If you have kids born after 2000, why would you want the economy to improve? (wage, salary)

[tablemtn]

Do you think the boomers weren't also saddled with debt in their younger years?

No; they were not. Not even close. For instance, the private student loan industry barely existed in the 1980's. Now, it's a $250 billion pit of debt, most of which falls on younger people. Federally-backed student loans chime in with nearly another trillion. Why do you think the birth rate has plunged relative to any time in the post-WWII era in America? A lot of younger people cannot afford kids, and they know it.

Politicians are weasels. They will in no way lose votes on the topic so they will deal with the problem by having the core voters pay via unseen forces.

Like the old saying goes - voters in a democracy get the politicians they deserve. Rarely much more, and usually not much less.

I don't think it's useful to blame "the boomers" for macrohistorical/macroeconomic forces, but let's be realistic - the average age of the US House of Representatives is 58, and the US Senate is 63. When people look at "America's politicians," they see hundreds of Baby Boomers. That probably won't change anytime soon, either. So, you can understand a bit of cynicism from younger people.

[markg91359]

Boomers are not responsible for all the evils of mankind. However, as a later boomer I have noticed myself the reluctance of any of us to make the changes that are necessary to insure the solvency of social security and medicare. I have also observed the blithe and contemptible manner in which those in my generation act when they suggest that the expenses of college for the Generation Y is nothing or something they could easily obtain if they weren't "lazy". I get tired of dumbazz suggestions that if Generation Y would simply give up its cell phones and IPODs, they'd be able to pay for college. Apparently, people who think like this suffer from inability to do simple mathematics. College tuition easily runs $8,000 to $12,000 at most public universities while a cell phone bill is often $50 a month or less. Similar things can be said about the other popular high tech gadgets. They aren't for free, but the expense is quite negligible compared to the cost of higher education. So what if we worked our way through school? It was a helluva lot cheaper (even with lower wages) when tuition was no more than a $1000 a year.

Some boomers do charity work and others try to make a difference. Too many though sit around wanting early retirements and whine at any suggestion that either some of the benefits they get from social security or medicare ought to be limited, or curtailed, or heaven forbid, that they should be taxed more for them. Honorable people wouldn't behave this way. However, honor is a quality I'm finding very lacking in 21st century America.

A generational dialogue badly needs to take place. Boomers aren't the root of all evil. However, too many don't appreciate how privileges in life (that aren't currently available) account for their success as much as hard work and achievement do.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by markg91359

I get tired of dumbazz suggestions...

I'm tired of dumb assed generalizations.

Many of the policies, suggestions, beliefs, and actions are shared across generations unless of course all boomers are conservatives or liberals, bankers or workers, policy wonks or policy idiots, frankly I can't tell who is who based upon age alone.

As for social security, again the issue cross generations with seniors rejecting the bribe of letting them keep their social security but cutting it off for younger citizens to youthful opponents of social security wanting to destroy the very same safety net for their own generation.

We have a lot of divides in this country, always have, the younger generation is always the worst in history and the older generation has always been to blame for what ever ills the nation - see the 30's before the Jitterbug Generation all of sudden morphed into the Greatest or in the 60's when young boomers cried that Greatest were responsible for everything from racism to crass commercialism.

"You Can't trust anyone over 30"

Yet in every generation their were progressives and reactionaries, individuals who advanced society or kept it from going completely out of control (you pick which side you prefer). So please, spare me the dumb assed generalizations, it is unintellectual, ahistorical and just plain BS.

[Maryjane55us]

Originally Posted by maurb

Seriously, that’s your complaint???? I'll take high interest rates and low housing prices any day of the week over the current housing market that has been overly inflated by the current artificially low interest rates. What you conveniently failed to mention was that your generation had the opportunity to buy into the market at much lower prices and refinance as rates went down.

It is these artifically low interest rates that are largely to blame for many of today's economic problems. The 16% rates you're moaning about having paid is closer to what rates ought to be had the Fed not manipulated them to unsustainable lows.

You fail to take into account an extremely important variable.. SALARIES to purchase those cheap homes were miniscule in comparison to today's income. My first teaching job paid $5k. My husband's engineering degree netted him a whopping $10k. .. with interests rates averaging around 9% .. Do the math. It may sound better than what you have now, but it wasn't much different with all things considered.

Most could not afford todays housing costs with higher interest rates. If you think the market is bad now, wait til the rates increase. Prices will have to go down to compensate. If economic predictions of higher rates come true, you may just get your wish, my friend.

[Ellwood]

As another poster mentioned, in the 60's there was the Draft and along with it, most of us went to Vietnam. We didn't have a CHOICE. You did have a CHOICE. You could have joined the military and received your education and medical degree, thanks to the government and you wouldn't owe a cent, only serve a specific amount of years, plying your trade.

[stan4]

Originally Posted by Big George

Wait a minute, let me get this straight...

You're complaining about having to pay off student loans until you're in your early-30s? Did you REALLY expect to make half-million per year with NO investment?

Moderator cut: Stay on Topic
Docs are not making 500k...and they start working in their 30s, not becoming debt-free in their 30s.

I do agree...I don't blame the boomers for anything.
And everyone whining about the job market, etc, should really take an effin' history class.
This same lament has been made over and over at least once a decade for 100 years.

The whining is just getting louder, I guess.

[maurb]

Originally Posted by Maryjane55us

You fail to take into account an extremely important variable.. SALARIES to purchase those cheap homes were miniscule in comparison to today's income.

You fail to understand that those "minuscule" salaries of the past had greater purchasing power than todays salaries when inflation is taken into account. Case in point - My parents who earned about half what me and my wife earn were able to afford houses in much much nicer suburbs than the house I live in now. There first house which today would cost over $400,000 cost them only about $32,000 in the early 70s.

Back in the 70s/early 80s you could just about fill up your gas tank for the current price of a single gallon of gas. Yeah, those "miniscule" salaries of the past are sounding very good right about now...

[Big George]

Originally Posted by tablemtn

No; they were not. Not even close. For instance, the private student loan industry barely existed in the 1980's. Now, it's a $250 billion pit of debt, most of which falls on younger people. Federally-backed student loans chime in with nearly another trillion. Why do you think the birth rate has plunged relative to any time in the post-WWII era in America? A lot of younger people cannot afford kids, and they know it.

Like the old saying goes - voters in a democracy get the politicians they deserve. Rarely much more, and usually not much less.

I don't think it's useful to blame "the boomers" for macrohistorical/macroeconomic forces, but let's be realistic - the average age of the US House of Representatives is 58, and the US Senate is 63. When people look at "America's politicians," they see hundreds of Baby Boomers. That probably won't change anytime soon, either. So, you can understand a bit of cynicism from younger people.

The Federal Student Loan program started in 1965, but not a lot of young people took advantage of it at that time. Would you like to know why? Because over 2 million of them were drafted to go fight a war in VietNam - during which nearly 60,000 were killed, over 300,000 were injured, 2500 were/are missing in action, and thousands more were prisoners of war. Many that did come home uninjured(physically) continue to suffer from PTSD. Since the war ended, more VietNam vets have committed suicide than the number killed in combat.

And YOU'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT HOW TOUGH YOUR GENERATION HAS IT? You're sitting in air-conditioned classrooms, lounging around in comfortable dorm rooms, and jacking around at frat parties. The previous generation, when they were your age, were literally at war - and not of their own choosing.


Also, when I first started working in the 70s, I was getting about $2 per hour. So let's not complain about people's current debt loads, without taking into consideration the fact that the Federal Minimum Wage is now nearly 4x what I was earning when I was young.


Our current generation of young whiners needs to grow up, grow a pair, stop blaming everyone else for your sniffles and hang-nails, and get on with the business of being adults. Sooner or later, we all need to do it.

[Big George]

Originally Posted by maurb

You fail to understand that those "minuscule" salaries of the past had greater purchasing power than todays salaries when inflation is taken into account. Case in point - My parents who earned about half what me and my wife earn were able to afford houses in much much nicer suburbs than the house I live in now. There first house which today would cost over $400,000 cost them only about $32,000 in the early 70s.

Back in the 70s/early 80s you could just about fill up your gas tank for the current price of a single gallon of gas. Yeah, those "miniscule" salaries of the past are sounding very good right about now...

You are wrong. Buying a car, for instance, required a higher percentage of family income in 1960 than it does today. Renting an apartment, or buying a house, required a higher percentage of family income in 1950 than it does today.

The problem is that, today, people DEMAND as NECESSITIES countless things that weren't even dreamed of back then. Had you lived in "the good old days" that you complain about not having, you would not have had internet access (which young people use to relentlessly complain about how rough they have it), you would not have had a color TV, let alone cable access, you would not have had a cell phone - and maybe not even a telephone, you would not have had air-conditioning, you would not have had access to birth control, and you probably would not have even had access to a college education.

Do people REALLY want to go back to "the good old days"? The only ones who say "yes" are the ones who weren't alive back then.

[Midpack]

Originally Posted by tablemtn

Like the old saying goes - voters in a democracy get the politicians they deserve. Rarely much more, and usually not much less.

Other than the quote above, what a pointless thread. Anything resolved so far? Anyone changed their POV one iota so far?

We feel better if we can justify blaming someone, which accomplishes absolutely nothing except more polarization.

We're all responsible, blaming it on our elected leaders as several here have is a cop out (tells you what gen I'm from). If they tried to do anything substantial to address our fiscal issues, they'd get booted on the next election at the latest. The overwhelming majority of voters have little grasp of the fiscal realities and continue to vote accordingly, so politicians have no choice except to continue to 'bribe us with our own money.' Choosing between more spending/benefits and lower taxes is the same false choice in the end - it's not sustainable, but that's what we've polarized around. We drive politicians into those two camps, no other idea could get elected.

Just read this thread, or the countless others on generational warfare, and remember this is our electorate. It's a wonder anyone runs for office, and increasingly the best leaders probably don't...