Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Totally agree with this last paragraph. And I believe its what we need to go back to. I appreciate the reasoned response. There have been several great post by both Boomers and Millenials in this thread..
One more follow up response ... first of all, yeah: it's not a competition
Here's more to consider:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
When referring to economics I'm mainly referring to the ability of the economy to supply its citizens with basic needs. I feel that due to better wages, less expenses, lower prices, and a stronger dollar, the economic edge goes to the Boomers. I'd agree with you on cars, but how much does a car improve your happiness? For me, not much. As long as it runs fine and is reasonably good looking I'll drive it. I think the images you see in the media about our generation are only for the rich kids. The rich had it easy in either generation so I call it all a wash.
I'm not sure what "basic needs" you mean aren't being supplied ... as a society, we've never had so much more than we need ... and that really goes for all generations since WWII, so boomers, and all since. It's really quite amazing, the opulence we live compared to even less than 100 years ago.
"Better wages" (for boomers)?? Even in inflation adjusted figures, boomers made less, across the board ... from laborer to Fortune 500 executive.
What "less expenses"? Cell phones, maybe?
Lower prices? In adjusted dollars, yes, I think that's true on a number of critical items, like food. Certainly NOT true for many tools and optional entertainment and convenience items -- such as televisions, etc. The cost of electronic devices today is really quite low.
Cars. Don't get me started I drive a 17 year old van with 260,000 miles (original engine!) ... in fact, I live in it (true) ... by choice ... I own properties that I rent out, but I live in a van part of the year (traveling about) and on a little funky old boat part of the year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
As far as housing, the conditions were much more favorable in past generations. Our market right now is over inflated and young Americans can't afford to buy homes in most areas. Again, your generalization about young American's wants, sounds more like spoiled rich kids than your everday American. Most people I know just want a place.
Housing is tough in many areas, but not really in all. And the solutions are emerging in simpler, more efficient designs. This is a transition time, backing out of the McMansion era ... I have this theory that most less than uber-wealthy have always, since ancient times, desired to have what the elite has -- and thus pursued the acquisition of material things to try to create the fantasy ... but: the more you have, the more you have to take care of and protect. Learn to live as a minimalist, focusing on the best things in life are free, and you're good to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
Technology in Healthcare and treatment have improved greatly over the years. I agree. The availability of healthcare has regressed though. Many young people I know don't even have healthcare and can't afford it. Hell, many can't afford the co-pays and prescriptions even if they could go. So I'd call this issue pretty even.
I don't agree with you here at all. Healthcare is as available, if not more so, than ever. And I don't know what makes you think everyone used to have access or could afford the kinds of diagnostics and treatments available today. I lost my wife of 30 years to cancer when our four kids were still school age children. I nursed her at home and held her as she died. We couldn't afford health insurance at that time and she went undiagnosed too long even though she knew something was terribly wrong.
Today, you can go to many kinds of clinics even if you can't afford insurance. It's not optimal, but there are more options now than ever before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
As far as social, I'm referring to our interactions with each other. Facebook is not an enhancement. It's a downgrade to face to face interaction. As far as the acceptance of homosexuality and other personal choices, I'd agree with you. Good point. However, Millenials didn't grow up with these things being accepted, we came of age (are coming of age) with these things being more and more accepted.
Ha, yes I agree that Facebook and Twitter and similar are all a step backwards in evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
I agree with you here. [Politics] However, we are the most polarized that we have ever been in this country accept maybe the Civil War. The Boomers are who are in power now so the Boomers have to take the blame on this one.
Nah. My point is that human nature is out of its zone. The antagonism and polarization doesn't have a thing to do with generation. Anything beyond hunter-gatherer tribes of fewer than 150 - 200 individuals, maximum is doomed to politics.
If you are curious, anthropologist Robin Dunbar studied the relationship of social primates, including man, to their species' neo-cortex size ... his discovery is foundational to understanding the limits of human social interaction ... the dynamic is now known as Dunbar's Number: Dunbar's number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThat's a wrap
political environment wise, Millenials have it worse.
So the unrest of the 60's didn't have an influence on the political environment? The assassinations? Social issues? Civil Rights movement? (Which was fought politically.)
Bobby Kennedy is gunned down while he's running for president and the political environment is worse TODAY? Are you kidding me?
And there's the little detail that Boomers didn't see 18-year old's get the vote until 1971 so there were all those men being drafted and sent to Vietnam even though they couldn't VOTE but, oh, yes, once again Millenials have it MUCH worse. Poor little things who slap a bumper sticker on their Prius and consider themselves politically active.
Mircea I stopped reading your post when you thought it was no big deal that 40 people got shot and 10 people died in Chicago over the weekend.
Wow!!!! What a treat!!!!
The Classic Gen Y response: I'm taking my toys and going home.
You always smelled like quitters to me.
The real reason is that I hammered you to death facts, to which you are unable to formulate a well-reasoned coherent response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
Apparently there's no reasoning with you so why bother. You've been out debated on every point you brought up and your still scared to respond to my post directly.
It is you who have refused to respond to anything I've posted, and I have posted actual data, and even told you where you can find that data, even down to the page number.
I do that, because I want people to see for themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
Economically, socially, and political environment wise, Millenials have it worse. As far as technological advances go, and ease of physical daily living, Millenials have it easier.
Quality of life? IMO, that's the big question.
Worse than what?
I remember my mother dancing around because we got our very own telephone. We used to have a party-line. You have no idea what that is, and you couldn't function in a world where there was only one telephone in a house/apartment.
You know how we socially-networked and stayed connected? We got in our cars in drove to our friends' houses to stay connected. And how did we get cars? We started working paper routes and on farms at age 13 and then got jobs at age 16.
You couldn't stand to work in a hot shop pounding out propeller blades all day in the Summer, because that's physical labor, and it only paid minimum wage, and your generation is a bunch of quitters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
When referring to economics I'm mainly referring to the ability of the economy to supply its citizens with basic needs..
It is not a function of the economy to supply citizens with basic needs, and to the extent that it might, basic needs does not include XBoxes, iPods, or 'Droids.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
As far as housing, the conditions were much more favorable in past generations.
That is a false statement. Allow me to embarrass you.
From April 1968 through January 1990, the average ARM was 11.5%
For you Millenials from February 2000 to the present, the average was 6.35%
Fixed Rate FHA mortgages for Boomers ranged from 7.5% to 17.5%.
Millenials have never seen a fixed rate mortgage greater than 7.5%
To add insult to injury, Boomers had to put down 20% to buy, while Millenials can put 0% down.
You got slammed dunked again. With facts, unlike you and your pedantic "I believe -- based on nothing except what I believe" nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
Our market right now is over inflated and young Americans can't afford to buy homes in most areas.
Uh, it is a fact that housing prices have fallen.
You've been slam dunked again.
So, when Boomers started working, the FICA tax was 3.625% and then it was increased to 6.2%. Let's do the math (lest there be any confusion).
Boomers had a 71% payroll tax increase, to fund Social Security, so it would be there when they retire.
How much have Social Security taxes increased for Millenials? Again, we'll do the math:
6.20
6.20 less
----------
0 / 6.2 * 100 = 0%
Wow, a whopping 0% tax increase on Millenials. Must be hard for you guys to deal with that, eh?
And then you all got the nerve to say Boomers should forfeit their Social Security benefits, due to the fact that you're all a bunch of quitters and can't even stomach a FICA tax increase to 9.2%?
Early 14th century
Basarab cel Mare Late 14th to early 15th century
Mircea cel Batrain (sometimes cel Mare)
Dan (half-brother of Mircea, and Dan I's son)
Mihail, Alexandru Aldea, Vlad Dracul (sons of Mircea cel Batrain, recognized in his time as profligate even for a society with a "harem" philosophy) Mid to late 15th century
Iliaş and Bogdan (the sons of Alexandru Aldea, both ruled in Moldavia)
Mircea (2), Vlad Tsepeş, Vlad Calugarul, Radu cel Frumos (the sons of Vlad Dracul) Mid 15th to mid 16th century
Mihnea cel Rau, Vlad (Dracula II) (sons of Vlad Tsepeş)
Milos, Mircea (sons of Mihnea cel Rau) Mid to Late 16th century
Alexandru Mircea, and Petru (the lame) (sons of Mihnea's son Mircea)
Get it?
And no, I don't live here. Unlike you, I have a real life, which occupies my time.
Laughing at the superior intellect....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewDropInn
And there's the little detail that Boomers didn't see 18-year old's get the vote until 1971 so there were all those men being drafted and sent to Vietnam even though they couldn't VOTE but, oh, yes, once again Millenials have it MUCH worse.
Amazing how we forget how it really was, isn't it?
Kudos to you for bringing that up, because it does make a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HereOnMars
He doesn't, Gtownoe. It was an interesting post, that's all. Sour grapes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewDropInn
And (speaking only for myself, of course) thank you.
Always learning
Dew
I see the Fox-News hater ran off (as usual when facts are dumped).
I don't know anything about Fox News. I don't have have a TV, and if I did, I sure wouldn't waste my time watching news. Everything I get about Social Security and Medicare comes directly from Social Security and Medicare, including their annual and interim reports, or when things are dire, their congressional testimony (which they gave February 28 of this year).
I was going to come back to Social Security, because there's something important about it, and I can't remember that now, but you can see it is going to be damn near impossible to build any consensus on what to do with Social Security/Medicare, and that impossibility is compounded by the fact that many people refuse to recognize a problem exists (even when the former and current chief actuarial executives have said there is a problem).
Last edited by CaseyB; 06-02-2012 at 12:11 PM..
Reason: off topic
I didn't read all of the replies but I will note this. I'm right at the tail end of the boomers but when I started out my adult life I was looking at rising gas prices. Interest rates of 15-20%. An overall negative view of the country by most. The Iran hostage crises filling the news nightly.
I remembered what it was. I wanted to clarify this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
From Page 36 (Actual) of the June 2011 Report it says (Intermediate Cost Assumptions) that the expected benefit payout will be $1.052 TRILLION per year in 2020.
SSA projected benefit payments of $598 Billion in 2011.
SSA also projected FICA tax revenues of $482.7 Billion, plus taxes collected from Social Security beneficiaries under the rules changes to bring the total collected to $700 Billion.
SSA then projected that FICA tax revenues would increase from $482 Billion in 2011 to $616 Billion in 2012.
That is an increase of
($616 - $482) / $482 = 27.8%
For reasons that I have elaborated on ad hoc ad naseum on other threads, suffice to say that is impossible (and you need only look at the current numbers to see how very badly they blew it). Now, based on a very bad assumption, SSA then makes the following projections:
And those increases are based on fantasy GDP growth rates of greater than 4.0+% per year.
To have any hope at all of saving Social Security (or Medicare), the cap must be eliminated and the FICA tax increased and means-testing has to be implemented.
I wanted people to understand, that it is a lie compounded by more lies, compounded by more lies. We can express that mathematically this way:
Those are the 28% increases, or the Outrageous Lie (as I like to call it). What does Social Security say now? On Page 1,282 of Social Security's Budget for Fiscal Year 2013 (Beginning October 1, 2012) we see:
$518 Billion in FICA revenues
$27 Billion from the General Fund to offset the FICA Tax Holiday
------
$545 Billion total FICA revenues
Ooops.
And the $664 Billion they were estimating for 2013? Not gonna happen. Now they are saying $574 Billion.
Now do you all see how an Outrageous Lie compounded many times over is a serious problem?
When you get to the year 2020, are your FICA revenues going to be $937 Billion per year? Hell no. They'll be about $750 Billion per year, and how much of the OASI Trust Fund did you burn up?
About $1.2 TRILLION to $1.5 TRILLION and how long will the remaining $1.8 TRILLION last? To about 2023-2025. I originally predicted the Trust Fund would be bankrupt by 2025-2028, but your economy is far worse than I predicted (and I am very conservative with economic estimates), and then reading the congressional testimony from February, well, you all have a major freaking problem coming right at you.
What happens when the OASI Trust Fund is bankrupt? Your Social Security benefits get cut. They are predicting a 23% cut, and initially, just eye-balling the numbers, that sounded about right to me, but with the latest figures and looking at things, it looks more like about 28%-32%.
That means if your monthly Social Security benefit is (or was) supposed to be $1457 per month, it will be:
$1121 at 23%
$1049 at 28%
$990 at 32%
You need to plan accordingly and make whatever adjustments are necessary. Investments are not my area of expertise, which is why I almost never comment in that sub-forum. I personally do not own stocks or bonds, and I don't believe in stocks (so it would be hypocritical to say I don't and then play the stock market). I don't know what any of you can do individually, except plan for the worse somehow.
Can the government pick up the slack here? Yes, but that is classic Austerity and it just shows the hypocrisy of those who are screaming that Austerity doesn't work, or that it is wrong, because the only way the government can cover the gap, is by cutting the budgets of other programs, down-sizing government and reducing spending.
The most frightening thing is repeated calls to "Tax the Rich" as though it is a panacea that will solve everyone's problems. I'm not saying that you should or should not, I'm just saying that there is no such thing as "free" and that everything costs.
You can eliminate the cap on Social Security, but that will not save Social Security, and you must understand that it is not "free" -- there is a cost. That cost is the loss of sales tax revenues for cities, counties and States, and what happens when their sales tax revenues decline?
Cities, counties and States have to lay off workers, close offices and reduce services.
Is that what you all want?
Quote:
About half of all Americans, ranging from the working poor to the tenuous middle class, report living paycheck to paycheck.
Yeah? And so what happens when the FICA tax holiday ends?
Will the sales tax revenues of cities, counties and States increase or decrease?
They will decrease. And then you have to eliminate the cap on Social Security wages.
That is not "free."
And when the Bush Tax Cuts expire, and they will have to expire, sooner or later, what happens? Will that be more sales tax revenues for cities, counties, and States or less revenues? Less revenues, and that brings us back to Square One.
You all have no idea how "effed" you all really are.
Anyway, I thought I would show you this, so you all can do your own research if you want, and make informed decisions about your future. As I said, you cannot reach a consensus on what must be done unless you first reach a consensus on the fact that a problem truly does exist. You're basically powerless as a group if you cannot convince those living in denial that no problem exists (but you do have power as an individual).
The Classic Gen Y response: I'm taking my toys and going home.
You always smelled like quitters to me.
The real reason is that I hammered you to death facts, to which you are unable to formulate a well-reasoned coherent response.
I'm a Millenial. And I think its reasonable to NOT take you seriously when you think there's nothing wrong with 40 AMERICANS getting shot in a weekend and 10 dying in 1 city.
And I have family in the Nasti. Pops grew up around Avondale. Don't talk about stuff you have NO IDEA about.
Maybe if 40 white people were shot in Lincoln Park you'd be more interested.
It is you who have refused to respond to anything I've posted, and I have posted actual data, and even told you where you can find that data, even down to the page number.
I do that, because I want people to see for themselves.
I think you've typed yourself retarded. You don't even know what I'm responding too.
Worse than what?
I remember my mother dancing around because we got our very own telephone. We used to have a party-line. You have no idea what that is, and you couldn't function in a world where there was only one telephone in a house/apartment.
You know how we socially-networked and stayed connected? We got in our cars in drove to our friends' houses to stay connected. And how did we get cars? We started working paper routes and on farms at age 13 and then got jobs at age 16.
You couldn't stand to work in a hot shop pounding out propeller blades all day in the Summer, because that's physical labor, and it only paid minimum wage, and your generation is a bunch of quitters.
Thanks for giving an example of how we were better connected socially as a population in your day. Facebook aint ish. We need to go back to actually socializing.
As far as my work ethic. My family is a meat packing family. My mom runs production and lifts 50lb boxes of meat. She'd probably out work you. I've meat packed off and on my whole life. Started my 1st business when I was 23. What do you do now other than post on city-data?
It is not a function of the economy to supply citizens with basic needs, and to the extent that it might, basic needs does not include XBoxes, iPods, or 'Droids.
Umm??
From Wiki
An economy consists of the economic systems of a country or other area; the labor, capital and land resources; and the manufacturing, production, trade, distribution, and consumption of goods and services of that area.
I'd say that the economy's function is to provide its citizens with basic needs.
That is a false statement. Allow me to embarrass you.
From April 1968 through January 1990, the average ARM was 11.5%
For you Millenials from February 2000 to the present, the average was 6.35%
Fixed Rate FHA mortgages for Boomers ranged from 7.5% to 17.5%.
Millenials have never seen a fixed rate mortgage greater than 7.5%
To add insult to injury, Boomers had to put down 20% to buy, while Millenials can put 0% down.
You got slammed dunked again. With facts, unlike you and your pedantic "I believe -- based on nothing except what I believe" nonsense.
How out of touch are you?? If AMERICANS, let alone, younger Americans could afford housing we wouldn't be in a housing CRISIS. Your interest rate doesn't matter if you can't afford a down payment or your mortgage payment. What a dumba*s
Uh, it is a fact that housing prices have fallen.
You've been slam dunked again.
So, when Boomers started working, the FICA tax was 3.625% and then it was increased to 6.2%. Let's do the math (lest there be any confusion).
Boomers had a 71% payroll tax increase, to fund Social Security, so it would be there when they retire.
How much have Social Security taxes increased for Millenials? Again, we'll do the math:
6.20
6.20 less
----------
0 / 6.2 * 100 = 0%
Wow, a whopping 0% tax increase on Millenials. Must be hard for you guys to deal with that, eh?
And then you all got the nerve to say Boomers should forfeit their Social Security benefits, due to the fact that you're all a bunch of quitters and can't even stomach a FICA tax increase to 9.2%?
The horror....the horror... a whole big 48%. That isn't the 71% that Boomers got slapped with.
Again, your clueless. I'm glad you can do basic math though. I'm starting to realize your just clueless. I'm glad you wasted 30 minutes of your life doing arithmetic. Please stop spreading misinformation.
Maybe if 40 white people were shot in Lincoln Park you'd be more interested.
You missed the point. 40 "White" people wouldn't be shot in Lincoln Park.
The White Appalachian trash that inhabit certain neighborhoods in the city and leech off of people sucking up welfare benefits do not stand on the street corners selling drugs; ergo they do not fill up the jails, and they are not shot in drive-by shootings and there are few (if any) murders in their neighborhoods.
Again, why should I give a damn that a bunch of losers are offing each other?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
What do you do now other than post on city-data?
I'm guessing you meant to ask, "What do I know, other than posting...."
If it has to do with nuclear weapons infrastructure, nuclear weapons operations, tactical doctrine, insurgency/counter-insurgency, intelligence/counter-intelligence, surveillance/counter-surveillance, air operations, fire support, tactical operations battalion/brigade operations, law enforcement, investigations, undercover operations, raid planning, disaster management, survival, criminal law, civil law, economics, political science, international relations, foreign policy, petro-chemical engineering, astrology or cooking, I know a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
---It is not a function of the economy to supply citizens with basic needs, and to the extent that it might, basic needs does not include XBoxes, iPods, or 'Droids.----
Umm??
From Wiki
An economy consists of the economic systems of a country or other area; the labor, capital and land resources; and the manufacturing, production, trade, distribution, and consumption of goods and services of that area.
I'd say that the economy's function is to provide its citizens with basic needs.
First, no one with any credibility would ever cite Pukipedia for any reason. I used to fail students if I even suspected they were using Pukipedia as a source, since that was department policy at the university.
Second, the definition of an economy provided by Pukipedia is wrong (I have a Bachelor of Arts in Economics). An economy is simply any environment where resources are managed. Your household is an economy. All businesses are economies unto themselves. It could include any number of defined areas.
Note that economies can over-lap each other.
Third, it is not the function of an economy to provide citizens with basic needs. That is the function of the Economic System that is employed with the economy. It is the Economic system that answers the 3 basic questions:
1] What shall we produce?
2] How shall we produce it?
3] For whom shall we produce?
Finally, you are responsible for providing your own basic needs, and I can't help but notice that in typical predictable fashion, you sloughed off your responsibility onto an inanimate intangible conceptualized idea like "an economy."
But that that is one of the hallmarks of your generation, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
How out of touch are you??
Nice deflection, but that isn't a denial. Can't defeat facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
If AMERICANS, let alone, younger Americans could afford housing we wouldn't be in a housing CRISIS.
But you can afford housing.
Your local Army/Navy Surplus store has shelter half for a few bucks, and for a few bucks more, you can but the other half and take shelter in your pup tent.
If you look on-line or local retailers, you'll find even better tents. You can get a GP Small Tent from your Army/Navy Surplus. There are tents bigger than that at specialty retailers and those that have out-door and camping supplies.
There are all manner of campers and trailers. You can rent a room somewhere, there are motels/hotels that offer weekly-rates.
Plenty of rental space available for apartments, condos and houses, and then even bigger apartments, condos and houses.
Additionally, you can share living accommodations with others to make renting the apartment, condo or house, or purchasing a condo or home more affordable.
I just totally destroyed your argument. There's plenty of affordable housing out there, but you refuse to avail yourself of those opportunities, due to the fact that you demand to live in a swanky Beverly Hills Mansion, which is your choice, except you don't want to pay for it, you want everyone to give it to you -- for "free."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
Your interest rate doesn't matter if you can't afford a down payment or your mortgage payment. What a dumba*s :smack:
But you can afford a down payment.
The bottom line is that you refuse to make the sacrifices necessary to save money to make the down payment. You are lacking in foresight and don't see the advantage in making a short-term sacrifice in order to gain a long term benefit.
When you learn how to adjust your life-style and live within your means so that you can save money, you will see how easy it is get money together to make a down payment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
So, when Boomers started working, the FICA tax was 3.625% and then it was increased to 6.2%. Let's do the math (lest there be any confusion).
Boomers had a 71% payroll tax increase, to fund Social Security, so it would be there when they retire.
How much have Social Security taxes increased for Millenials? Again, we'll do the math:
6.20
6.20 less
----------
0 / 6.2 * 100 = 0%
Wow, a whopping 0% tax increase on Millenials. Must be hard for you guys to deal with that, eh?
And then you all got the nerve to say Boomers should forfeit their Social Security benefits, due to the fact that you're all a bunch of quitters and can't even stomach a FICA tax increase to 9.2%?
The horror....the horror... a whole big 48%. That isn't the 71% that Boomers got slapped with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
Again, your clueless. I'm glad you can do basic math though. I'm starting to realize your just clueless. I'm glad you wasted 30 minutes of your life doing arithmetic. Please stop spreading misinformation.
It took me less than 2 minutes.
Disinformation? Prove it. Put up or shut up (and continue to look like the fool that you are).
I don't get it... how is it that baby boomers are the most entitled? .
I get really, really tired of hearing people say this. For programs like Social Security and Medicare, most will take way more in benefits than they ever contributed. It is the harsh mathematical reality.
Furthermore, the crisis in ever escalating medial costs could have been stopped by the Boomers if they had tried. But they didn't.
People also complain about how this generation is spoiled & entitled. Well, where did they get that attitude from? A: Their Boomer parents.
Many Boomer parents spoiled their kids with stuff because they felt guilty about not being there for them (too busy working in 2 career families, divorce, more single parenthood, etc.). Providing stuff and spoiling kids is not an adequate substitute for lack of parental guidance, but it doesn't stop people from doing it anyway.
Another thing that irks me big time is when Boomers say "I worked to pay for my college education". They completely ignore the reality of tuition rates skyrocketing over the last 30 years!
One thing I will say, however, is the Boomers did have Vietnam to deal with, and that was pretty ugly. Vietnam made the current wars look like child's play by comparison in terms of casualties.
Also, the Boomers did not universally have a wonderful economy. The economy in the 70s was lousy and the early 1980s recession sent unemployment into the double digits, much like today.
That said, there were more jobs that paid a living wage back in the 70s and early 1980s than there are today.
But the Boomers did get more stable childhoods than they ever gave their own kids.
You know how we socially-networked and stayed connected? We got in our cars in drove to our friends' houses to stay connected. And how did we get cars? We started working paper routes and on farms at age 13 and then got jobs at age 16.
Lol. They were even trying to outlaw farm work for young(ish) children, and that goes to my points earlier that the younger generation(s) have basically been legislated out of a lot of opportunities to develop a work ethic during their development years; it's the government taking control and running your family/community/society for you. All in the name of safety, or some other notion of protection, of course. It's only later we wonder what's happened to the work ethic in this country.
Lol. They were even trying to outlaw farm work for young(ish) children, and that goes to my points earlier that the younger generation(s) have basically been legislated out of a lot of opportunities to develop a work ethic during their development years; it's the government taking control and running your family for you. All in the name of safety, of course. It's only later we wonder what's happened to the work ethic in this country.
That and illegals have taken all the entry level jobs in the cities.
The youth have no decent shot at getting entry level jobs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even in inflation adjusted figures, boomers made less, across the board ... from laborer to Fortune 500 executive. 
Poor little things who slap a bumper sticker on their Prius and consider themselves politically active.
