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'm trying to be nice to you - - don't insult me. I taught a section of a college class on the very topic of this. Once again READ THE BOOK THAT I'VE MENTIONED THREE TIMES ALREADY IN THIS THREAD. YOU educate yourself on the topic. You don't think other countries have places that are hard to live in? Some states have the Rockies in them? Some countries have the Alps in them. And yet Austria has 40 people per square mile. France has 46. Italy has 76. Switzerland has 80. Germany has 89. All those mountains - - and yet somehow they are able to have significantly more people per square mile than the United States has.
I grew up in Cumberland County Pennsylvania. There aren't major mountains stopping people from living there. There's plenty of room; there's plenty of water. I'd live there or Pittsburgh today; this is where my wife (who didn't grow up in Pennsylvania) wanted to live.
Not that I think you give a damn, but the economic effects of having a dwindling birth rate are devastating to younger generations. As more Baby Boomers become older senior citizens, that tax bomb is going to fall on the younger, smaller generations, ones that are already saddled with huge student loan debt. Immigrants are the only way that you're going to get more tax payers to help with those social security/Medicare/Medicade balloons. If you are a "I've got mine" guy, I'm sure you believe we don't need to add people to our population. Younger people are going to disagree with you, if they understand the economic ramifications of not replacing the dead.
As for your last paragraph --- You still haven't answered this question. Since you are cheerleading for more and more people to come here, then how many will be too many for you? 1 billion? 2 billion? For example, India has over 1 billion people and Bangalore doesn't have enough potable water. Is that the future you want for your descendants. See...I do give a dam* as I want better for my grandkids than an overpopulated country that doesn't have enough potable water.
What you're proposing is nothing but a Ponzi scheme. Bring in more immigrants to pay into SS in order to support the senior citizens. And what happens when those immigrants become senior citizens? Do we bring in even more? One thing you surely must know --- all Ponzi schemes eventually collapse.
You still need to get your fantasy of 13 people per square mile out of your head. In reality, no one outside of very rural areas or areas where the land doesn't have potable water is living like that---and never will. You refuse to acknowledge that there are areas where people need to have their water trucked in. That's what happens when people live in the dessert. Read about the Navajo reservation that doesn't have enough water. You also refuse to acknowledge that these areas you crow about being buildable don't have the infrastructure in place to house large numbers of people. Where do you propose the money will come from for this? Many jurisdictions are strapped for money to the point where they are forced to decide if they add to the existing infrastructure or repair it.
Do you remember ZPG? It was big in the 60s and 70s. Liberals were very concerned about overpopulation to the point where many chose to not have children of their own. Somewhere along the line you liberals did a 180 and are now pushing for more and more people---the heck with the environment or having enough potable water or buildable land.
So...why haven't you returned to PA? I'm truly curious
And I'll counter you this, anyone who has this stance can't truly be "pro life", you should be all for abortion if you're willing to let the born babies of poor people starve to death
You're reading way too much into my post. For example, show me where I said I'm "willing to let the born babies of poor people starve to death". I said no such thing.
Do you think it's responsible to bring a baby into the world all the while knowing that you can't properly feed, clothe or shelter a baby? There's a big difference between that and falling on hard times after having a baby. The former is irresponsible. The latter can happen to anyone.
As for your last paragraph --- You still haven't answered this question. Since you are cheerleading for more and more people to come here, then how many will be too many for you? 1 billion? 2 billion? For example, India has over 1 billion people and Bangalore doesn't have enough potable water. Is that the future you want for your descendants. See...I do give a dam* as I want better for my grandkids than an overpopulated country that doesn't have enough potable water.
What you're proposing is nothing but a Ponzi scheme. Bring in more immigrants to pay into SS in order to support the senior citizens. And what happens when those immigrants become senior citizens? Do we bring in even more? One thing you surely must know --- all Ponzi schemes eventually collapse.
You still need to get your fantasy of 13 people per square mile out of your head. In reality, no one outside of very rural areas or areas where the land doesn't have potable water is living like that---and never will. You refuse to acknowledge that there are areas where people need to have their water trucked in. That's what happens when people live in the dessert. Read about the Navajo reservation that doesn't have enough water. You also refuse to acknowledge that these areas you crow about being buildable don't have the infrastructure in place to house large numbers of people. Where do you propose the money will come from for this? Many jurisdictions are strapped for money to the point where they are forced to decide if they add to the existing infrastructure or repair it.
Do you remember ZPG? It was big in the 60s and 70s. Liberals were very concerned about overpopulation to the point where many chose to not have children of their own. Somewhere along the line you liberals did a 180 and are now pushing for more and more people---the heck with the environment or having enough potable water or buildable land.
So...why haven't you returned to PA? I'm truly curious
The Ponzi scheme as you call it was implemented by they u.s. government when they set up SS. The children's taxes paying into the system is to pay for the retirement of their parents. The Baby Boomer did not have replacement level births. Do you get the math and what the future generations will be looking at now?
The government did not solve a problem, they created one; who knew?
PS: If the government had set it up that the largest workforce in the u.s upon retirement supplemented their own retirement pensions ... then we'd have a whole other situation.
The Ponzi scheme as you call it was implemented by they u.s. government when they set up SS. The children's taxes paying into the system is to pay for the retirement of their parents. The Baby Boomer did not have replacement level births. Do you get the math and what the future generations will be looking at now?
The government did not solve a problem, they created one; who knew?
PS: If the government had set it up that the largest workforce in the u.s upon retirement supplemented their own retirement pensions ... then we'd have a whole other situation.
Given that Millennials now outnumber Boomers, it doesn’t matter what birth rates were for those generations. Not to mention 1/3 of Boomers are still working and contributing to other people’s SS payments.
The Ponzi scheme as you call it was implemented by they u.s. government when they set up SS. The children's taxes paying into the system is to pay for the retirement of their parents. The Baby Boomer did not have replacement level births. Do you get the math and what the future generations will be looking at now?
The government did not solve a problem, they created one; who knew?
PS: If the government had set it up that the largest workforce in the u.s upon retirement supplemented their own retirement pensions ... then we'd have a whole other situation.
I figured out on a compound interest calculator that if I took my yearly SS payment and put it in a fund that tracks the S&P, it would have $2,076,000 but the time I am 65.
If I get the maximum benefit, that will be $34,332 per year.
Meaning if I retire at 65 years old, I will be 125 years old before I use up the money I put in.
Some people like to refer to SS as an entitlement. Given the numbers, it doesn't feel like an entitlement.
I am entitled to pay more than I get back? Sounds like a great deal.
The Ponzi scheme as you call it was implemented by they u.s. government when they set up SS. The children's taxes paying into the system is to pay for the retirement of their parents. The Baby Boomer did not have replacement level births. Do you get the math and what the future generations will be looking at now?
The government did not solve a problem, they created one; who knew?
PS: If the government had set it up that the largest workforce in the u.s upon retirement supplemented their own retirement pensions ... then we'd have a whole other situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNC4Me
Given that Millennials now outnumber Boomers, it doesn’t matter what birth rates were for those generations. Not to mention 1/3 of Boomers are still working and contributing to other people’s SS payments.
The recession is where everything started going wrong for millennials. In September 2008 the so-called sub-prime mortgage market collapsed, bringing the entire credit market to a screeching halt. What had been suspected by a few was painfully obvious: mortgage lending standards had been way too loose for way too long. The lofty ownership rates of the early 2000s were unsustainable. Lending standards got much tighter: banks required a higher down payment and income for mortgage approval.
As millennials lost their jobs, many prepared for a better job by enrolling in college. After all, this strategy had worked for their Baby Boomer parents in earlier recessions. From the beginning of 2007 to 2016 student debt more than doubled. At $1.31 trillion, student loan debt is larger than either credit card or car loan debt, and is second only to home mortgages.12 This probably understates the true burden, since students and their families often take on credit card debt and home equity loans to finance college.
Unfortunately, while unemployed millennials were upgrading their college credentials, U.S. employers were re-evaluating their need for college-educated employees. Many saw an overqualified – and underutilized – workforce, and cut employment and wages accordingly. The result: Millennials earn 20% less than Baby Boomers did at the same stage in life, despite being better educated.13Education still boosts incomes, but the median college educated millennial of today earns only slightly more than a Baby Boomer without a degree earned in 1989.
As the new job market reality sinks in, college enrollments have declined. Too late for those millennials who took out loans but dropped out before graduating. They face the “worst of both worlds” – substantial amounts of debt without a degree that could help them secure a better job.14The Millennial malaise threatens the wellbeing of Baby Boomers also, especially those who are retired or on the cusp of retirement. Payroll taxes from millennials help finance the Social Security and Medicare benefits that most Boomers rely on. Those same Boomers need younger generations to buy their homes and to invest in financial securities to bolster their savings.
pg 6
"Downward mobility for millennials could easily trigger a vicious cycle that drags down Baby Boomers and the entire economy. "
PS: and from your link (I've read the same article) note: "The Millennial generation continues to grow as young immigrants expand its ranks." ---- current climate can change that.
I figured out on a compound interest calculator that if I took my yearly SS payment and put it in a fund that tracks the S&P, it would have $2,076,000 but the time I am 65.
If I get the maximum benefit, that will be $34,332 per year.
Meaning if I retire at 65 years old, I will be 125 years old before I use up the money I put in.
Some people like to refer to SS as an entitlement. Given the numbers, it doesn't feel like an entitlement.
I am entitled to pay more than I get back? Sounds like a great deal.
One evening listening to the news, something was said about Bush, that he wanted to give everyone their SS. I thought that would be great, because of what you have pointed out. I thought, I could invest and no longer see those taxes depleting my take home pay. But as it was, they didn't do it.
The new deals that were in reality, no deals ... it's the world we live in.
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.
In reality, no one outside of very rural areas or areas where the land doesn't have potable water is living like that---and never will. You refuse to acknowledge that there are areas where people need to have their water trucked in. That's what happens when people live in the dessert. Read about the Navajo reservation that doesn't have enough water. You also refuse to acknowledge that these areas you crow about being buildable don't have the infrastructure in place to house large numbers of people. Where do you propose the money will come from for this? Many jurisdictions are strapped for money to the point where they are forced to decide if they add to the existing infrastructure or repair it. 
