haiti in no way alters the fact that they are bad and getting worse here. And as for Mexico, it is enjoying precisely the sort of economic regimen which the current Administration and monied elites want for us. Stagnant job creation, a shrinking middle class, falling wages, government mostly as a tool for funnelling money from the many to the few. They are further along than us and are exporting their unemployment North of the border

3) Health care is a necessity, not a luxury despite what the government and the CEO of WalMart say. Housing, gasoline, health care and food are taking up a historically large and growing share of our income. The only way we finance that is through debt. Consider that something over half of all bankruptcies are the direct result of a catastrophic medical event. The standard Right Wing lie of "It's all because the Lower Orders don't have any morals or self-restraint" doesn't wash.

4) Consumerism has been the national religion, enforced by unremitting propaganda, government policy, economic priesthood and corporate screed. It is certainly destructive. But do you know what? It wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem if we hadn't had decades of economic complacency followed by almost thirty years of the systematic destruction of family-wage jobs.


----------



## stickarts (Jun 7, 2007)

I only have my memories as a kid to go on but it seems to me that I am better off than my parents were in many ways (financially and standard of living)
In some ways the quality of life is declining as far as stress and  the environment for example, however I have the same worries as so many other people: being able to afford my kids education and my being able to retire comfortably.
I started saving for college the day my daughter was born and yet it seems it won't be near enough.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 7, 2007)

Well the way we live is incredible now!  How we pay for that may not be so incredible. (financing, etc.)  I would advise everyone to save and make sure that you are putting away for the future even if it seems like a small amount now it really can add up later on down the line.


----------



## Catalyst (Jun 7, 2007)

tellner said:


> 1) Puh-leaze. The fact that things are truly hellish in Haiti in no way alters the fact that they are bad and getting worse here. And as for Mexico, it is enjoying precisely the sort of economic regimen which the current Administration and monied elites want for us. Stagnant job creation, a shrinking middle class, falling wages, government mostly as a tool for funnelling money from the many to the few. They are further along than us and are exporting their unemployment North of the border
> 
> 3) Health care is a necessity, not a luxury despite what the government and the CEO of WalMart say. Housing, gasoline, health care and food are taking up a historically large and growing share of our income. The only way we finance that is through debt. Consider that something over half of all bankruptcies are the direct result of a catastrophic medical event. The standard Right Wing lie of "It's all because the Lower Orders don't have any morals or self-restraint" doesn't wash.
> 
> 4) Consumerism has been the national religion, enforced by unremitting propaganda, government policy, economic priesthood and corporate screed. It is certainly destructive. But do you know what? It wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem if we hadn't had decades of economic complacency followed by almost thirty years of the systematic destruction of family-wage jobs.


 
1.) I'm sorry that you feel things are bad for you in the USA. They're a lot better for me than they were for my parents. We'll just agree to disagree.

3.) I agree with you on the Health Care, that is a necessity (I just want the same Health Care coverage as my Congressman). I was referring more to housing and transportation. Food actually costs less than it used to. 

Here's where I'm coming from:

"The average new home in 1970 took up less than 1,500 square feet. Today, new homes average more than 2,400 square feet, and there are fewer people living in them (about one person fewer, compared with the 1970s). Smaller homes cost less to buy, insure, heat, cool and maintain. Since the typical American household spent $15,167 on shelter and related costs in 2005, trimming even 10% of that bill would save you more than $1,500 a year. (If you could actually save a proportional amount -- 1970s homes were about 40% smaller -- that would be about $6,000 in savings.)"

'The 1973-74 oil crisis led to lines at the gas pumps and a new interest in fuel-efficient vehicles. But most households didn't have multiple tanks to fill. At the start of the 1970s, only 31% of households had more than one car, according to the U.S. Census Bureau; more than a quarter had no vehicles at all. By 1995, 60% of households had more than one car and only 8% were carless. The AAA tells us the average car costs about $7,800 a year to finance and operate, so one fewer vehicle could save you a tidy sum."

Food in general used to take up a lot more of our budgets. Food costs declined from 20.2% of the average family's expenditures in 1960 to 16.3% in 1972 to 12.8% in 2005. But even as food costs have dropped, the portion of our budgets we spend on eating out has grown considerably... ...Eating out just one less night a week could save a whopping $1,560 a year (and that's in today's dollars)."

We're living larger than ever and that's due to personal choice.

4.) Not quite sure of your point, so I'll just say that whether anyone (you, me, others) likes it or not, in a market economy, Capital and the employment associated with it, is going to flow to the most cost efficient producer.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jun 7, 2007)

Why do the Libs have to be so rude?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 7, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Why do the Libs have to be so rude?


Prolly because you have labeled them as libs.
Sean


----------



## bluemtn (Jun 7, 2007)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, return to the original topic.

-Kerri L./ tkdgirl
-MT Moderator-*


----------



## tellner (Jun 7, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Why do the Libs have to be so rude?



On second thought, this doesn't even deserve a comment.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 7, 2007)

I raise my glass to 'second thoughts' and the peace they can often bring :tup:.

I get the feeling that what is being missed in some intangible way here is that there are valid points on both sides of the better/worse divide and what is causing the difference is how we add up the points.

As an example, the room I'm sitting in right now as I type this must contain something like £10,000 of high-tech equipment (five PC's, a couple of (commerical grade) laser printers, big TV, PS2, two top-of-range force-feedback wheels, monitors, cable-modem etc etc).  This kit would be un-imaginable to my dad and the money value is huge.

But, even taken in one lump it is still only half of my salary.  Significant in percentage terms but I didn't buy all this in one go, it's been ten years in the accumulating.  

Forty years ago, half of my dads wages would've been about £400.  As I said, he paid cash for his house when he got married.  How much? £800.  In other words he paid two years wages for his home.  I shall pay something like £350,000 for mine once all the mortagage interest is factored in i.e. approximately 17.5 years of my salary.  Yes, it's a bigger house, a semi rather than a terrace but I think the point is made quite strongly.  The flip side is that when I was a child we couldn't afford a TV or a refridgerator.

The economic landscape shifts underfoot all the time and some things become drastically cheaper whilst others do not but the baseline is that, unless we have dramatically jumped up the social ladder, we are not 'better off' than our parents.  

I've assiduously avoided debt all my life but I'm still saddled with an enormous one that devolves simply from wanting to own the place where I live (which in turn is driven by the fact that I need to own it to sell it when me and the missus are old because our pensions will be worthless).  

I am a 'wage slave' of the first water because altho' I hate my job I cannot quit to go back to a previous profession I adored - that, in and of itself, makes me worse off than my parents, who had the freedom to do what they wanted (within limits) as their fiscal requirements were so much less than mine.

Right, I've now thoroughly depressed myself and I'm going to get a drink ... cheers! {oh the irony :lol:}.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 7, 2007)

Sukerin - brings up some good points, but I think the numbers in this case are rather clear.  On the average people are forced to have more debt then their parents did in order to maintain a similar standard of living AND the buying power of our money has been greatly eroded.  Despite the advances in technology, I think this adds up to a pretty bleak picture.  What good are these trinkets anyway if we have to sign our property away in order to command them?

The other thing that we have to take into account is the cost of things that are rising so much faster then inflation.  Health care, education, energy, etc.  Take a look at one, education.  My grandparents did not have to set a single cent aside for their children for college.  My parents paid for their schooling all of the way to Master's degrees with part time jobs!  In one generation, the price of college rose so fast that an entire generation suddenly needed to invest in it in order to make it possible for their children.  

Now, I look at the price of college for my children.  I have one of the best investments set aside for them and I put as much money as I can away for them, but the cost of tuition is increasing much faster then my money will ever grow.  It's one step forward and two steps back.

And this is happening in so many areas of our lives that it calls into question the point of it all.  Why the hell am I working so hard for all of these financial goals that I have no possibility of meeting because the system itself is structured against me?  And where REALLY is all of MY wealth going?  

I look at videos such as the one that I posted and I am so angry that I can hardly stand it.  How can we allow this sort of thing to continue?  Are we really so different (conservative or liberal) that we don't share the same common goals for our children?  Are we so polarized that we cannot see the problem that mutually affects us all?  

Perhaps that was the purpose behind the polarizing forces in the first place?  

Lastly, someone brought up food.  The price of food has dropped, but the reasons behind this are a whole other thread in and of itself and this is not a good thing, because the quality of our food has dropped dramatically.  

Anyway, the bottom line is that I just am no longer willing to sit by and watch all of my hard earned wealth be shunted away from me and my family and into the pockets of this insular elite.  I think we need to change the system and we need to do it in a big way.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 8, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> The other thing that we have to take into account is the cost of things that are rising so much faster then inflation. Health care, education, energy, etc. Take a look at one, education. My grandparents did not have to set a single cent aside for their children for college. My parents paid for their schooling all of the way to Master's degrees with part time jobs! In one generation, the price of college rose so fast that an entire generation suddenly needed to invest in it in order to make it possible for their children.


 
I want to make another point regarding this.  Who encouraged the next generation to invest a portion of their income so that their kids could go to college even when the previous generation did not have to do this?  The financial institutions!  They set the rules, acted like they had no control, and then suggested something that "was in our children's best interest" and sat back and fleeced us all of a greater portion of our income.  

This is how it is happening folks.  This is how the wealth of the middle class is being transferred to the very elite.  The system got like it is because no body seriously questioned these con men.


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 8, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I want to make another point regarding this. Who encouraged the next generation to invest a portion of their income so that their kids could go to college even when the previous generation did not have to do this? The financial institutions! They set the rules, acted like they had no control, and then suggested something that "was in our children's best interest" and sat back and fleeced us all of a greater portion of our income.
> 
> This is how it is happening folks. This is how the wealth of the middle class is being transferred to the very elite. The system got like it is because no body seriously questioned these con men.


 
Strange, I thought the financial institutions were responding to a reality on the ground: that the colleges, responding to the popular belief that all children Must! Go! To! College! jacked the prices up accordingly.  You could even blame the colleges for instilling in parents the fear that, lacking a degree, their children will be derelicts fit only for flipping burgers or pumping gas.  

Alternatively you could blame the military, as others have, on the grounds that the GI Bill offered in the wake of WWII set off the whole "Coledge Edjumacation Gold Rush" in the first place.  That at least offers the satisfying benefit of blaming the US military for yet another of the evils in the world.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jun 8, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I want to make another point regarding this. Who encouraged the next generation to invest a portion of their income so that their kids could go to college even when the previous generation did not have to do this? The financial institutions! They set the rules, acted like they had no control, and then suggested something that "was in our children's best interest" and sat back and fleeced us all of a greater portion of our income.
> 
> This is how it is happening folks. This is how the wealth of the middle class is being transferred to the very elite. The system got like it is because no body seriously questioned these con men.


 
The cost of College is ridiculous and getting higher by the year. And the rate of payoff on student loans has people paying for it over decades.


----------

