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.
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.
Aside from our other differences, this is an interesting statement. I am not arguing against it. I am simply curious about what you mean. Care to explain further? You've left a deep concept rather superficially stated. I agree that America has been moving away from social involvement. What's the design as you see it?
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.
To say it once again, socioeconomic transfers are an entirely different topic. All you're doing is repeating your position again and again while trying to divert attention to a different matter, though at this time at least you tried to address the actual issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo
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.
The social security short-fall isn't something I'm projecting, this is straight from the Social Security Trustees:
"Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run programs in full under currently scheduled financing, and legislative changes are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers."
Secondly, I didn't say anything about there being "no solutions", instead I pointed to the obvious...you either have to 1.) increase revenue, or 2.) cut benefits. The only solution to the social security short-fall that wouldn't result in a transfer of wealth would be across the board cuts to the system. That is existing retirees, soon to be retirees and the young would all get their benefits cut. If you only cut benefits on younger generations or you increase social security taxes (these would only be paid by younger workers), well, you're going to get a transfer of wealth from younger generations to older generations.
The cost of the deficit is not "unknown", after all, the deficit is defined in dollars. But its not the size of the deficit that I referred to, instead whether it was decreasing or increasing. When the deficit is increasing, that represents a transfer of wealth from future workers to existing workers and the opposite when you pay down the deficit.
But I don't expect a rentier that benefits from these transfers to acknowledge their existence. Just as the upper-class rarely acknowledge the transfers in their direction, instead believing they some how earned the wealth.
Care to explain further? You've left a deep concept rather superficially stated. I agree that America has been moving away from social involvement. What's the design as you see it?
I didn't have anything "deep" in mind, instead what I take to be the obvious. Starting in the 1950's, but getting very aggressive in the 1970's, Americans have been exposed to massive amounts of marketing that has encouraged the consumption of relatively impersonal goods and services since these are the sorts of goods and services large businesses can produce.
Large corporations can't help but provide impersonal goods/services, not only are the social aspects of their business hard to quantify but their very structure makes it extremely difficult to provide a personal service or good. In terms of goods, that means we don't get a lot of choice....instead we get the illusion of choice. That is, a difference in packaging and marketing but not much of a difference in underlying product. In terms of services, the traditional social role of the business is usually the first thing to go.
To say it once again, socioeconomic transfers are an entirely different topic. All you're doing is repeating your position again and again while trying to divert attention to a different matter, though at this time at least you tried to address the actual issues.
User, I am not "diverting attention to a different matter" ... I am explaining that the "matter" you keep referring to is a false assignment of the real transfer of wealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
The social security short-fall isn't something I'm projecting, this is straight from the Social Security Trustees:
"Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run programs in full under currently scheduled financing, and legislative changes are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers."
I am not disputing this at all. I am saying neither you, nor anyone else at this time, can say what the future solutions to this problem are limited to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Secondly, I didn't say anything about there being "no solutions", instead I pointed to the obvious...you either have to 1.) increase revenue, or 2.) cut benefits. The only solution to the social security short-fall that wouldn't result in a transfer of wealth would be across the board cuts to the system. That is existing retirees, soon to be retirees and the young would all get their benefits cut. If you only cut benefits on younger generations or you increase social security taxes (these would only be paid by younger workers), well, you're going to get a transfer of wealth from younger generations to older generations.
Oh come on ... what narrow-mindedness. The ways to "increase revenue" are not limited to taxation of the population. An example of what won't happen but is fiscally possible: cuts from other budgets -- such as the military -- applied to Social Security. Or, increases in revenue through corporate taxation ... closing loopholes for off-shore tax-shelters ... taxes on stock trading ... taxes on the *uber-wealthy* to bring them in range with most taxation in other developed nations of the world ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
The cost of the deficit is not "unknown", after all, the deficit is defined in dollars. But its not the size of the deficit that I referred to, instead whether it was decreasing or increasing. When the deficit is increasing, that represents a transfer of wealth from future workers to existing workers and the opposite when you pay down the deficit.
User, the value of the dollar is subject to change and manipulation and re-valuation. And one of the primary drivers of our economy in these modern times IS debt ... we are -- as long as it can last (which I do question) -- a financial service economy more and more ... money has become a commodity ... thus the deficit is more and more relative to the illusory fantasy that feeds it. You don't know how this illusion will evolve to continue to float the machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
But I don't expect a rentier that benefits from these transfers to acknowledge their existence. Just as the upper-class rarely acknowledge the transfers in their direction, instead believing they some how earned the wealth.
You have said this several times now. What on earth are you talking about? I didn't build my own rental properties? Yeah, with my own two bloody hands and no hired help? Every damn detail: framing, electrical, plumbing, landscaping, you name it. You're damned right I earned them.
And you are wrong that I benefit from them in the slightest. I don't take a dime out ... I have developed my income properties (and am right now in the process of buying four more) entirely to pass on to my *wait for it* Millennial and Gen-X offspring. Speaking of transfer of wealth. Just sayin'
I didn't have anything "deep" in mind, instead what I take to be the obvious. Starting in the 1950's, but getting very aggressive in the 1970's, Americans have been exposed to massive amounts of marketing that has encouraged the consumption of relatively impersonal goods and services since these are the sorts of goods and services large businesses can produce.
Large corporations can't help but provide impersonal goods/services, not only are the social aspects of their business hard to quantify but their very structure makes it extremely difficult to provide a personal service or good. In terms of goods, that means we don't get a lot of choice....instead we get the illusion of choice. That is, a difference in packaging and marketing but not much of a difference in underlying product. In terms of services, the traditional social role of the business is usually the first thing to go.
Yep.
But I don't get what you meant by: "by design". Some sort of conspiratorial plan? Personally, I am not a conspiracy theorist. However, I do recognize that opportunism has often a similar effect.
No, as productivity increases you can achieve the same output with less labor.
We don't need to live in a "competitive world", the US is large enough to isolate itself and trade on its own terms.
Why is it the standard? Because the government....we can change "the standard" at any point. In any case, I'm not really concerned with whether I'm "employable" to some dull corporation.
I share your opinion.
However, I can not "wish" for it.. I rarely let my isolationist thoughts out, because I believe it leads directly to large scale war. I do not see a solution to that side of the equation, which unfortunately makes isolationism not an acceptable choice.
Trade keeps the peace. I am confident that without the "economic" hardship deterrent, the US and China would be in conflict.
Yet another aspect of the well designed trap, we are in.
But I don't get what you meant by: "by design". Some sort of conspiratorial plan? Personally, I am not a conspiracy theorist. However, I do recognize that opportunism has often a similar effect.
Well stated... Indeed the root of conspiracy falls into the same category as other all powerful, all seeing entities such as those found in religion.
With that said, I'll admit to suspecting conspiracy on occasion..
One of the funniest things about this notion that the Millenials (and Gen-Xer's) are "transferring their wealth" to the Boomers is:
Where did the new generations' wealth [that is being transferred] come from?
1. They haven't earned it yet (the Millenials)
2. the world has been getting "richer" across the board since the 1960's
That's right, since the 60's; the era of Boomer productivity ... which productivity is being left to following generations in the form of both hard assets, and in developments from knowledge and experience acquired.
Now then, re: the article linked above -- while I agree with the statistics, I don't agree with the inference that the world's wealth equates to wealth of the populations at large ... obviously it doesn't ... and the reader comments at the article's end demonstrate I am not alone in scoffing at the author.
But the greatest significance of the article is in supporting the argument I have been repeatedly putting forth in this thread: that the great transference of wealth is to the uber-wealthy ... not the people ... including the Boomers.
I am not disputing this at all. I am saying neither you, nor anyone else at this time, can say what the future solutions to this problem are limited to.
The projections are based on reasonable assumptions about future economic growth, the only way there wouldn't be a short-fall is if the US economy started to grow year-after-year at rates not seen for numerous decades.
But this ignores, that there are transfers that are occurring as we type. Take, for example, the rapid increase in the cost of higher education and the high levels of student debt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo
An example of what won't happen but is fiscally possible: cuts from other budgets -- such as the military -- applied to Social Security. Or, increases in revenue through corporate taxation ... closing loopholes for off-shore tax-shelters ... taxes on stock trading ... taxes on the *uber-wealthy* to bring them in range with most taxation in other developed nations of the world.
You say its not limited to increased taxes, yet all but one of your examples involves increased taxes.
As for cutting military spending, as much as I've love to see it happen, its something that sounds better on paper than reality. The problem is that the military is one of the primary job and education programs in the US, so while it would be nice to decoupled these programs from the military there isn't much reason to believe it would safe much money. If you simply cut, it would have profound social consequences for lower socioeconomic groups. It also wouldn't prevent a transfer of wealth, the cuts would reduce economic output and it would be the younger generations that would fill its impact while older generations were given the funds.
The only way to solve the social security short-fall without transferring wealth from younger generations to older generations is with across the board cuts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo
User, the value of the dollar is subject to change and manipulation and re-valuation.
Yes, and I already mentioned how inflation (or deflation) results in a transfer of wealth. If the rate of inflation started to increase, to say 4%, and maintained that level for awhile....it would actually help younger generations by reversing some of the existing transfers. But, naturally, we have historically low inflation right now Funny huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo
I didn't build my own rental properties? Yeah, with my own two bloody hands and no hired help? Every damn detail: framing, electrical, plumbing, landscaping, you name it. You're damned right I earned them.
You may have built the property, but not the land. It is the land value, which represents a significant portion of the rent you collect, that is unearned. You're a rentier, collecting economic rents just like the people you rant about.
What you do with your children has nothing to do with what I'm saying, obviously individual parents may decide to help their children. But I'm talking about what is going on at the societal level.
One of the funniest things about this notion that the Millenials (and Gen-Xer's) are "transferring their wealth" to the Boomers is:
Where did the new generations' wealth [that is being transferred] come from?
1. They haven't earned it yet (the Millenials)
2. the world has been getting "richer" across the board since the 1960's
I would seem your amusement is rooted in a poor understandingly of matters, though ironically the sort of wealth you obviously have in mind is all about transfers of value (or wealth) from workers to wealth "owners"....aka the capitalist.
The working generations, in reality, posses all the wealth of a nation and is only due to government policy that this wealth is distributed to other parties.......from retirees, the upper-class, or common land owners as yourself. Now, this isn't to say all such transfers are bad at the societal level, but one most not lose focus of the fact that workers, in reality, posses all the true wealth of a nation.
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.
Funny huh? 
