In reply to alfadriver :
You're not wrong
In reply to alfadriver :
You're not wrong
My step mother went to the same college I did. She went in 70-74, I went in 94-95. We had a chat about the cost and she remembered how there was a big kerfufle that in 72 the costs for a year of UMass doubled and went from $100 to $200. An amount a crappy minimum wage student job ($1.25 an hour at the time) could be paid for with 160 hours of work. By the time I went it was $12,000 a year (roughly) and that same crummy student job (all the way up to $4.25 an hour!!) was gonna require 2,823 hours to pay off.
So yeah, there are plenty of reasons to be pissed at the world.
frenchyd said:alfadriver said:The anger thing is nothing new. If you look at the written discourse of our founding fathers back between 1770 and at least 1820, anger and fear was used quite effectively to manipulate opinions on pretty much all issues. Exactly what you see happening today. If it's not A, then B will cause the nation to fall. C wants us to be just like the UK, which is evil. D wants us to be like France- who are slaughtering each other in the streets- which is evil.
Basically, if you look at the entire body of history, for whatever reason, humans tend toward being angry.
While you may have a point, I think it’s missing the mark. America was founded by those who felt powerless to the crown. “ No taxation without representation”
America rebelled against the power structure that controlled our lives. As did the people of France.
You should go read how the country went from winning that in 1781 to ~1820. You will find massive amounts of lies and manipulations of "truth" to make people think.
And France did far more than just rebelling against the power structure- their anger slaughtered a lot of people along the way.
Anger was let WAY to far out in France.
Suprf1y said:In reply to alfadriver :
You're not wrong
But it does not at all explain why people seem to lean toward being angry. I can't really fathom that.
volvoclearinghouse said:In reply to frenchyd :
It will never be like the 50's again. There was a lot of low-hanging fruit. Post-WWII, a world to rebuild, and America the only real powerhouse.
That started to change in the 1960's, changed a LOT in the 1970's, and we're still dealing with a lot of those changes today.
The 50's were not that great.
Maybe to your family. But to a huge chunk of the public, the 50's sucked really bad. That's why society generally revolted in the 60's, and that carried into the 70's.
Those things don't happen by accident. They happened due to the pressure cooker not working. Riots don't happen just for the sake of happening.
alfadriver said:volvoclearinghouse said:In reply to frenchyd :
It will never be like the 50's again. There was a lot of low-hanging fruit. Post-WWII, a world to rebuild, and America the only real powerhouse.
That started to change in the 1960's, changed a LOT in the 1970's, and we're still dealing with a lot of those changes today.
The 50's were not that great.
Maybe to your family. But to a huge chunk of the public, the 50's sucked really bad. That's why society generally revolted in the 60's, and that carried into the 70's.
Those things don't happen by accident. They happened due to the pressure cooker not working. Riots don't happen just for the sake of happening.
You're confusing economics with social issues. I was speaking in generalities. I'm not talking about race here because that is a separate issue that I'm not going to discuss.
In general, looking at the decade from 1949-1959, economic growth in this country was impressive. And it was fueled by many factors that do not exist anymore. That's all that I am saying.
EDIT: And, honestly, that statement (that 'x' time period wasn't great for some people) could be said about literally every time period in history. It's kindof intellectually lazy. Lately, I've heard it used a lot to describe the middle of the 20th century, in fact. Usually in a race (baiting) context.
I was reading more about some of the wealthiest people in the world, and found some fascinating parallels between Ford and Jeff Bezos. Bezos' mother was a teenager, still in high school, when Jeff was born. His father was a Cuban immigrant. Not so different from Ford, whose father was an immigrant and mother was a young 1st generation American. Bezos is now the wealthiest person in the world, and on track to being the wealthiest person in contemporary history. Outliers, man.
I also think the story of Bezos' or Ford's parents would be fascinating. How they started with so little and ended up in a good position to give their kids the tools to unlock the world. How do you end up a successful farm owner after coming over to the US with nothing? It's a lesson a lot of people could benefit from. We have so many opportunities here but most of us do nothing with them.
I for one would hate to go back to how the 50's were. Those "good ole days" weren't the same for all of us! LoL
Seriously though.
The current young folks ("Millennials" I think is what they call us in a derogative way lol) have to deal with astronomical education cost, high home prices, low home availability in areas where the decent paying jobs are (which causes the home prices to go up), and media that bombards us with negative energy 24/7. All with the burden of fixing the social issues created by the generations before us as well as being told we suck and don't do anything right. It can cause a lot of problems mentally. Not living up to expectations, or gaining everything (go to college buy a house) we were told to do in order to be successful and have money and to find out those things bring us massive debt but not so great income instead. I can see how people can become depressed or angry by such things.
This wealth disparity truly effects people on a systematic and generational scale. We have equal right but not equal opportunity. You can raise a kid well while poor but the school the child goes to might be E36 M3ty and have little resources which will lower his opportunities vs well funded schools with great teachers zoned in high middle class/upper class neighborhoods. That was how I was raised. Poor, went to E36 M3 schools, but my mom raised me well. I joined the Air Force and got the hell out of dodge. But, most of the people I grew up with got stuck in that perpetual cycle because they didn't know or wasn't able to stay straight in the pursuit of getting out or moving up in social class. Again, those situations breed anger and depression.
What do I do to stay healthy mentally and physically: I don't watch TV and when I do it isn't the news. My internet time is spent on hobbies and education not news or social media. I eat well. I work out. I rent in a nice neighborhood, until I can afford to buy a home that can place me in a neighborhood with good schools for my son. I surround myself with positive people as well as people who have obtained the goals I am seeking and use them as mentors. I treat people well.
MadScientistMatt said:I think a lot of this overlaps with the "Don't read the comments" thread. A lot of people are willing to post things online they would know to moderate in a face to face discussion. It's often possible to go through life without meeting people who share differing political views face to face - or at least, not having a polite discussion and realizing you hold differing political views. We've started viewing people who hold different views as "the enemy" rather than somebody who also wants to improve society but holds differing ideas about the best path to take. We're seeing the end result of sticking too closely to "Don't talk about politics, money, or religion" - at least not with people who think differently about them. We've become a nation of people who have difficulty resolving political disagreements - not to mention people who hold some rather confused notions of others' religious beliefs and lousy money management skills.
There's still plenty of room for somebody to get a startup together ad make decent money. A lot of the uber-rich, the Henry Fords of our time, (no pun on a recent startup intended...) have been computer science related, but you can find successful new companies that sell anything from plumbing services to underpants to cookies. I'm not disputing that there are parts of the country that are having rough patches or that there aren't real problems and obstacles we can do something about. But I don't think it's significantly worse than in the past couple centuries, either.
As for home ownership as a tool to build wealth - I'd disagree. Home ownership is a tool to get a place to live at a decent price. A house you live in doesn't put money in your pocket while you own it, is a lot of work to cash out, and when you do, your choices are to line up another one immediately and in the same market conditions or go back to being a renter.
I believed eve we agree about over stimulation. The device in your hand is a classic example. We used to get our news carefully filtered and checked for validity
We will simply have to disagree about home ownership. You can use the equity in your home to fund a start up. You can use stability in your home to increase your credit rating. Homeownership does reduce crime as you could potentially lose more than the crime can produce.
Home ownership sets a fixed cost that becomes easier to live with as inflation increases other costs. Home ownership does not need to end in a sale. You can rent your home out and there are companies that specialize in providing you with assistance such as emergency maintenance, qualifying rental candidates, and re-renting to your next tenant.
Home ownership puts you on the inflation elevator not as a victim of inflation. Rent closely follows inflation and demand. Demand increases as home ownership is reduced.
ddavidv said:You can learn a lot from lobsters.
Cannibalisim?
yupididit said:I for one would hate to go back to how the 50's were. Those "good ole days" weren't the same for all of us! LoL
Agree 100% on that one. The "good old days" were horrible in so many ways. Today isn't perfect but it's the best thing we've got!!!
You can raise a kid well while poor but the school the child goes to might be E36 M3ty and have little resources which will lower his opportunities vs well funded schools with great teachers zoned in high middle class/upper class neighborhoods.
YES. We have such a massive class divide in our society that's just completely unrecognized. In our city (Columbus, OH), much like all of the US, there are the urban schools - which are pretty much universally terrible - and the suburban schools. Rich people live in specific suburban neighborhoods to give their kids the benefit of a good primary and secondary education. Schools are funded by property taxes so that's a positive feedback loop for the good schools and a negative one for the bad schools. Parents of kids in bad schools are less involved on average - not just by choice but also because they frequently can't afford to be. Opportunity is so much less but how do we fix it? A living wage would be a help, as would equal funding for all public schools, but how do we accomplish that? I'm in the same boat as everyone, and being wealthier, of course I've moved to a good school district. Am I part of the problem? Well, I'm not going to subject my kids to what happens at the urban schools. Drugs, fighting, distractions, etc. No way! So being aware of it doesn't fix it.
volvoclearinghouse said:
Want to be a millionaire? Here's the trick: Put $250 every week into a retirement account.Wait 30 years.
Absolutely!!
Sorry everyone I'm definitely not stick to the angry people subject.
"What do I do to stay healthy mentally and physically: I don't watch TV and when I do it isn't the news. My internet time is spent on hobbies and education not news or social media. I eat well. I work out. I rent in a nice neighborhood, until I can afford to buy a home that can place me in a neighborhood with good schools for my son. I surround myself with positive people as well as people who have obtained the goals I am seeking and use them as mentors. I treat people well."
Perfect!
volvoclearinghouse said:alfadriver said:volvoclearinghouse said:In reply to frenchyd :
It will never be like the 50's again. There was a lot of low-hanging fruit. Post-WWII, a world to rebuild, and America the only real powerhouse.
That started to change in the 1960's, changed a LOT in the 1970's, and we're still dealing with a lot of those changes today.
The 50's were not that great.
Maybe to your family. But to a huge chunk of the public, the 50's sucked really bad. That's why society generally revolted in the 60's, and that carried into the 70's.
Those things don't happen by accident. They happened due to the pressure cooker not working. Riots don't happen just for the sake of happening.
You're confusing economics with social issues. I was speaking in generalities. I'm not talking about race here because that is a separate issue that I'm not going to discuss.
In general, looking at the decade from 1949-1959, economic growth in this country was impressive. And it was fueled by many factors that do not exist anymore. That's all that I am saying.
Well, in that time period those social issues kept a lot of people in the economic toilets. The poverty of colored Americans in that time frame was shameful at best! It's hardly a separate issue when that issue has perpetuated the anger throughout generations.
1949-1959, the economic growth for the USA was impressive. Again, for some people its wasn't so great. Well, maybe it was better for a good majority of some but not for others. When that wealth and growth was passed down, on the other side that poverty and economic oppression was passed on as well.
A few random thoughts.
Frenchy, blaming the 70,000 page tax code and $1,000 an hour lawyers is one of your oft repeated complaints. I don't see it. As you correctly point out only 25 or 30 pages of tax code applies to most tax payers. The other 69,970 pages are aimed at the 1% bought and paid for by corporate lobbyists. And they're able to pay those lawyers to shield their wealth. And it's pretty much clear 82% of current tax cuts go to the 1%. And the huge deficit coming is gonna hurt the bottom 99%. Chickens gonna come home to roost in next 5 or 10 years.
Home ownersiship not a wealth building investment. Certainly not in today's world. Investments generate income. A home is a liability with some intangible benefits.
The news we ingest today is not news. Whether FOX OR MSNBC it's an echo chamber where people go to hide with people who share their own narrow views. No room for civil discourse on real issues. It's just propaganda and commentary. A myopic circle jerk of narrow views.
There are a lot of different factors that contribute to this entire discussion so what follows is my personal opinion, from my experiences in life. My dad works hard, and has worked hard for many years to be in the financial situation he is in. While certainly not in the 1%, he has a large home, with a large shop and an even bigger yard. He doesn't worry about grocery or gas money. He also worked full time while going to school at night to achieve this. People entering HIS field (same position, same company, etc) will not be able to achieve what he has in that position. No pension plan, different insurance plans, and a difference in pay that would probably be laughable if it wasn't so depressing. What I'm trying to say is that when older generations say, hey look you can go to school and do the same job I do, why aren't you successful?, there is more to it than that. There was a time when you could raise a family comfortably on a single middle class income but that time is long gone. I would almost say it is sort of a caste type system, although I'd be hard pressed to explain that in a way that made sense to most. There are opportunities that are simply not there in today's society if you do not have a good financial foundation. My generation will probably die at work instead of retiring.
alfadriver said:Suprf1y said:In reply to alfadriver :
You're not wrong
But it does not at all explain why people seem to lean toward being angry. I can't really fathom that.
If my memory was better I could tell you why - at least why science thinks it happens. I researched that very topic about a year ago. Unfortunately because of age and a few head injuries I can remember very little. I did save it though, just not where I am today.
yupididit said:The current young folks ("Millennials" I think is what they call us in a derogative way lol) have to deal with astronomical education cost, high home prices, low home availability in areas where the decent paying jobs are (which causes the home prices to go up), and media that bombards us with negative energy 24/7. All with the burden of fixing the social issues created by the generations before us as well as being told we suck and don't do anything right. It can cause a lot of problems mentally. Not living up to expectations, or gaining everything (go to college buy a house) we were told to do in order to be successful and have money and to find out those things bring us massive debt but not so great income instead. I can see how people can become depressed or angry by such things.
This brings to mind a batch of recent folks I've had living at my rental house. They were young ("Millenials", I guess they're called- 20 somethings), have no college education, and were working blue collar jobs. Now, this is in Baltimore, not the highest cost of living but inside of what I call 'The Stupidity Sphere" of D.C. so still higher than the national average.
These young kids, now- they eventually hooked up with good women, got married, and saved some money. They bought houses and moved out of my rental house. I keep in touch with them- the first couple has their first kid, now, and the second is now trying to have one.
Now, there's two more "Millennials" living there, both with working class jobs, no education, but saving all they can. They have one car between them. Not that it matters, but I'll throw this out there, because _someone_ will be thinking it- one of them is black. They even fly an American flag on the front porch of the house.
Anyone who tells me Millennials are lazy and have the deck stacked against them and life is hard should go talk to any of these people.
I disagree with the original premise in that it is difficult today to achieve what Ford did. You see it everywhere if you look. Sure it is not a car company, but look at the huge amount of tech companies and other companies that have formed in the past few decades. One of my duties in my previous jobs was to interview people for the chamber of commerce. Granted I live in a town where tech thrives, but most of those people started with nothing and made it. They did have a few things in common though. They were smart, had an idea, and the hard work and drive to make it a reality. They didn't all start with nothing, but many did. The previous three traits are what brought them to the top. These days its way too easy to point fingers and blame others for failures, but the truth lies mostly within us as to whether we succeed or not. Sure some people have it worse and are disadvantaged, but you know what, that is always going to be the case. Try as we might, you are never, ever going to have a magically even society where everyone is equal. People are not equal. There are plenty that are smarter and more dedicated that myself, and I know that. I don't begrudge those for success when I haven't made it as well as they have. By the same token, I have done better than others. Life is what you make it for the most part.
To the original question, I don't much believe the tax code is to blame here. I tend to lean more towards the destruction of the family, teaching people the value of others and of life, and the onslaught of the media constantly dividing us into groups and creating victims. To me, the best way to feel better is to turn off the news, stay off Facebook and other social media, and get on with your life. Its liberating in fact. The problem is when you're younger, and kids today have no experience before these trends to fall back on, you get way too wrapped up in thinking this is how the world is and the way you solve problems is to blame others and take it out on them.
To a previous post, I certainly do not blame there age group for the problems, in fact, I hate what we have turned the world into. I whole heartedly agree with whoever posted about the constant in your face of all of this. Oh, and last, we never let kids be kids anymore. No more just going outside to play, and when you do, it has to be scheduled. Instead you spend your childhood playing sports on a schedule where everyone gets a trophy (generalizing here of course). It's no wonder we have created some of these people. We need to once again allow kids to be kids, men and women to be men and women, and celebrate what we have in common instead of everyone trying to create armies of others in their own image. In the end, this is the problem. We want whatever group we've been divided into to be the dominate group and all others to be just like us, and we get angry when others are different.
volvoclearinghouse said:alfadriver said:volvoclearinghouse said:In reply to frenchyd :
It will never be like the 50's again. There was a lot of low-hanging fruit. Post-WWII, a world to rebuild, and America the only real powerhouse.
That started to change in the 1960's, changed a LOT in the 1970's, and we're still dealing with a lot of those changes today.
The 50's were not that great.
Maybe to your family. But to a huge chunk of the public, the 50's sucked really bad. That's why society generally revolted in the 60's, and that carried into the 70's.
Those things don't happen by accident. They happened due to the pressure cooker not working. Riots don't happen just for the sake of happening.
You're confusing economics with social issues. I was speaking in generalities. I'm not talking about race here because that is a separate issue that I'm not going to discuss.
In general, looking at the decade from 1949-1959, economic growth in this country was impressive. And it was fueled by many factors that do not exist anymore. That's all that I am saying.
EDIT: And, honestly, that statement (that 'x' time period wasn't great for some people) could be said about literally every time period in history. It's kindof intellectually lazy. Lately, I've heard it used a lot to describe the middle of the 20th century, in fact. Usually in a race (baiting) context.
Same reply. The 50's sucked for a lot of people both socially and economically. Hence the 60's You call it lazy to point it out, then I will call it lazy to think that the era of the 50's is some time period that we should look up to based on the economic benefit for some of the population. Again, the 60's didn't happen by accident. And while race was a big part of the 50-60s issues, you forget that the culture war in the 60s spanned far more than race. Labeling it a "race" issue is the definition of intellectually lazy.
STM317 said:frenchyd said:There is a temptation to blame....
There's your problem right there. It's way easier to try and blame others for shortcomings or strife than it is to realize that we have a role in them too. We all live in the same system. We have equal rights, but that doesn't mean that we all have equal opportunities. Everybody's situation and circumstance is different for a million reasons. Those who are successful are observant of trends, able to plan an alternative, and willing to make a change if necessary. What they tend to avoid, is looking to blame others.
Seems like a lot of words to say "The issue is complicated, but basically you all get what you deserve, so up your game and quit yer bitchin' if you want to get ahead."
Which I can't agree with. This problem actually isn't incredibly complicated, it's not beyond the layperson to understand. It's mainly a tax and labor policy problem that has led to runaway inequality. The solutions aren't all that difficult to find (you can even find them by looking back in history) but are politically difficult to implement.
Runaway tuition costs in higher education are a smaller part of the problem but are actually much more complicated to find solutions for. A large part of it is that the very much necessary accreditation system has effectively allowed a cartel to form which has colluded to enact price-gouging on tuition, which combined with the student loan system has created a "How much does it cost? - How much you got?" situation. That's a properly difficult problem to fix. Get rid of the accreditation system and Harvard has to compete with skeezy predator colleges in an awful race to the bottom that would destroy all higher education in short order. Change the student loan system and you could lock a generation out of higher education as the problem corrects itself. Change nothing and the trend continues.
MazdaFace said:There was a time when you could raise a family comfortably on a single middle class income but that time is long gone. I would almost say it is sort of a caste type system, although I'd be hard pressed to explain that in a way that made sense to most. There are opportunities that are simply not there in today's society if you do not have a good financial foundation. My generation will probably die at work instead of retiring.
Bull Plop. The majority of the people we know our age with kids have a single middle class earner household. There are opportunities out there. Life has always been unfair, and there's always been a caste system. Doesn't mean that failure is inevitable though, not by a long shot.
In the 1960's, the median age was 68. Retirement happened at 65. So, on average, folks lived 3 years after they finished working before they kicked off. This concept of a 20 year long vacation at he end of a life of working is a very modern construct, and I'd argue it's not a guarantee, but a goal.
alfadriver said:volvoclearinghouse said:alfadriver said:volvoclearinghouse said:In reply to frenchyd :
It will never be like the 50's again. There was a lot of low-hanging fruit. Post-WWII, a world to rebuild, and America the only real powerhouse.
That started to change in the 1960's, changed a LOT in the 1970's, and we're still dealing with a lot of those changes today.
The 50's were not that great.
Maybe to your family. But to a huge chunk of the public, the 50's sucked really bad. That's why society generally revolted in the 60's, and that carried into the 70's.
Those things don't happen by accident. They happened due to the pressure cooker not working. Riots don't happen just for the sake of happening.
You're confusing economics with social issues. I was speaking in generalities. I'm not talking about race here because that is a separate issue that I'm not going to discuss.
In general, looking at the decade from 1949-1959, economic growth in this country was impressive. And it was fueled by many factors that do not exist anymore. That's all that I am saying.
EDIT: And, honestly, that statement (that 'x' time period wasn't great for some people) could be said about literally every time period in history. It's kindof intellectually lazy. Lately, I've heard it used a lot to describe the middle of the 20th century, in fact. Usually in a race (baiting) context.
Same reply. The 50's sucked for a lot of people both socially and economically. Hence the 60's You call it lazy to point it out, then I will call it lazy to think that the era of the 50's is some time period that we should look up to based on the economic benefit for some of the population. Again, the 60's didn't happen by accident. And while race was a big part of the 50-60s issues, you forget that the culture war in the 60s spanned far more than race. Labeling it a "race" issue is the definition of intellectually lazy.
I actually wasn't even pointing out the 50's as some sort of idealized time period we ought to look up to. My orignal point (now lost, apparently) was that the situation surrounding the 1950's will never be around again, so we have to do what we can with what we now have.
And, yeah, race was a BIG part of the 50's-60's issues. I'd argue the majority of it. The Great Society was an attempt to fix mostly race problems, though the results of that have been, by all accounts, mixed at best.
Jesus said it best, the Beatles repeated it: “all we need is Love.”
fyi- bible predicted people like this. A LOOOOONNNNG time ago. Read 2 Timothy 3, verses 1-5. Let me know what you think about what you read. It might be easier to read it from a more updated bible. The King James is like reading Shakespeare.
In reply to Trackmouse :
I am finishing up teaching 2 Timothy again, so I know it well. I'll add in this from Jesus, Matthew 24:12 "And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold."
Trackmouse said:Jesus said it best, the Beatles repeated it: “all we need is Love.”
fyi- bible predicted people like this. A LOOOOONNNNG time ago. Read 2 Timothy 3, verses 1-5. Let me know what you think about what you read. It might be easier to read it from a more updated bible. The King James is like reading Shakespeare.
IBTL
You'll need to log in to post.
