Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-08-2013, 01:17 PM
 
587 posts, read 1,407,634 times
Reputation: 1437

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
Valid points. No one can really dispute much of what you pointed out.

However, I fail to see your point. Are you making excuses for Millennials? Is this some sort of semi-educated attempt to tell us that no one can succeed in America anymore?

If so, then I do disagree with you more than I originally thought.
No, I was just saying it is harder to succeed now that it was for the Boomers and Generation X. These generations did not carry the burden of heavy student loan debt. There was also much less outsourcing during their coming of ages.

Also, it varies greatly in what part of the country we are talking about. California is a horrible place to be a young person starting out in life because of the rampant unemployment and constant influx of poor non-English speaking immigrants that exists there. DC much offers more opportunities for young professionals. Young women are doing better than young men because many of the new boom industries like healthcare and general service sector jobs favor women. Women stereotypically dominate many service professions from bar-tending to nursing to child care.

Also, the "follow you dreams" mantra became outdated as soon as December of 2007 hit for millions of millenials. Prior to the economic downturn, there were millions of more jobs available that are gone today.

Pulling yourself by your bootstraps is simply harder today. Ignoring that kids today have it hard makes you, well, a jerk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-08-2013, 01:17 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
1,290 posts, read 2,037,163 times
Reputation: 816
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vejadu View Post
Millennials chose social issues over fixing the economy. Simple as that. Abortion, gay marriage and birth control were more important than job creation. But what do you expect from people who are told at every turn that Republicans want women to be barefoot and pregnant, perpetual wars, gay rights banned and the rich to get richer?
Legitimate rape, body shutting it down, and God intended it to happen came from their own GOP mouth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2013, 01:20 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,098,568 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vejadu View Post
Millennials chose social issues over fixing the economy. Simple as that. Abortion, gay marriage and birth control were more important than job creation. But what do you expect from people who are told at every turn that Republicans want women to be barefoot and pregnant, perpetual wars, gay rights banned and the rich to get richer?
That is just not true. They want both, it just that social issues being presented the current Republican party don't generally jive too well with youth. It's a sad state of affairs when our country's leaders can't solve economic and social issues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2013, 01:20 PM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,082,097 times
Reputation: 9408
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24 View Post
Well, let's see. When I started working back in the early 80s, the company I worked for started entry level research assistants at around $25K with full medical and dental benefits, tuition reimbursement, etc.
Median starting salary for the same job today in the NYC area, where I lived at the time, is $50K+.

Just a tad more than $11.00 an hour.

The Starting Salary of a Research Analyst | eHow.com
Just curious...why is that nearly every time a question of wages comes up, the only answer we get is what is being offered in NYC, inarguably one of the highest cost of living areas in the country! You folks did the same thing when it came to "fair wages" for a McDonalds burger flipper in NYC. Is this the only city in the country for which your example works?

For the most part, yes. As for the rest of the country, starting out at $50K with a 4 year degree is a pipe dream of pipe dreams. Not even close!

http://ccse.umn.edu/average-salary-f...ge-grad-rises/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2013, 01:21 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
1,290 posts, read 2,037,163 times
Reputation: 816
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
Obviously I think those issues are important. I volunteer a large amount of my personal time and money to help both those less fortunate as well as those incorrectly discriminated against.

We as people need to fight to help each other instead of pawning the responsibility off on the government. Mitt clearly comes out ahead in terms of the economics. He ran one of the most successful companies in the world to a point of unbelievable profitability. If he had even a fraction of the success that he had at Bain with the country then we would be very far along a road to economic recovery.

Past action is a great predictor of future action, and Romney's past was one that we desperately need emulated at a national political stage. Also, how would Obama's actions over the last few years of having a complete disregard for the future economic health of this country not have turned everyone off to him?
I commend you for your work.

I do not agree that Mitt would do any better. Remember his type of work at Bain also destroyed businesses and killed jobs. He absorbed struggle companies and squeeze the last bit of profit from them, which created money for Bain. The dead companies lead to job lost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2013, 01:35 PM
 
9,855 posts, read 15,182,463 times
Reputation: 5481
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragontales View Post
I commend you for your work.

I do not agree that Mitt would do any better. Remember his type of work at Bain also destroyed businesses and killed jobs. He absorbed struggle companies and squeeze the last bit of profit from them, which created money for Bain. The dead companies lead to job lost.
His work at Bain absolutely did not kill jobs, it in fact did the exact opposite. Don't believe every campaign commercial you hear.

They would go to companies that were moving towards bankruptcy already, restructure them and bring them out profitable. If Bain goes to a company of 20,000 people that is about to shut the doors and finds a way to make it profitable again by letting go 2,000 people in the process, did they kill 2,000 jobs or save 18,000?

Of course the Obama campaign ignored that aspect of what Bain does.

Here is a list of companies that wouldn't exist today if not for Bain Capital:
  • Staples
  • Sports Authority
  • Totes-Istoner
  • AMPAD
  • Seally Mattresses
  • Dominoes Pizza
  • Steel Dynamics
  • Brookstone

Again, those companies would all be out of business if Bain Capital didn't exist, and the hundreds of thousands of people who work for them would all be out of work. How on earth does that make Bain a 'job killer'? I think everyone would agree that sacrificing a few jobs to make sure tens to hundreds of thousands more stay employed is an incredible accomplishment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2013, 01:49 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
9,701 posts, read 5,098,532 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
His work at Bain absolutely did not kill jobs, it in fact did the exact opposite. Don't believe every campaign commercial you hear.

They would go to companies that were moving towards bankruptcy already, restructure them and bring them out profitable. If Bain goes to a company of 20,000 people that is about to shut the doors and finds a way to make it profitable again by letting go 2,000 people in the process, did they kill 2,000 jobs or save 18,000?

Of course the Obama campaign ignored that aspect of what Bain does.

Here is a list of companies that wouldn't exist today if not for Bain Capital:
  • Staples
  • Sports Authority
  • Totes-Istoner
  • AMPAD
  • Seally Mattresses
  • Dominoes Pizza
  • Steel Dynamics
  • Brookstone

Again, those companies would all be out of business if Bain Capital didn't exist, and the hundreds of thousands of people who work for them would all be out of work. How on earth does that make Bain a 'job killer'? I think everyone would agree that sacrificing a few jobs to make sure tens to hundreds of thousands more stay employed is an incredible accomplishment.
It's indisputable that some of the companies that Bain invested were actively driven into bankruptcy. Yes he did save some companies, but he also doomed some companies and wiped out retirement funds, pensions, and benefits of people working there.

You can't run a country by deciding to cut people loose so that your bottom-end looks good for investors. That corporate shark mentality works in the private sector, but not in the public sector, and especially not at the executive branches.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2013, 01:52 PM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,082,097 times
Reputation: 9408
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
It's indisputable that some of the companies that Bain invested were actively driven into bankruptcy. Yes he did save some companies, but he also doomed some companies and wiped out retirement funds, pensions, and benefits of people working there.

You can't run a country by deciding to cut people loose so that your bottom-end looks good for investors. That corporate shark mentality works in the private sector, but not in the public sector, and especially not at the executive branches.
Really? That's interesting.....when's the last time you railed against Barack Obama for allowing GM to dump non-union pensions while saving the pensions of union members?

Oh that's right.....NEVER!

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...s-about-it.htm

You folks need to try harder at keeping your story straight. You know what they say about those who lie so much that they cant't keep up with their own lies, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2013, 01:56 PM
 
9,855 posts, read 15,182,463 times
Reputation: 5481
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
It's indisputable that some of the companies that Bain invested were actively driven into bankruptcy. Yes he did save some companies, but he also doomed some companies and wiped out retirement funds, pensions, and benefits of people working there.

You can't run a country by deciding to cut people loose so that your bottom-end looks good for investors. That corporate shark mentality works in the private sector, but not in the public sector, and especially not at the executive branches.
But he had a net of a 70+% success rate. At the end of the day, Bain saved dramatically more jobs than it lost, and those that were lost were going bankrupt anyway.

You HAVE to run a country by cutting certain people loose for the good of the economy as a whole. That is the only way to keep the economy from floundering. We as a country need to make things less comfortable for certain people in the short term so that our long term economic growth is assured.

The only time that type of mentality was even tried in the public sector was when Volcker decided to purposely jack up interest rates (causing incredible amounts of pain to the every day person) and purposely force a recession to stabilize the economy. We had a few very painful years, but then had about 20 years of one of the most prosperous economies the united states has ever seen. Making short term economic sacrifices to ensure long term growth is needed, and is something that people (unfortunately) don't want to do, so we are stuck in an economy that is going through a slow bleed for years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2013, 01:57 PM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC (in my mind)
7,943 posts, read 17,218,782 times
Reputation: 4686
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
Why would anyone in their right mind ever vote for social issues over economic?

Who cares what we want to happen socially if we can't find a way to pay for it?
A lot of people do. Millennials are very idealistic and media influenced. This election cycle, all the media was talking about were social issues. There is a lot of emotion that goes along with social issues, much moreso than economic ones. 75% of millennials are non-religious, so they will usually take liberal positions on social issues and even further damaging the GOP, will not vote for a candidate who they fear will promote religion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:53 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top