U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [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 08-20-2009, 08:39 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,470 posts, read 18,574,652 times
Reputation: 4343

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4 View Post
.... should be remembered their parents and grandparents were shaped by the great depression.
Which makes it odd that they made so many of the same mistakes that lead up to the Depression.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4 View Post
While some boomers got stupid with debt gen y (or whoever born after 1970) got even more stupid and to a large extent are the ones paying the price today.
Gen-Y is folks born after 1980 or so. I'm not sure which generation (boomer, X, or Y) is worse with debt they all handled it badly, just in different ways. Most X and the older Y's have time to recover from their mistakes, where as the younger Y's have the chance to never make them. The same can't be said of the boomers though, they have largely already dug their grave. The oldest ones may be able to slip past the current
, but the others are going to fill a lot of pain.

Speaking of which CalPers (largest public pension) has finally admitted that its long term pension costs are unsustainable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4 View Post
True baby boomers should be doing pretty well right now, your house should be, or nearly be....
Key word "should", unfortunately many of them kept moving-up in the real estate market and still have sizable mortgages. They also have extracted equity to buy toys, though in my experience not as badly as Gen-X did.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4 View Post
I wonder if this recession is having an impact on gen x and y?
Of course! The unemployment issues are being felt the most by Gen X and Gen Y. They are learning early in their lives, what its like to have a massive debt over their shoulder. Many are unlikely to make the same mistakes again.

Anyhow, people stopped saving for two reasons I believe. 1.) Most had easy access to large sums of credit, they started to think of credit as if it was their savings and have gotten enraged over the last 2-3 years as their limits, etc have been cut (it feels like someone is taking "their money"). 2.) We had 2-3 decades of "good times" and people forgot just why you may need an emergency fund.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-20-2009, 08:55 PM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
17,461 posts, read 22,795,529 times
Reputation: 9767
The PIG IN THE SNAKE

The baby boomers were doomed from the start by their sheer numbers. As soon as a majority of them decide to do something, that thing becomes a loser because too many people are doing it.
If Suze Orman says buy gold and half her audience does, gold will shoot up. etc etc.
They were sold a bill of goods withh 401ks and with Real Estate. They have transfered all of their wealth to Wall Street and destroyed the economy. Now their sheer numbers threaten our HealthCare System
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2009, 09:14 PM
 
48,507 posts, read 90,527,500 times
Reputation: 18204
I really thnik peopleneed to looat bommers and whohas the wealth in this country. Bommers are the first generaqtion to retire so youngas eventhier parents in the greatest generation couldn't. the thing i see in this genration is nthat so many had it made with no forced draft that loss them years, But its seem that the separation between the successful and the unsuccessful is a wider gap that any generation I have seen.So many bitter young people blaming others for their failure; when they had so much going thier way like not losing years in the miltary unless they wanted.In some way I blame my boomer generation for giving them so much that they didn't have to struggle in most cases. They seemed to have got so use to it that they thought it came to them naturally. Ohters that made wise choices are doing better than their parents which has been the norm.So many that made poor chices and little motivation that tyhey are bitter at such a young age. Every genration has some but way too many in this one.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2009, 09:24 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
2,221 posts, read 4,946,684 times
Reputation: 1702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude View Post
The base housing allowance you quote is for the lowest cost locales in the country. Maybe Kansas or Texas. However, the link I provided accounted for the AVERAGE housing allowance.

According to this site

Basic Allowance for Housing: Query Results

An E-1 in the Norfolk/Porstmouth area of Virgina (the biggest Navy base in the USA) gets $1016 a month without dependents, while an o-1 gets $1,222

Thats $418 more a month then you figured. Additionally you did not figure in uniform allowances, free medical, and all other non bonus additions to salary, such as sea pay or combat pay.
The Navy has a unique challenge in that most of their bases are on the coast in high-cost areas.

But nearly all E-1s live in barracks or dorms, or aboard ship, and as a result don't collect any housing allowance.

The uniform allowances don't cover the uniforms they have to have, only a few of the basics.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude View Post
In San Diego, another well known naval installation, its $1,472 a month. This is $17,664 a year of untaxable income.
That's in a place where a 2BR apartment rents for $1500+ a month in a bad neighborhood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude View Post
In very few locales they are making the minimum housing allowance
Ft Polk LA, Ft Bragg NC, Ft Hood TX, Ft Huachuca AZ, are all huge bases with housing allowances at or near the minimum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude View Post
The government is insuring almost every risk a soldier assumes, outside of physically replacing life and sometimes limb. That aside, the majority of service members face little to no risk doing their job (including almost all of the Navy and Air Force), and the largest downside of their job is the inconvenience of being on long missions from home (which they are also compensated for).
I wouldn't call a carrier landing in an F-18 or flying a night low-level training mission in mountainous terrain in a B-52 that's as old as your father little to no risk. Being a public affairs officer at Balad Air Base in Iraq has never been low-risk, either. And the divorce rates among our troops suggest that those repeated long deployments are having more of an effect than mere "inconvenience." And I haven't seen evidence of any form of insurance that covers the psychological trauma of repeated combat tours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude View Post
I have to say, I would gladly sign my name on the "irrevocable" line (which also works both ways, since they wont be laid off either) in exchange for having my housing covered, my medical covered for me and my family, discounts at practically every other establishment within 5 miles of a military base, base amenities, and a decent paycheck after that for whatever extra I needed.
There have been several large force reductions since the end of the Cold War, and the military did indeed cut people loose in droves. I think the AF alone cut their numbers by something like a third.

Don't get me wrong, I think their compensation is adequate for the most part, but I think the taxpayer gets a bargain still, since the alternative is to subject everyone's kids to a draft that would man up the military with unwilling conscripts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude View Post
As I mentioned before, if I was medically able, I would have joined the Navy or Air Force directly out of college. It beats the complete hell out of the few civilian jobs Ive held alternatively.
I think most of the people in the military would tend to agree with you, but not because of their benefits. Most I know keep doing what they do for reasons other than their pay and benefits.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2009, 09:34 PM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
17,461 posts, read 22,795,529 times
Reputation: 9767
The Navy has been trying to address this, There are no more bases in the San Francisco Area, Monterrey is closing, They are moving everything to Washington. Many of the Air Wings are at Lemoor now, that is a cheap housing market.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2009, 07:45 AM
 
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
5,517 posts, read 9,589,561 times
Reputation: 2552
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
But its seem that the separation between the successful and the unsuccessful is a wider gap that any generation I have seen.

This is true, the current GINI index (although falling slightly because of the wealthy losing wealth in the credit crisis) is still at a general level that hasnt been seen since the industrial revolution and the days of the robber barons and steel magnates.

The last point in time the US wealth distribution was remotely close to the rest of the post industrial world was in the late 60's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
So many bitter young people blaming others for their failure.
Maybe thats because other factors ARE to blame for their economic futility. Maybe if young people had the opportunities their grandparents had, and werent simply waiting for their grandparents and parents to die to cash in on their collected wealth, they wouldnt be blaming at nearly the rate.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2009, 07:55 AM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,810 posts, read 17,869,607 times
Reputation: 9447
Randomdude wrote:
Maybe thats because other factors ARE to blame for their economic futility. Maybe if young people had the opportunities their grandparents had, and werent simply waiting for their grandparents and parents to die to cash in on their collected wealth, they wouldnt be blaming at nearly the rate.
Let us hope that anyone playing the blame game quickly understands the futility of it. The only likely outcome of blaming anyone or anything for a problem is that the one doing the blaming feels increasingly powerless and bitter the longer the game is played. It won't change the situation, and it certainly won't change the person being blamed. Blaming is a totally dis-empowering strategy.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2009, 08:24 AM
 
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
5,517 posts, read 9,589,561 times
Reputation: 2552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob from down south View Post
The Navy has a unique challenge in that most of their bases are on the coast in high-cost areas.

But nearly all E-1s live in barracks or dorms, or aboard ship, and as a result don't collect any housing allowance.
I know many married E-1's and other lower ranked military people. I also know of a number of bases and installations which do not contain adequate housing for personel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob from down south View Post
The uniform allowances don't cover the uniforms they have to have, only a few of the basics.
2009 Clothing Allowances - Military Benefits - Military.com

Almost $1,300 for the coast guard initially, and between 400-500 every year after that.

I dont think every scrap of clothing Ive owned in the past 15 years has come to $1,300.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob from down south View Post
That's in a place where a 2BR apartment rents for $1500+ a month in a bad neighborhood.
The difference is, a man/woman in the Navy can afford that, the average Joe working for $10 an hour cant.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob from down south View Post
I wouldn't call a carrier landing in an F-18 or flying a night low-level training mission in mountainous terrain in a B-52 that's as old as your father little to no risk.
What percent of Naval personel are aviators or flight deck crews? My Dad spent most of his 21 years pretty much working in a shop fixing radios and electronic equipment (after a short stint as an MP), in an era where there was no real threat to the US Naval superiority, and little to no risk of naval surface warfare. That is the life of a majority of sailors. They fix minor breaks and equipment (major junk gets done in the yards), paint, cook, scrub, and drive the ship. Some are pilots, and there is some risk there, some work on flight decks, some are seabeas, beach masters and SEALS, and some are Corpsmen working with the Marines. But these are a small fraction of the total naval strength.

Same with the Airforce. Only a fraction of them actually fly the planes. Most are doing mundane things on the ground far away from any real harm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob from down south View Post
Being a public affairs officer at Balad Air Base in Iraq has never been low-risk, either.
How many public affairs officers have been killed? As long as you dont have to drive along risky roads, your risk is fairly low.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob from down south View Post
And the divorce rates among our troops suggest that those repeated long deployments are having more of an effect than mere "inconvenience."
You cant really blame the service for that. Soldiers should not be rewarded extra because of the weak nature of their spouses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob from down south View Post
And I haven't seen evidence of any form of insurance that covers the psychological trauma of repeated combat tours.
Ok, I can agree with this statement. There really isnt any effective thing to battle psychological trauma. Ive also seen programs and read about accounts of ex-soldiers with such trauma having the government turn their back on them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob from down south View Post
There have been several large force reductions since the end of the Cold War, and the military did indeed cut people loose in droves. I think the AF alone cut their numbers by something like a third.
They arent actually "cutting people lose". Primarily how the military controls its numbers is by reducing recruits,not allowing people to re-enlist, and dropping retirement requirements. Its definatley not the same as being laid off.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob from down south View Post
Don't get me wrong, I think their compensation is adequate for the most part, but I think the taxpayer gets a bargain still, since the alternative is to subject everyone's kids to a draft that would man up the military with unwilling conscripts.
I do agree with this. However, there are people still chanting about giving the troops more, and I say, how much more should a person with no real skill straight out of high school receive in contrast to a comparitable civilian job they could get with their skills?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob from down south View Post
I think most of the people in the military would tend to agree with you, but not because of their benefits. Most I know keep doing what they do for reasons other than their pay and benefits.
I think most are in the service for pay and benefits. Why do you think "suddenly" all the branches are having no problem filling their ranks, when 5 years ago you couldnt pay people enough to join the service, and even the Navy was having problems meeting its recruiting goals? This is dispite casualities still being racked up in the middle east, and troops guaranteed to be there for the forceeable future as they simply shift out of Iraq in to Afghanistan.

The primary motivation for joining the service, for a majority of people, is the perception of no better option. For most high school grads, and even a growing number of college grads, the reality is that even the lowest ranks of the military are more lucrative then anything they could possibly do in the civilian world.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2009, 08:27 AM
 
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
5,517 posts, read 9,589,561 times
Reputation: 2552
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicWizard View Post
Let us hope that anyone playing the blame game quickly understands the futility of it. The only likely outcome of blaming anyone or anything for a problem is that the one doing the blaming feels increasingly powerless and bitter the longer the game is played. It won't change the situation, and it certainly won't change the person being blamed. Blaming is a totally dis-empowering strategy.

Probably so, however that doesnt mean the arguments arent without legitimacy or merit.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2009, 08:58 AM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,810 posts, read 17,869,607 times
Reputation: 9447
Randomdude wrote:
Probably so, however that doesnt mean the arguments arent without legitimacy or merit.
That's exactly what makes blaming such an alluring practice...it seems totally justified. However justified it may be, the ensuing powerlessness and bitterness still come to visit upon ther one who engages in the blame game. Anyone having the wisdom to understand this will not waste their time and energy blaming circumstances and/or other people for the challenges they are facing, no matter how justified it may seem. Instead, they direct their energies into actions that will produce their desired outcome.
Rate this post positively 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 > Economics
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:59 PM.

© 2005-2021, 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