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.
I don't know what others think about this but I certainly side with the larger number in the link that they certainly won't be. Why? Well indebtedness and inflation will be plenty to set them back.
Indebtedness and inflation are the byproducts of the huge wealth transfer to the rich via unpaid for tax cuts, not to mention outsourcing to third world countries of our jobs, leaving the middle and lower classes to a continued decline in standard of living going forward.
My standard of living 35 years ago was much better than it is now, and my children are not even close to the standard of living I had in the 70s, and never will be. Pretty much living hand to mouth, incapable of saving anything. Gas cost today is ten times what it was then, food costs have quadrupled, but their salaries today are barely what I was earning 35 years ago. And my daughter-in-law was just told she has no health insurance next year. And on it goes.....
Last edited by Ariadne22; 03-26-2011 at 03:22 PM..
Hard to see how. They may face higher taxes, if they have jobs to pay them. With too many jobs being sent overseas and too much money sent to energy exporting countries there won't be much left for the U.S. Economy. Sure the government printing presses will try to replace it, but there is only so much that will do.
I don't know what others think about this but I certainly side with the larger number in the link that they certainly won't be. Why? Well indebtedness and inflation will be plenty to set them back.
A resounding NO! The spoiled and entitled Baby Boomers have dried up the well. Their children and the children of Gen X will not be as economically well off as the the generation before. The American Dream is not dead...but the dream is not what it was...
Today's parents borrowed away their children's future to grow our government which is now broke, so the parents left their kids broke (and now loving the concept of euthanasia).
I don't think that society or our economy will need as many workers in the future. This has been the trend for a while, and the "slack" is becoming tougher to absorb.
Greater efficiency in many industries means that fewer workers are required to reach the same levels of productivity. It's possible to run a manufacturing plant with 20 workers per shift, when it might have taken 350 or more workers in 1960 to create the same output.
I'm not sure how society as a whole will deal with this. It will be interesting.
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.
