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.
What bull pucky. My kids graduated college with two years of experience in their field and were already out of entry level positions by the time they started working full time. One is going on to get additional credentialing while he works, and the other got his MBA while working and got a different job paying much more money - far from entry level.
Sounds like you may just have an attitude problem holding you back at work.
If only your assumptions about me were true. I am doing very well for my age, not 1%, but in the top 10% of earners in my age bracket. I make enough to save over 50% of my income and will retire before 45 if my income doesn't increase (highly unlikely). I am also receiving a company funded MBA to add on top of my existing Masters because I know the value of staying competitive.
I also worked full time while completing my BA/MA and supported myself to complete school. Did your kids have to work full time or did they have the luxury of living off mommy/daddy to intern full time? Perhaps you should consider your children lucky and recognize their experience is not the norm. In your world your kids experiences aren't a silver platter while the rest of society thinks it is. Most kids take out loans to complete degrees and some of us are fortunate enough to land scholarships.
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person
The baby boomers may seem to own all the property because they bought it from the WWII generation owners who owned it all before them.
A $20K mortgage on $4/hour at 8% interest, you do the Math.
As a matter of fact I did have to get a Master's to keep my job.
I don't know where you live but a million dollar house is not a starter, or even a next step up, home in most of the country, even in the more expensive areas. If you think, as someone starting out, that you deserve that, then you're in for a lifetime of disappointment. Mostly of your own making.
Stop hitting yourself on the head, it shows a lack of maturity.
Oh, and put a lid on the coffee cup please.
Homes in my neighborhood were purchase for 200-300k and now selling over 1 million. There is no such thing as a starter home in my neighborhood. I'm either stuck renting or purchasing in the projects.
How did you quality for a 20k mortgage on 4 dollars an hour? I wonder what you had to do to get a 4 dollar an hour job. I would imagine not much.
Last time I checked someone in your generation could pay for school by working part time. Doesn't exist anymore now.
You had to get a Master's to keep your job whereas the norm these days require a Master's to remain competitive in entry level work.
I don't drink any coffee but thanks for looking out. I'm sure you'll need the help of people from my generation soon enough.
If we truly want to be honest we would go into detail about your working career to see whether it was your decision making that made your life so "horrible" or whether it was the circumstances of your generation. I doubt it's the latter.
You might want to read up on wages vs inflation or wages vs price of a home over last generation or so, coupled with the need for two family incomes to survive on middle class salaries.
Hmmm. My parents, who were born at the start of WWII (so they are not Boomers), bought their first home in 1971 for around $35k at double digit interest. They made about $8k per year together, and it took both of their salaries to make it affordable, so this is nothing new. On the other hand, my husband and I bought our first single-family home in 1996. Our household annual income was just about the same as the cost of the property we bought, and it wasn't a hovel. Same city, same part of town, 25 years later.
Last edited by randomparent; 12-04-2016 at 08:16 PM..
No need, already have. Have you corrected for the increase in average house size? Most studies I've seen usually don't.
Your point would be well taken if everyone were buying new construction homes. In my suburban town those types of homes go for well over 1MM, the 1950s capes of around 1000 to 1200 sq ft go for 400K plus without being fixed up, a two bedroom 1 bath 1920s ranch of about 900 sq ft just sold for 340K.
The younger generations have to pay huge sums of money to buy starter homes in decent towns and are being blocked from entering/advancing the workforce by the very Babyboomers sitting on lottery tickets of home equity they got during the housing boom.....
If only your assumptions about me were true. I am doing very well for my age, not 1%, but in the top 10% of earners in my age bracket. I make enough to save over 50% of my income and will retire before 45 if my income doesn't increase (highly unlikely). I am also receiving a company funded MBA to add on top of my existing Masters because I know the value of staying competitive.
I also worked full time while completing my BA/MA and supported myself to complete school. Did your kids have to work full time or did they have the luxury of living off mommy/daddy to intern full time? Perhaps you should consider your children lucky and recognize their experience is not the norm. In your world your kids experiences aren't a silver platter while the rest of society thinks it is. Most kids take out loans to complete degrees and some of us are fortunate enough to land scholarships.
Homes in my neighborhood were purchase for 200-300k and now selling over 1 million. There is no such thing as a starter home in my neighborhood. I'm either stuck renting or purchasing in the projects.
How did you quality for a 20k mortgage on 4 dollars an hour? I wonder what you had to do to get a 4 dollar an hour job. I would imagine not much.
Last time I checked someone in your generation could pay for school by working part time. Doesn't exist anymore now.
You had to get a Master's to keep your job whereas the norm these days require a Master's to remain competitive in entry level work.
I don't drink any coffee but thanks for looking out. I'm sure you'll need the help of people from my generation soon enough.
If we truly want to be honest we would go into detail about your working career to see whether it was your decision making that made your life so "horrible" or whether it was the circumstances of your generation. I doubt it's the latter.
Well, that's funny, because nobody I know who is doing well for themselves whines as much as you do.
I think this is a serious question that needs asked. Many of the Millenials have got a huge "boost" from their parents and grandparents who saved enough money to pay for their college, wedding, 20% down on their house, pay for their car when they turned 16, etc. From the looks of it, these same Millenials aren't on track to have enough of a net worth to do any of the same for their kids. When the average net worth of a nation's citizens reaches $0 or negative, that's when it is essentially a 3rd world country even if it doesn't look like one yet.
Well, that's funny, because nobody I know who is doing well for themselves whines as much as you do.
Ya let's go with the bandwagon logical fallacy. Calling out bull**** statements by delusional elderly = whining apparently.
Too prideful to admit you gave your kids a head start in life? Do they go around talking about pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps too?
I can use logical fallacies too my friend... not all of us are delusional potbellied clowns. Some of us can admit to the advantages we have compared to the rest to develop empathy. Your generation? Not so much.
My original point stands... You're physically weak so please stop inciting arguments.
Hmmm. My parents, who were born at the start of WWII (so they are not Boomers), bought their first home in 1971 for around $35k at double digit interest. They made about $8k per year together, and it took both of their salaries to make it affordable, so this is nothing new.
A household income to house price ratio of 8:35 or approximately 1:4 is hard to come by nowadays. In my city, the median household income is ~$70k and the median house price is ~$600k, a proportion of around 1:8 or 1:9, and that proportion holds for the surrounding suburbs as well.
A household income to house price ratio of 8:35 or approximately 1:4 is hard to come by nowadays. In my city, the median household income is ~$70k and the median house price is ~$600k, a proportion of around 1:8 or 1:9, and that proportion holds for the surrounding suburbs as well.
After you read my post I added the information that my husband and I bought a house in 1996 that was about equal to our household income at about half the interest rate my parents had paid 25 years earlier. It was in the same city, in the same general area, and also new construction. I guess my point is that the ratio can vary dramatically. Here are the ratios for all of our homes, which were similar in size and finish and all located in suburban locations with good schools and amenities...
Midwest 1996, 1:1
West coast 1998, 1:2.5
East coast 2005, 1:3.5
Middle of the country 2008, 1:2.5
If we bought the house we are living in today at current household income, our ratio would be 1:2, so its affordability has actually improved.
Baby boomers are mostly retired. Millennials are working and supporting them. In fact, baby boomers only contributed about a third of the Medicare benefits they receive. They are depending on those Millennials to pay the other two thirds. Think about that. These snowflake baby boomers that lived a life of pensions, a single career often with minimal education, unlimited Medicare, Medicaid for their nursing home care, Social Security, etc. are being completely supplemented by the younger working generation.
Many others have responded to this; let me join the choir. Most Boomers are still working. The Boomer generation spans 1946-64. One has to be 66 to collect full SS; the only people who have attained that age are those born in 1950 or earlier. Many retired Boomers I know, including DH, have retirement jobs of 15-30 or more hours/week.
Where do you get the idea that most Boomers have pensions? Pensions have gone the way of the dinosaur. Even us older Boomers for the most part have 401Ks, unless we worked for the government.
Single career? Again, where do you get that idea? DH has had 4 jobs, each successive job after the first due to layoffs or company folding.
Minimal education careers? Hey, those days are gone. In the part of the country where I grew up, W PA, the steel industry crashed in the early 80s. The oldest Boomers weren't even 40 then. What else can you do where you make a professional salary with little education? Not much.
Unlimited Medicare? How do you figure that? Part A is free, but not "unlimited". There is no insurance in this country or any country that gives unlimited benefits. Parts B and D require premiums, in addition to the taxes we paid.
Medicaid for nursing home care? Not until you have spent down all your assets. The people doing that right now, for the most part are the Greatest Generation and the Silents. Not too many Boomers in the NH yet; the oldest are 70.
The oldest Millennials are 34 if you consider their years 1982-2000. Some of them are still in high school! The middle of the Millennial generation was born 1991-they are 25 years old. Half (roughly) are younger. Heck, they're still on their parents' health insurance!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80
I was born in 1980.
I believe that Medicare and Social Security will be bankrupt by the time I retire, and yet I still have to pay into these programs. I hear constantly from far-right seniors about how I'm entitled or something.
That's been said for a long time. It was said when we older Boomers were in our 30s, when you were still in diapers. Guess what? It's still here. Even our ultraconservative financial guy said "something" will be there. It's not going anywhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomparent
I disagree. I think the Boomers were the recipients of a tremendous amount of generosity from previous generations, but I do not think that makes them greedy. And I'm not a Boomer, so don't go there.
Some of our Greatest Gen parents did leave us decent legacies. We used my parents' estate to help put our kids through college. Some however, didn't invest as wisely and basically died almost penniless. Some are still alive. My husband's mother is 97 years young, living in an NH now for the past 6 months or so. She'll probably use up the rest of her assets before she dies. That's OK. She worked hard for her money. We were not planning on some big windfall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by earthlyfather
Another inconvenient truth correction. The youngest boomers were born in 1964. That makes them 52. Many, many more to retire. Point two, Medicare was passed into law and signed by Greatest Generation Democrat Congress and President. Dems have held congress the majority of the time since and have refused to make changes, mostly. So, blame your liberal boomer elders, mostly. Yes, Dubya pushed a Repub Congress to add Part D. You will find that many Dems voted yes, too. A bad move in my opinion.
I favor a voucher system, and incentives for healthier lifestyles.
I was with you right until the end. I don't like vouchers. The reason we have Medicare in the first place is that insurers were not willing to insure older people. It's expensive. Your genes have a way of catching up with you as you get older. You can "eat right, exercise" etc, etc, and you still may develop high blood pressure, heart disease, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crone
My 2 cents from a really old geezer
We paid into Social security all our lives. Factor in what our employers paid. Invested , that should yield what we are getting from SS monthly. Our household paid into it 50 + years and counting. Still do pay FICA due to part time job.
Most geezers couples I know pay $1000 a month for Medicare and medigap coverage.
We get nothing on savings, mma, or bonds. Retired people are told by all money managers to avoid risky stocks etc. What we are not making is subsidizing your low interest mortgage and car payment.
The only people I blame is politicians. Nobody in my household has ever voted for anybody who won.
DH did a study while still working. People older than us would get more than they paid in. People our age should break even. Younger people get screwed.
Re: the bold. Too true! My FIL used to joke about it in fact! He didn't pay into SS until it started in 1937, at which point he was 28 years old. Most of us nowadays start at age 16 or so, with our first jobs. He retired at age 65, in 1974. He lived until 2006. He received SS for 32 years, almost as long as he worked, considering he was out of work for a large part of his 20s due to the Depression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cee4
If only your assumptions about me were true. I am doing very well for my age, not 1%, but in the top 10% of earners in my age bracket. I make enough to save over 50% of my income and will retire before 45 if my income doesn't increase (highly unlikely). I am also receiving a company funded MBA to add on top of my existing Masters because I know the value of staying competitive.
I also worked full time while completing my BA/MA and supported myself to complete school. Did your kids have to work full time or did they have the luxury of living off mommy/daddy to intern full time? Perhaps you should consider your children lucky and recognize their experience is not the norm. In your world your kids experiences aren't a silver platter while the rest of society thinks it is. Most kids take out loans to complete degrees and some of us are fortunate enough to land scholarships.
Homes in my neighborhood were purchase for 200-300k and now selling over 1 million. There is no such thing as a starter home in my neighborhood. I'm either stuck renting or purchasing in the projects.
How did you quality for a 20k mortgage on 4 dollars an hour? I wonder what you had to do to get a 4 dollar an hour job. I would imagine not much.
Last time I checked someone in your generation could pay for school by working part time. Doesn't exist anymore now.
You had to get a Master's to keep your job whereas the norm these days require a Master's to remain competitive in entry level work.
I don't drink any coffee but thanks for looking out. I'm sure you'll need the help of people from my generation soon enough.
If we truly want to be honest we would go into detail about your working career to see whether it was your decision making that made your life so "horrible" or whether it was the circumstances of your generation. I doubt it's the latter.
I made less than $4/hour when I first started in nursing in 1970. Then in 1971 Nixon slapped on wage and price controls. It was a long time before I made $4/hr.
I don't know when you last checked, but that's not true. The time when someone could work PT and pay for college is long, long past. Even when my father, b. 1914 went to college in the 1930s, he worked FT to pay for PT college, not the other way around. My mom, b. 1921, worked as a live-in nanny for two years FT to pay tuition for a hospital nursing school education, where tuition was lower than at a college. She said sometimes she'd walk home instead of taking the bus to save 5c more. If she hadn't had a place to live, she would have had to work longer. No one was working PT to go to FT college in the 60s/70s.
I'm not sure what field you're in; there are many that do not require a master's to enter. Engineering, nursing, most business jobs come to mind. Of course, if you majored in the liberal arts as my SIL did (math) you may need a master's to get into a field like engineering.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 12-04-2016 at 11:33 PM..
If any younger people are thinking about rebelling and refusing to keep supporting Social Security for the older ones, then for sure there won't be anything for them later on, as the society will crumble. Despite my criticisms of young people, we do have to work together against the crooked politicians and corporations that are jacking up the costs of everything.
The current upward spiral in costs will just get worse, if everyone doesn't get together and demand that government change its taxation system. Then it could provide low-cost or free college and single-payer healthcare for everyone, as most other countries with wealth like ours have done for a long time. It isn't very complicated, as if those things do not become part of our policy very soon, we won't survive as a nation. The current threat to reduce corporate taxes drastically and those for the 1%, is not the way to accomplish this.
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.
