Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Scout26 on December 04, 2017, 10:41:50 AM
-
Back when Bernie announced he was running for President, I incorrectly predicted he'd get 4-5% of the vote. Boy was I wrong. It actually scared me that Bernie was getting 50+% of the D vote (which I figured was 25% of electorate). I witnessed it in my polling place when hundreds of College kids, came to register and vote same day.
And he actually bested Hillary in my polling place.
And I'm seriously concerned that the D party will go full blown commie-socialist retard in 2020 (unless Hillary declares that a third time is a charm...) Anyway, I seriously worry.
http://usdefensewatch.com/2017/11/generation-commie-why-millennials-are-embracing-communism/
-
Friend and I were talking about that this weekend.
He and I both grew up in the 1970s/80s. The 1970s and early 1980s absolutely SUCKED economically.
Yet our generation, in college or getting ready to go to college, didn't go full bore "GIMMIE FREE GOVERNMENT *expletive deleted*it!" and it certainly didn't buy in to the concept that there are magical money trees that can be harvested to pay for all of this free government *expletive deleted*it.
Even worse, the little shits completely ignore the numerous examples -- Greece, Spain, Portugal, France, Ireland -- of what happens when governments keep handing out more and more free *expletive deleted*it as a way of buying their way into power or staying in power.
It's almost as disgusting as seeing all of these recent graduates screaming about how much their student loan debt is and then realizing that they have an advanced degree in Socioethographics of Lesbian Underwater Basket Weaving... which is nothing more than an advanced education in being able to ask someone if they want fries with their double cheeseburger and cola.
-
This is why it's important to keep hammering home the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic. There are things that you don't get to vote in even if you magically get 97% of the vote. Communism is one of them.
I say this with no internet bravado or hyperbole: If the legislature starts passing the laws needed to go Communist (widespread seizing of wealth/property, seizing the means of production, seizing and/or taking over farms and food production) then we need to, and should, put them against the back of the capitol building and shoot them. Leave the holes as a warning to the next set of elected representatives.
FWIW, Even Bernie, who claims to be Socialist isn't in the way Marxism/Leninism means.
-
Thing is all these little social utopianists fail to realize there won't be any place for them in the new kingdom. If only someone had a pithy name for people who while not quite as aware as they could be, but are still handy.
-
"If only someone had a pithy name for people who while not quite as aware as they could be, but are still handy."
Fast food industry service workers...
-
It's almost as disgusting as seeing all of these recent graduates screaming about how much their student loan debt is and then realizing that they have an advanced degree in Socioethographics of Lesbian Underwater Basket Weaving... which is nothing more than an advanced education in being able to ask someone if they want fries with their double cheeseburger and cola.
They do have a point though - the cost of college over your side of the pond has gone up 538% since the mid-80s, you now have more than a trillion dollars worth of student debt floating around, plus of course you've gone from having the best college system to having the 12th best.
Over here we have gone from a publicly-funded system (cost around £10k for three years, all of which and more paid back by subsequent taxation) to a state-backed loan system (cost around £40k for three years, which doesn't have to be paid back if you earn below a set figure) and we have just got past the magic figure of £100 billion worth of outstanding student loans ourselves (and the system has only been going for 23 years). The only people who have actually benefited from it is the Government (since more people go to University it means less of them appear on the unemployment register) and University Vice-Chancellors. It is hard to look at how University / College education is funded and come to the conclusion that it isn't a massive scam at our expense.
-
They do have a point though - the cost of college over your side of the pond has gone up 538% since the mid-80s, you now have more than a trillion dollars worth of student debt floating around, plus of course you've gone from having the best college system to having the 12th best.
Over here we have gone from a publicly-funded system (cost around £10k for three years, all of which and more paid back by subsequent taxation) to a state-backed loan system (cost around £40k for three years, which doesn't have to be paid back if you earn below a set figure) and we have just got past the magic figure of £100 billion worth of outstanding student loans ourselves (and the system has only been going for 23 years). The only people who have actually benefited from it is the Government (since more people go to University it means less of them appear on the unemployment register) and University Vice-Chancellors. It is hard to look at how University / College education is funded and come to the conclusion that it isn't a massive scam at our expense.
Indeed. That's much of our problem as well. Feel good, easy loans so that "everyone can go to college" has decoupled the price of our college degrees from their worth in the employment market place.
A college degree has a specific value to it. It's the difference you will make between a job with that degree, and just getting work with the skillset you have. That's it. If you pay more for the degree than it will earn you, you got hosed. Honestly, I'd say break even time is more than 10 or so years you might want to think very carefully.
But gov backed student loans coupled with consumers (students and their families) that over inflate the need for a degree and don't look at it's value, have created a climate here where Universities can charge pretty much whatever they want without a whole lot of effect on their enrollments.
-
Socioethographics of Lesbian Underwater Basket Weaving...
Pretty sure I've watched that, uh, movie once.
Millennials were also more likely to take a favorable view of communist leaders. According to the poll, “Nearly one-in-five Millennials consider Joseph Stalin and Kim Jong-un ‘heroes,’ Twenty-three percent of Americans between 21 and 29 consider Stalin a hero. Twenty-six percent of them consider Lenin a hero. These are two of the biggest mass murderers in world history. Thirty-four percent were favorable to Karl Marx, and 37 percent were favorable to revolutionary and T-shirt fixture Che Guevara. One-fifth of Millennials surveyed had a positive opinion of Karl Marx.
It all goes back to education, or lack thereof. History classes are a joke. Ask a Millenial how we got out of the Great Depression. 9 times out of 10 the answer will be FDR. I got lucky. One of my favorite teachers was an ornery old lady who grew up in East Germany. Communism wasn't a subject you brought up in her class in a positive light. She lived through that hell. Consequently, my final paper was a guaranteed pass since I picked the dangers of Communism.
-
"If only someone had a pithy name for people who while not quite as aware as they could be, but are still handy."
Fast food industry service workers...
I think he was going for "Useful idiots".
-
I think he was going for "Useful idiots".
Re: the 538% increase in tuition. I wonder how and why that happened...Could it have been more .gov interference, to include the take-over of the entire student loan/lending programs....
-
Re: the 538% increase in tuition. I wonder how and why that happened...Could it have been more .gov interference, to include the take-over of the entire student loan/lending programs....
Any in New York with the whole 'free tuition' lie they are also taking over the colleges directly. The number one employer in the state is now state colleges.
-
Indeed. That's much of our problem as well. Feel good, easy loans so that "everyone can go to college" has decoupled the price of our college degrees from their worth in the employment market place.
A college degree has a specific value to it. It's the difference you will make between a job with that degree, and just getting work with the skillset you have. That's it. If you pay more for the degree than it will earn you, you got hosed. Honestly, I'd say break even time is more than 10 or so years you might want to think very carefully.
But gov backed student loans coupled with consumers (students and their families) that over inflate the need for a degree and don't look at it's value, have created a climate here where Universities can charge pretty much whatever they want without a whole lot of effect on their enrollments.
Yep, colleges have no incentive to keep costs under control or charge less. The lenders have no incentive to not sell these loans since the govt backs them. It is a catch 22 since getting the govt money and loans out of the picture is the answer, but no one wants to do that.
-
I sounds a lot like the housing bubble... I keep hearing of a student loan bubble....
-
I think he was going for "Useful idiots".
Eh, they want $15 from the bougies to make the burgers, so I think he got the gist.
-
I can see how some of them feel that way, it's not wanting $15 to flip burgers either or getting a niche degree and demanding $100k starting salary.
A larger percentage of wealth has been moved into a smaller percentage of people in their life, so there is less money to go around in the larger percentage. Almost like the gilded age at the beginning on the last century, I have a feeling I this continues your going to see a lot more Bernsters, they will get in charge and government will be involved (and not in a good way).
Wages have been stagnated for decades, pretty hard just to look at historic wages and see $18-20/hr union jobs from the 70's in smaller Midwest cities. (Caterpillar in my hometown of 27,000 people paid $18/hr for a production welder in 1979). Housing is expensive for many, you move to a new town out of college and over half your take home pay is paying rent, doesn't leave a whole lot of money at the end of the month. Many places it is hard to live the American dream without both spouses working average jobs.
Trade jobs until recently was shunned as a bad, you need to go to college. Apprenticeship programs are not very common (appears they are making a comeback), or you go to trade school for 2-3 years and hope for a job when you're done. etc. etc.
If I was 18-25, I wouldn't be seeing a rosy picture either. Expense of college, health insurance costs, trying to make rent, car payment, etc.
-
"A larger percentage of wealth has been moved into a smaller percentage of people in their life, so there is less money to go around in the larger percentage."
They only believe that because they've bought into the concept, fronted by useless idiots like Bernie Sanders, that wealth/money can only be redistributed, NOT created, and they believe that wealth needs to be redistributed from the oppressor rich 1% to the oppressed poor 99%.
Which is just a massive amount of complete and total bullshit.
But it's serving very nicely to create a generation of useless idiots.
-
"A larger percentage of wealth has been moved into a smaller percentage of people in their life, so there is less money to go around in the larger percentage."
They only believe that because they've bought into the concept, fronted by useless idiots like Bernie Sanders, that wealth/money can only be redistributed, NOT created, and they believe that wealth needs to be redistributed from the oppressor rich 1% to the oppressed poor 99%.
Which is just a massive amount of complete and total bullshit.
But it's serving very nicely to create a generation of useless idiots.
True, but from Wikipedia about the Gilded Age (History repeats itself....)
The unequal distribution of wealth remained high during this period. From 1860 to 1900, the wealthiest 2% of American households owned more than a third of the nation's wealth, while the top 10% owned roughly three fourths of it.[61] The bottom 40% had no wealth at all.[59] In terms of property, the wealthiest 1% owned 51%, while the bottom 44% claimed 1.1%.[59] Historian Howard Zinn argues that this disparity along with precarious working and living conditions for the working classes prompted the rise of populist, anarchist, and socialist movements.[62][63] French economist Thomas Piketty notes that economists during this time, such as Willford I. King, were concerned that the United States was becoming increasingly in-egalitarian to the point of becoming like old Europe, and "further and further away from its original pioneering ideal."[64]
-
The Gilded Age took place in a time when wealth WAS far more difficult to create, the result of an economy tied directly to precious metals.
The Gilded Age was also far different from conditions today in that massive number of immigrants served to keep wages artificially low.
I really question the direct comparisons of today's national economic profile to that of the Gilded Age.
-
The Gilded Age was also far different from conditions today in that massive number of immigrants served to keep wages artificially low.
I see similarities right there, but we have entitlements that payout better than working for a wage under a certain dollar amount. I think someone said a family on full governmental assistance was had a value of $52k a year. That is about $25 an hour on a 40 hour week, for a single worker.
-
The Gilded Age was also far different from conditions today in that massive number of immigrants served to keep wages artificially low.
We have large numbers of immigrants (illegal and otherwise) entering the country and sucking up blue collar jobs or depressing the wages of those jobs. For "skilled" folks like you and I, we are increasingly having to compete with people in "lower cost economies" where a person with a fancy resume can get an offshored job at 1/5 US salary for the same role in the US.
Employers and customers are increasingly willing to ignore the quality differences in favor of the huge cost advantage of buying immigrant or offshore labor.
Chris
-
A larger percentage of wealth has been moved into a smaller percentage of people in their life, so there is less money to go around in the larger percentage. Almost like the gilded age at the beginning on the last century, I have a feeling I this continues your going to see a lot more Bernsters, they will get in charge and government will be involved (and not in a good way).
Horseshit.
Look at what you have in your 401k. How much equity you have in your house? There is more wealth spread around more people then any other time in history. Period.
Wages have been stagnated for decades, pretty hard just to look at historic wages and see $18-20/hr union jobs from the 70's in smaller Midwest cities. (Caterpillar in my hometown of 27,000 people paid $18/hr for a production welder in 1979). Housing is expensive for many, you move to a new town out of college and over half your take home pay is paying rent, doesn't leave a whole lot of money at the end of the month. Many places it is hard to live the American dream without both spouses working average jobs.
Trade jobs until recently was shunned as a bad, you need to go to college. Apprenticeship programs are not very common (appears they are making a comeback), or you go to trade school for 2-3 years and hope for a job when you're done. etc. etc.
If I was 18-25, I wouldn't be seeing a rosy picture either. Expense of college, health insurance costs, trying to make rent, car payment, etc.
And what is causing this stagnation of wages ?? Rising taxes, mostly. Look at what you pay in taxes across the board, and for most married couples at least one of those incomes goes simply to cover taxes of all kinds.
-
Horseshit.
Look at what you have in your 401k. How much equity you have in your house? There is more wealth spread around more people then any other time in history. Period.
I don't think so, maybe for folks who planned well/never had an extended lay off that are over 50.
And what is causing this stagnation of wages ?? Rising taxes, mostly. Look at what you pay in taxes across the board, and for most married couples at least one of those incomes goes simply to cover taxes of all kinds.
Actually overall we are probably in a period of lowest taxes in a century, so I call bullshit too. Have to exclude the tempory tax cuts to save us from the great recession.
A quick google will show that.
-
From investopedia
A 2015 Government Accountability Office study found that show that 29% of Americans 55 and older don’t have any retirement nest egg or even a traditional pension plan. Those who do have retirement funds don't have enough money: 55 to 64-year-olds have an average of $104,000 and those 65 to 74 have $148,000 in savings. If that money were turned into a lifetime annuity, it would only amount to $310 and $649 respectively per month.
Read more: What's the Average 401(k) Balance by Age? | Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/010616/whats-average-401k-balance-age.asp#ixzz50Vivh69b
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook
-
Read this to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
-
We have large numbers of immigrants (illegal and otherwise) entering the country and sucking up blue collar jobs or depressing the wages of those jobs. For "skilled" folks like you and I, we are increasingly having to compete with people in "lower cost economies" where a person with a fancy resume can get an offshored job at 1/5 US salary for the same role in the US.
Employers and customers are increasingly willing to ignore the quality differences in favor of the huge cost advantage of buying immigrant or offshore labor.
Chris
Yes, we do, but those numbers are NOTHING like they were in the 60 years after the Civil War, when nearly 30 million immigrants arrived in the United States.
You're correct, though, that job pressure by immigrants has been somewhat replaced by job pressure from moving jobs overseas, but I still contend that it's nothing like it was during the Gilded Age.
-
Today we have (for the time being) Social Security. That didn't exist prior to the 1930s. There was no social net for individuals after they retired or couldn't work anymore other than what they had saved in their lifetime.
There was no welfare, virtually no social assistance of any kind other than what was provided by the community.
-
Yes, we do, but those numbers are NOTHING like they were in the 60 years after the Civil War, when nearly 30 million immigrants arrived in the United States.
You're correct, though, that job pressure by immigrants has been somewhat replaced by job pressure from moving jobs overseas, but I still contend that it's nothing like it was during the Gilded Age.
I see what you are saying.
Still have immigrants/undocumented workers doing servitude and heavy labor (like packing plants) but where money is being made in the information age, much of that talent is coming from what mtnbkr said.
Also government regulations has done a good job of keeping the overcrowded rat infested tenement housing from happening again. Also safety regulations to reduce the work related deaths and injuries. Even though there has been a GOP movement in many states to start reducing workman's comp benefits for those that work in industry where certain injuries are common.
Yes, there are social safety nets for those who can't make it, where their wasn't in the past.
Something else, on Iowa Public Radio the other day they talked about the steady rise of free and reduced price school lunches for students of low income households. Something else to think about.
-
On the wage stagnation, is it possible that was really more of a bubble? Non union industrial labor was worth nowhere near $18/ hour in the seventies. My dad quit his last real job in 1979, was making high 30ks as the foreman of a twenty person shop and it was good money. I think the union states rode the inertia of WWII for a few decades and when it finally burned out the rust belt got to rusting.
-
Today we have (for the time being) Social Security. That didn't exist prior to the 1930s. There was no social net for individuals after they retired or couldn't work anymore other than what they had saved in their lifetime.
No social net? Not quite. This was one of the major reasons people had kids in the old days- to care for them in their old age. My father said the normal thing for old people who grew feeble was to move in with their children. Gov programs have replaced this. This is one of the reasons the birth rate in the USA has plummeted to below the replacement rate (1.8 children per woman). This experience is typical of countries that institute national welfare / pension programs for old people.
-
One thing that occurs to me is when was the last time we really had a true Free Market / Small Govt politician on the national stage? When was the last time that was a driving principle in our Govt? It is no wonder many young people think that way. The closest thing to "Free Market" most of them have seen in their life is dirty, crony capitalism that isn't really capitalism at all.
-
"Something else, on Iowa Public Radio the other day they talked about the steady rise of free and reduced price school lunches for students of low income households. Something else to think about. "
I suspect that if you were to compare today's figures against the figures from the 1970s, we're nowhere near what we were back then in terms of kids receiving school lunch assistance. Even worse, in the 1970s, there were large numbers of qualified children who weren't entered into the program because their school districts screwed the pooch on the reporting requirements.
The collapse of the oil, steel, and coal industries in the US, the general global recession, and a litany of other events made the 1970s through the early 1980s a complete and total shitshow economically in the US. In a lot of ways it was a lot worse than 2007-2010 because it went on for almost 15 years and was accompanied by very high inflation.
My entire school district received funds from the school lunch program that applied to every student, regardless of income. Our lunches were 25 cents, and there was still a significant number of students who qualified for reduced price or free lunches because their parents couldn't meet that. The next county over, Cumberland, charged $1.75 for a school lunch at the same time. It didn't receive the same grants.
My school district, right across the river from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, also received Appalachia Improvement Corporation grants every year.
My point is, these little *expletive deleted*ers think that they have it tough. Yeah, they're coming out with high student loan debt. But as a percentage of starting income, I'm wondering if the disparity is as great as what's claimed.
I came out of college with, IIRC, $12,500 in student loan debt, and my first full time job out of school I made $11,500 a year as a newspaper reporter. I cleared $111.40 a freaking week.
-
From investopedia
A 2015 Government Accountability Office study found that show that 29% of Americans 55 and older don’t have any retirement nest egg or even a traditional pension plan. Those who do have retirement funds don't have enough money: 55 to 64-year-olds have an average of $104,000 and those 65 to 74 have $148,000 in savings. If that money were turned into a lifetime annuity, it would only amount to $310 and $649 respectively per month.
Read more: What's the Average 401(k) Balance by Age? | Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/010616/whats-average-401k-balance-age.asp#ixzz50Vivh69b
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook
Proving my point. Yes, they may not have "enough", but they still have "some", which is wealth. As pointed out above, prior to the 1950's, for the vast majority of people the retirement plan (if they lived that long) was "Move in with the kids". With grandma being the built-in babysitter.
As of March 2015 total retirement benefits in the US amounted to $25 TRILLION.* That's more wealth then existed in the in entire world at the turn of the century.
I get it Charby, you are mad because you want to buy some cheap land but there is no "cheap" land where you live. It's mostly tied up in trusts and corporations so that when Farmer Smith dies, the family doesn't have to hold a fire sale to cover the inheritance and death taxes. And you think that's "unfair". No, it simple greed and jealousy on your part. .gov created the problem(s). More .gov will not fix it.
And no, you are wrong. When the 16th Amendment passed, Taxes were 1% of income on people making under $20,000 (which is $492, 127 in today's dollars), with the first $3,000 for single filers and $4,000 for married couples exempt ($74,000 and $98,000 dollars respectively.) After that Congress slowly racketed up the amount it would take from people until the 1980 Reagan Tax Cuts in the 1980's. Since then they've fluctuated, but the overriding truth is that between local, state and federal taxes (of all types) the number 1 expense of all families today is not food or housing, but taxes. Which is a huge drain on the income and wealth of the US.
*- http://www.benefitspro.com/2015/06/30/total-retirement-assets-near-25-trillion-mark
-
"No social net? Not quite."
Obviously I was talking about Government-based social networks.
And obviously I was talking about more than just old age care.
-
"A 2015 Government Accountability Office study found that show that 29% of Americans 55 and older don’t have any retirement nest egg or even a traditional pension plan."
I don't have a traditional pension plan.
But I've been very rigorous and disciplined about saving for retirement, and saving as much as I possibly can on top of that.
I just topped $800,000 in my various 401K and IRA accounts, so I'm a lot better off than most people, especially given that I'm still in my early 50s.
And I got a late start on saving regularly because 401Ks weren't initially available to non profits and not for profits when I was at the start of my career.
-
Here's an interesting, but decidedly slanted, look at some of this.
I came out of college with a degree in history. I tried my hand at computer science as a back up and it didn't go particularly well.
But what I could do when I came out of college was write well. And I've managed to turn that into a very good career.
No, I've not made nearly as much money as I could have had gotten a degree in computer science, but I've done well for myself.
-
Proving my point. Yes, they may not have "enough", but they still have "some", which is wealth. As pointed out above, prior to the 1950's, for the vast majority of people the retirement plan (if they lived that long) was "Move in with the kids". With grandma being the built-in babysitter.
As of March 2015 total retirement benefits in the US amounted to $25 TRILLION.* That's more wealth then existed in the in entire world at the turn of the century.
As Mike said earlier that was back when the monetary system was tied to gold, image if it was a fiat money back then.
I get it Charby, you are mad because you want to buy some cheap land but there is no "cheap" land where you live. It's mostly tied up in trusts and corporations so that when Farmer Smith dies, the family doesn't have to hold a fire sale to cover the inheritance and death taxes. And you think that's "unfair". No, it simple greed and jealousy on your part. .gov created the problem(s). More .gov will not fix it.
Major thread drift there. First of all there are very few farms of actual owned land in Iowa that would break the $5.5M estate tax starting point for single tax filer. Most farmers own some land, but usually rent most of their acreage. Also it is very rare for a single heir to get all the land, unless they are an only child. Land is usually passed down to all children or grandchildren. After Grassley's little rant about booze, women and movies, all the media in Iowa have been pointing out how few estates in Iowa break the 5.5M/11M threshold. So I really call bullshit on having to liquidate at death to cover taxes. Now state estate taxes are different than fed estate taxes, that is a whole different discussion.
Also yes farm land is expensive these days, but normally a farm land only comes up for sale in once in a generation. Might be no heirs or need to sell off due to medical expenses. I was looking at 75 acres that is probably going to be for sale in bid process this winter, the owner is needing to sell it to pay for his medical costs. Right now farm land in Iowa is going for about $100 per CSR2 (it's a formula call Corn Suitability Rating 2, used to determine consistent potential yield of the land), long story short a group of us was approached last summer to bid on it. The land has a CSR2 rating of 62, which means it will yield around 150-160 bushels of corn per acre and more than likely will be sold for around $6200 an acre. If we bought it and put it up for rent, the rent payment per acre would be between $180-200 a year, which would get you around $14,000 in rent payment. At 20% down on the land, that just makes the principal payment (does not include taxes or interest, or tile maintenance). If one farmed it, just doesn't pencil out since you might make $25 an acre profit on a good year, most years it will be break even and probably have years where cost of farming exceeds the profits made, looking at the next 3-4 years ag markets, will be farming at a loss during that time. Have to really question why anyone would want to row crop farm.
I'm actually predicting a another Ag Crisis similar to the early 1980s probably mid next decade. That will be when I attempt to buy land.
And no, you are wrong. When the 16th Amendment passed, Taxes were 1% of income on people making under $20,000 (which is $492, 127 in today's dollars), with the first $3,000 for single filers and $4,000 for married couples exempt ($74,000 and $98,000 dollars respectively.) After that Congress slowly racketed up the amount it would take from people until the 1980 Reagan Tax Cuts in the 1980's. Since then they've fluctuated, but the overriding truth is that between local, state and federal taxes (of all types) the number 1 expense of all families today is not food or housing, but taxes. Which is a huge drain on the income and wealth of the US.
*- http://www.benefitspro.com/2015/06/30/total-retirement-assets-near-25-trillion-mark
Pretty sure I said in a century, which would start in 1917.
https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx
Somethings things to chose, I guess if the concentration of wealth wasn't such a problem why has it become an almost weekly news item?
Washington Post from yesterday: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/06/the-richest-1-percent-now-owns-more-of-the-countrys-wealth-than-at-any-time-in-the-past-50-years/?utm_term=.58d4af600807
The new gilded age, this has been in the news for probably the last few years.
Here is a recent item: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/10/04/daily-202-why-a-republican-strategist-thinks-we-re-in-a-new-gilded-age/59d4454530fb0468cea81d53/?utm_term=.dbff0aa6df1c
Here is one I read a couple years ago.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/05/08/thomas-piketty-new-gilded-age/
-
"Something else, on Iowa Public Radio the other day they talked about the steady rise of free and reduced price school lunches for students of low income households. Something else to think about. "
I suspect that if you were to compare today's figures against the figures from the 1970s, we're nowhere near what we were back then in terms of kids receiving school lunch assistance. Even worse, in the 1970s, there were large numbers of qualified children who weren't entered into the program because their school districts screwed the pooch on the reporting requirements.
The collapse of the oil, steel, and coal industries in the US, the general global recession, and a litany of other events made the 1970s through the early 1980s a complete and total shitshow economically in the US. In a lot of ways it was a lot worse than 2007-2010 because it went on for almost 15 years and was accompanied by very high inflation.
My entire school district received funds from the school lunch program that applied to every student, regardless of income. Our lunches were 25 cents, and there was still a significant number of students who qualified for reduced price or free lunches because their parents couldn't meet that. The next county over, Cumberland, charged $1.75 for a school lunch at the same time. It didn't receive the same grants.
My school district, right across the river from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, also received Appalachia Improvement Corporation grants every year.
My point is, these little *expletive deleted*ers think that they have it tough. Yeah, they're coming out with high student loan debt. But as a percentage of starting income, I'm wondering if the disparity is as great as what's claimed.
I came out of college with, IIRC, $12,500 in student loan debt, and my first full time job out of school I made $11,500 a year as a newspaper reporter. I cleared $111.40 a freaking week.
Probably so, 1970's wasn't as bad in Iowa (Ag was booming) like the rest of the rust belt. We got out ass kicking in the early to mid 80s with the farm crisis. 1000s of farms and ag related business went bankrupt. Some towns (like my hometown) have never fully recovered from that.
I made $25k my first year out of college and had a $300 a month student loan payment. Paycheck didn't go very far either after all the living expenses.
-
On the wage stagnation, is it possible that was really more of a bubble? Non union industrial labor was worth nowhere near $18/ hour in the seventies. My dad quit his last real job in 1979, was making high 30ks as the foreman of a twenty person shop and it was good money. I think the union states rode the inertia of WWII for a few decades and when it finally burned out the rust belt got to rusting.
60-70s in Iowa unemployment was really low, probably why wages were higher in manufacturing, especially on skilled labor.
-
"A 2015 Government Accountability Office study found that show that 29% of Americans 55 and older don’t have any retirement nest egg or even a traditional pension plan."
I don't have a traditional pension plan.
But I've been very rigorous and disciplined about saving for retirement, and saving as much as I possibly can on top of that.
I just topped $800,000 in my various 401K and IRA accounts, so I'm a lot better off than most people, especially given that I'm still in my early 50s.
And I got a late start on saving regularly because 401Ks weren't initially available to non profits and not for profits when I was at the start of my career.
Not everyone is as wise as we are (or have the opportunity). I'll be close to where you are when I am your age, I also dumped a lot of money into retirement since I was 27, still trying to put at least 10% of my salary annually on top of what I have withdrawn at work for my pension. (yes I took my current job because of the pension plan)
-
Not sure if I'd call it a case of being wise.
In my case, it's more seeing the (bad) example set by my parents and vowing that I would NEVER find myself in the same position.
My father was a horrible money manager. I taught myself how to manage money, how to invest, and how to balance risk against potential for gain in investing.
-
Here's an interesting, but decidedly slanted, look at some of this.
I came out of college with a degree in history. I tried my hand at computer science as a back up and it didn't go particularly well.
But what I could do when I came out of college was write well. And I've managed to turn that into a very good career.
No, I've not made nearly as much money as I could have had gotten a degree in computer science, but I've done well for myself.
I got a degree in History also, plan was to go onto law school. decided I didn't want to do that. Ended up working IT after I got my BA, then I decided that I have no formal science training so I went back to school in my early 30s, plan was to just do a BS in "pre med" so I can get a well rounded science degree, ended up getting a BS in Forestry and Agronomy because I fell in love with plant physiology. Now I don't work IT, make more money, get to use my plant physiology background and live in a town with a much lower cost of living.
-
Not sure if I'd call it a case of being wise.
In my case, it's more seeing the (bad) example set by my parents and vowing that I would NEVER find myself in the same position.
My father was a horrible money manager. I taught myself how to manage money, how to invest, and how to balance risk against potential for gain in investing.
Wisdom comes from experiences.
-
I got a degree in History also, plan was to go onto law school. decided I didn't want to do that. Ended up working IT after I got my BA, then I decided that I have no formal science training so I went back to school in my early 30s, plan was to just do a BS in "pre med" so I can get a well rounded science degree, ended up getting a BS in Forestry and Agronomy because I fell in love with plant physiology. Now I don't work IT, make more money, get to use my plant physiology background and live in a town with a much lower cost of living.
Charby, may I ask what you do for a living?
-
"and live in a town with a much lower cost of living."
As you walk around Mason City, think about this...
My family was very closely associated with that part of Iowa, and the Dakotas, for close to 100 years...
It's like me being there.
:rofl:
-
Charby, may I ask what you do for a living?
My job is really hard to describe, but I work under the Federal FIFRA Act and Iowa Code related to pesticides. I carry state & federal credentials and fill out a lot of paperwork.
About half of my job is to investigate alleged pesticide misuse complaints. People file complaints to the state (or feds) and gets assigned to me.
-
"and live in a town with a much lower cost of living."
As you walk around Mason City, think about this...
My family was very closely associated with that part of Iowa, and the Dakotas, for close to 100 years...
It's like me being there.
:rofl:
That explains the smell.
-
That explains the smell.
No, that's Jamis. The Leprustank has spread over much of the country.
-
No, that's Jamis. The Leprustank has spread over much of the country.
There is no fruity essence to the smell, more like the grumpy old Grinch smell of stink, stank, stunk.
-
There is no fruity essence to the smell, more like the grumpy old Grinch smell of stink, stank, stunk.
Ah. That's Mtnbkr, then.
-
Back to the OP, I thought the Socialist Party comment at the below link was interesting. I have always assumed that the kids and the SJWs and the euro-lovers all worked under the premise that "socialism isn't communism!"
In their comment, the Socialist Party says socialism and communism are the same thing (and they are correct as far as I'm concerned). However I have always heard the arguments from socialists that they are different animals. I think mostly to try and deflect from tens of millions of deaths and from the "next time we'll get it right" perspective.
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2017/12/10/so-damn-good-jonah-gold-destroying-the-socialist-party-is-everything-right-about-twitter/
-
" However I have always heard the arguments from socialists that they are different animals."
Yeah, a grizzly bear vs a polar bear.
Both are going to eat you.
-
My point is, these little *expletive deleted*ers think that they have it tough. Yeah, they're coming out with high student loan debt. But as a percentage of starting income, I'm wondering if the disparity is as great as what's claimed.
A lot of the whiners about student loan debt inflicted it upon themselves because they wanted to go to the big name school or the shiny fancy private school that costs four or five times what the ordinary state school costs for the same degree that would get you the same damn job but without the appeal and "prestige" of the fancier school
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
A lot of the whiners about student loan debt inflicted it upon themselves because they wanted to go to the big name school or the shiny fancy private school that costs four or five times what the ordinary state school costs for the same degree that would get you the same damn job but without the appeal and "prestige" of the fancier school
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Well, not necessarily the case. When I got hired at my job, one of the first things they got excited about was where I got my science degree.
An engineering degree from MIT will almost always put someone in better stead than an engineering degree from Podunk U. On the other hand, a feminist studies degree, whether from Brown or from Podunk U, will be treated about the same by the manager at the Starbucks when you end up having to apply there.
That doesn't mean someone can't go to state college and get a good degree for less money. It all depends on the college. A state college might have one outstanding department and a bunch of mediocre ones. If your discipline (in something useful) matches the department with the good rep, you're good to go.
-
So IMO, they still did it to themselves, but it isn't just that they went to an expensive school, but got a worthless degree.
And I would say a degree at a smaller or lower rated school can still be very useful, but it puts more on the individual to have the grades and put in the work to prove themselves. Assuming of course the degree is useful.
-
My kids and grandkids listened to me. I told them to learn a trade. The did and are. But still it's tough. My one grandkid is a plumbing apprentice. But his rent is $1000.00 a month in a modest apt. Car insurance is insane in Michigan. Taxes are burdensome. They all hate liberals, so there is hope..
-
A lot of the whiners about student loan debt inflicted it upon themselves because they wanted to go to the big name school or the shiny fancy private school that costs four or five times what the ordinary state school costs for the same degree that would get you the same damn job but without the appeal and "prestige" of the fancier school
Good lord yes.
Former neighbor's sister was a good case in point.
Went to Duke for her undergrad degree.
Was going to Columbia for her graduate degrees.
In social work.
I have NO idea if she was taking out student loans, etc., but for degrees in social work going to two of the most expensive unis in the country?
Doesn't make much sense to me.
-
Sometimes, the expensive schools and most notably the Ivy League schools, offer valuable networking opportunities that add to the value of the degree.
-
I'll just leave this here:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2017/08/11/why-democrats-should-be-losing-sleep-over-generation-z/#3c4d7b697878
Apparently the kids are alright. :lol:
-
Sometimes, the expensive schools and most notably the Ivy League schools, offer valuable networking opportunities that add to the value of the degree.
As much as I hate to use the term, yes, networking can be a big part of it. I certainly made connections in my field that I would never have had contact with at say, Fresno State. Also, in my field, I had access to hardware and labs that most state schools couldn't afford.
I will say that I think the school/dept makes more of a difference in thiose areas with advanced degrees versus an undergrad degree. It's also only part of the equation, with the student being a greater part. On the graduate level, if doing an interview, I would pay more attention to the Podunk grad that had a 4.0 and examples of well done graduate research in his resume vs the "well known school" student with a 2.5 who did nothing more than the bare minimum of a thesis or simply tested out. At least in the sciences.
Also, I have mentioned this in the past, but some of the Ivy league schools will graduate their students "no matter what" to protect their reputation, as drop outs apparently hurt that rep. Example given by an ex girlfriend that was a Harvard Law grad and said that that Harvard would push them to graduate regardless of their ability, and even setup their bar exams in easy states, just to add another lawyer to the alumni list.