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 you don't realize, is you are saying the same type of thing, that the boomers were saying when they were young like you. My grandfather, told me that it is the same type of thing, the young people were saying in the late 1800s when he grew up.
The boomers weren't saying the same thing, but the certainly didn't follow in the foot-steps of their parents. And, like today, the world the boomers started their adulthood in was in many ways different than the world their parents grew up in.
My comments here weren't intended to be a criticism of the boomers, instead they were to point out the futility of younger generations taking their advice seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtrader
The new generation growing into adulthood, all have the same attitude you have. They blame their problems on the older generations that went before them.
You seem to be grossly misinterpreting what I've claimed, I haven't blamed any personal problem on older generations. Instead I've pointed out that there are significant transfers of wealth flowing from younger generations to older generations. I'm not aware of any other period in history where this occurred, perhaps because it needed a large generational cohort like the boomers to occur. Some of the issues younger generations face are the result of these transfers, but by no means all.
In any case, the point is that younger generations can safely ignore advice from the boomers (and older generations) because they don't, as a whole, have the right perspective on today's world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtrader
You will learn, that it just takes a little time to learn to fit into the real working world.
Firstly, I've been talking about issues in general....while trying to exclude my personal experience. But, since you continue to speak about me personally, let's get something straight. I have no interest in fitting into what you call the "real working world". I left that world when I was a teenager and never looked back.
If I ever "join the real world and learn to live with it", please put me out of my mystery. As I said before, a this point its nice to just laugh my way to the bank. Why would I want to join this "real working world", when I make plenty and have plenty of leisure time right now?
you are saying the same type of thing, that the boomers were saying when they were young like you. My grandfather, told me that it is the same type of thing, the young people were saying in the late 1800s when he grew up.
You're right. Didn't Gertrude Stein tell Ernest Hemingway in the 1920s that his was the "lost generation"?
As Mothra and Godzilla engage again in their epic battle, I note good observations -- and silliness -- from each:
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtrader
... What you don't realize, is you are saying the same type of thing, that the boomers were saying when they were young like you. My grandfather, told me that it is the same type of thing, the young people were saying in the late 1800s when he grew up.
The new generation growing into adulthood, all have the same attitude you have. They blame their problems on the older generations that went before them. You will learn, that it just takes a little time to learn to fit into the real working world. The young have always wanted to jump ahead of the existing adults, and they always find they have to work to get themselves into the real world of work. They will first have to learn to fill their niche in life. In other words, they have to serve their apprenticeship, before they can really be successful and not just start at the top.
OT, I rarely credit you with making good, well thought observations ... but this was a good run for you, albeit a re-hash of old wisdom:
Quote:
"plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose"—"the more it changes, the more it's the same thing", usually translated as "the more things change, the more they stay the same," -- Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr (Les Guêpes, January 1849)
Until you finished with:
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtrader
... In the next few years as you realize you don't really understand what is going on and what happened in the past, you will actually start to join the real world and learn to live with it.
Your observations of the "real world" are based on the theory of perpetual growth ... which I have repeatedly pointed out is "the ideology of a cancer cell" (Edward Abbey) ... and distintcly NOT a good thing "to learn to live [with]". Besides which, learning to accept that which is drudgery, unhealthy, unnecessary, counterproductive, etc. in general is antithetical to life.
But yeah, in considerable degree, the young think the world is different than ever before -- when, in fact, the principles on which the world turns in the universe are eternally the same -- just throwing off ever-changing shadows like clouds across the landscape.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
The boomers weren't saying the same thing, but the certainly didn't follow in the foot-steps of their parents. And, like today, the world the boomers started their adulthood in was in many ways different than the world their parents grew up in.
My comments here weren't intended to be a criticism of the boomers, instead they were to point out the futility of younger generations taking their advice seriously.
The Boomers certainly did say that their world was different than their parents' world ... and their parents couldn't possibly understand the new challenges.
And it wouldn't be a bit futile for the present generations to listen to certain voices of the past ... but also disastrous to listen to some others ... knowing where the real wisdoms lie is the trick. But aside from any of that, the expectation that the new will listen to the old is certainly futile. Ten thousand years of history has proven that quite unlikely.
You seem to be grossly misinterpreting what I've claimed, I haven't blamed any personal problem on older generations. Instead I've pointed out that there are significant transfers of wealth flowing from younger generations to older generations. I'm not aware of any other period in history where this occurred, perhaps because it needed a large generational cohort like the boomers to occur. Some of the issues younger generations face are the result of these transfers, but by no means all.
In any case, the point is that younger generations can safely ignore advice from the boomers (and older generations) because they don't, as a whole, have the right perspective on today's world.
Firstly, I've been talking about issues in general....while trying to exclude my personal experience. But, since you continue to speak about me personally, let's get something straight. I have no interest in fitting into what you call the "real working world". I left that world when I was a teenager and never looked back.
If I ever "join the real world and learn to live with it", please put me out of my mystery. As I said before, a this point its nice to just laugh my way to the bank. Why would I want to join this "real working world", when I make plenty and have plenty of leisure time right now?
And on and on and on you go with the "transfers of wealth" from the newer generations to the Boomers theme. And on and on and on I respond: the only real transfer of wealth going on is into the pockets of the uber-wealthy who designed and perpetuated the system.
None of the realities depicted in the linked articles have a damn thing to do with generational transfers of wealth ... rather, they both point to the class transfers of wealth that have always been occurring.
From the Salon.com article:
"Meanwhile, independent booksellers are up in arms about Obama’s visit to Amazon. They say that they create more and better jobs than Amazon does at its fulfillment centers."
Independent booksellers are able to pay people more than $13hr, plus health benefits, plus stock and retirement benefits/401k ?
I just don't see that. I looked up some bookstore jobs in L.A which is a very high cost city much higher than where these Amazon centers are and they pay about $8-9 , most likely without benefits..
As much as I love the idea of having independent booksellers around, I just don't see them being able to match these wages and benefits.
From the Salon.com article:
"Meanwhile, independent booksellers are up in arms about Obama’s visit to Amazon. They say that they create more and better jobs than Amazon does at its fulfillment centers."
Independent booksellers are able to pay people more than $13hr, plus health benefits, plus stock and retirement benefits/401k ?
I just don't see that. I looked up some bookstore jobs in L.A which is a very high cost city much higher than where these Amazon centers are and they pay about $8-9 , most likely without benefits..
As much as I love the idea of having independent booksellers around, I just don't see them being able to match these wages and benefits.
I noticed that as well ... and a couple other references that I had to do a double-think on ... realized that the objections weren't referring simply to the book-selling side of Amazon, since that is only one of a gazillion things that Amazon merchandizes through its network.
And on and on and on you go with the "transfers of wealth" from the newer generations to the Boomers theme. And on and on and on I respond: the only real transfer of wealth going on is into the pockets of the uber-wealthy who designed and perpetuated the system.
Yeah....you've said that and I obviously disagree. To say it once again, generational transfers and socioeconomic transfers are two separate issues and are by no means mutually extensive. So, while you are free to claim that generational transfers don't currently exist....mentioning socioeconomic transfers of wealth doesn't address anything on this matter. Its a mere diversion....and how convenient from a rentier that benefits from existing policies.
But the generational transfers are pretty clear, take for example social security. We already know that the younger generations can't get the benefits currently on the books, either they are going to have to pay more social security taxes or receive less benefits. But in either case, this represents a generational transfer of wealth if boomer benefits aren't reduced. The deficit is, essentially, just measure of generational transfers. When the deficit grows you are pushing costs onto ounger generations, when you pay down the deficit you do the opposite. Now, over the last few decades...what has occurred? The deficit has increased and as such younger generations are going to have to pay the bills of older generations. A transfer of wealth.... Now, in California, we have that lovely prop 13.....another transfer of wealth.
From the Salon.com article:
"Meanwhile, independent booksellers are up in arms about Obama’s visit to Amazon. They say that they create more and better jobs than Amazon does at its fulfillment centers."
Independent booksellers are able to pay people more than $13hr, plus health benefits, plus stock and retirement benefits/401k ?
You're ignoring that small independent booksellers have owners, managers, etc and it is these higher income positions that are largely being eliminated. Also, a locally owned bookstore is able to engage with the local community in ways that amazon cannot. But American society has been moving away from social involvement, I don't think its clear that this trend has been organic...instead it seems by design.
Yeah....you've said that and I obviously disagree. To say it once again, generational transfers and socioeconomic transfers are two separate issues and are by no means mutually extensive. So, while you are free to claim that generational transfers don't currently exist....mentioning socioeconomic transfers of wealth doesn't address anything on this matter. Its a mere diversion....and how convenient from a rentier that benefits from existing policies.
Mentioning socioeconomic transfer does address this conversation ... it is the only real transfer in process ... which negates your, and others', claim that the millenials are being ripped off by the Boomers. They're not. We are ALL being ripped off by the uber-wealthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
But the generational transfers are pretty clear, take for example social security. We already know that the younger generations can't get the benefits currently on the books, either they are going to have to pay more social security taxes or receive less benefits. But in either case, this represents a generational transfer of wealth if boomer benefits aren't reduced. The deficit is, essentially, just measure of generational transfers. When the deficit grows you are pushing costs onto ounger generations, when you pay down the deficit you do the opposite. Now, over the last few decades...what has occurred? The deficit has increased and as such younger generations are going to have to pay the bills of older generations. A transfer of wealth.... Now, in California, we have that lovely prop 13.....another transfer of wealth.
No, you don't already know the younger generations can't get the benefits on the books ... the future hasn't occurred yet. You are predicting there can be no solutions to forecasts based on the path to the future remaining on present trajectory. History, to say nothing of everyday common sense, shows that trajectories change, and grossly.
Same is true for the deficit. The cost of the deficit to future generations is also unknown ... and it is relative to prosperity as well as to depression.
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.