MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: mu03eng on June 21, 2018, 10:59:22 AM
-
Came across this article on the Ringer that was very thought provoking.
https://www.theringer.com/pop-culture/2018/6/21/17487974/millennials-meaning-age-young-old (https://www.theringer.com/pop-culture/2018/6/21/17487974/millennials-meaning-age-young-old)
One of the thoughts that this article crystallized in my thinking is how much millennials (broad generalization alert) view life as happening to them vs them shaping/controlling their own destiny. I'm millennial adjacent as a proud member of the Oregon Trail generation, between millenials and the Oregon Trail gens we should be at the height of our economic, social, and political power but we don't act that way. Yes, I get that there is a ton of money/power trapped in the boomer generation (look at the average age of the 3 branches of the federal government and state governors) but that doesn't mean the generations below it can't wrestle control away to shape our own destiny but right now it feels more like a bunch of voices shouting in the dark as opposed to a generation that clearly sees problems in society and make a concerted effort to change it.
One of the most telling lines in the article was the reference to baby boomers "lucking" into middle class life. I can't even conceive of how such a thought is rational, any more than millenials are "lucky" to have all the technology we currently enjoy as a society.
At the end of the day I think this represents a very interesting intersection of generational power shift, death throws of tribalism, and the search for a larger meaning in life.
Thoughts?
-
Really interesting stuff mu03, thanks for posting. Within the article there is a link to a HuffPo article that was well worth the time to read.
I agree with your summary, Millennials should be started to flex their generational muscle, but they aren't. What struck me in both articles was a sense of helplessness. While I don't disagree that Gen Y has been screwed economically, they should be fighting to make changes, but in general they are not.
I contrast this with my own Gen Z/iGen kids. Now, maybe they are simply ignorant of the economic train coming down tracks at them, but they operate very differently. They are of the same general age as the Parkland kids, and like them when they encounter a problem they don't spend any time figuring out all the reasons something can't be done or won't work, they just pragmatically charge in together and start working on how it can be done. Employers can't wait for this generation to hit the workforce.
The HuffPo article does a nice job documenting the reasons things got they way they are, and at the end talks about various solutions. But they aren't going to happen until Millennials actually wrest control away from Boomers by voting. Once again the article explains the barriers intentionally put in the way to prevent them from voting, but I again get this sense of helplessness (excuses?) instead of energy around actually making it happen.
And lastly, these are two articles that mention Gen Y, Gen Z, Boomer, and even The Greatest Generation. As always, us Gen Xers are completely ignored!
-
I agree with your summary, Millennials should be started to flex their generational muscle, but they aren't. What struck me in both articles was a sense of helplessness. While I don't disagree that Gen Y has been screwed economically, they should be fighting to make changes, but in general they are not.
I thought you're whole post was great, but this section really captured what I was trying to say in like 1 word....hopelessness. Whether it's the ease which millenials give up in the workforce when the first try doesn't work or the way the article throws up it's hands about all the terribleness that generation faces, it seems to come down to a sense that their helpless in the situation.
It's almost as if that generation was never taught the serenity prayer.
-
Every once in a while I find a solid millennial, who is willing to take the bull by the horns and not be a slacker. I immediately make them a job offer, no matter what position is available in our company. I am taking the Dallas Cowboys best athlete available draft approach. That is my way of dealing with this age group. Once they are on board I have to give them a very clear career path as they don't understand it any other way.
I am sympathetic to the millennial, as they are the first group since the Great Depression that has generally not done better than their parents. My generation was full of helicopter parents who, although well intended, made things worse for these people .
I do have great hopes for the current group of young people who seem to be a bit more engaged and willing to work hard.
-
I just invested a pretty good chunk of my day to reading both the piece mu03's OP linked, and the HuffPo piece that was linked within that.
Interesting stuff, mostly depressing, but not all.
I know the stats are the stats are the stats - and they are both eye-opening and sad - but I can't help but look at my own history and situation.
I graduated MU in '82 - as folks mighta guessed - and there was a nasty recession going on. Jobs were scarce. I don't have the exact numbers, but out of something like 125-150 kids who graduated from MU's Journalism school that year, only about a half-dozen of us got jobs in the field. I was one of the lucky half-dozen. I went on to live a decent, middle-class life ... though when I accepted a job transfer to Chicago in the mid-'90s, we found that housing was so expensive that my wife (who had been a stay-at-home mom when we lived in the Twin Cities) had to go back to work.
We have two kids. They are now 31 and 30 - smack dab in the middle of the Millennial generation. We were attentive parents but not hoverers - especially not me, as I traveled quite a bit for work. Our kids had "stuff," but not a lot compared to their peers. They spent most of their childhoods living in a 3-BR, 1-BA, 1400 SF Chicago bungalow with a tiny yard and a leaky basement. The 4 of us shared an 8x8 bathroom. None of us were "entitled" to more, certainly not the kids. They walked or took the train everywhere. We did help both with college - and are still helping our youngest, who flunked out of Illinois after one year of partying, finally got his shyte together, and now is at DePaul working on an accounting degree. He is going to school part-time while he works full-time in a job that pays him in the $30s.
Both kids recently married. The oldest married a sharp guy who works for Microsoft. He makes a very nice living. They just bought their first house - in Seattle, which amazingly is even more expensive than Chicago. Their Millennial friends are gainfully employed and most have houses. My youngest is still probably a year or 3 away from getting a house; gotta get that degree and a better-paying job first. His wife is a teacher in Northbrook; she makes the reverse commute from their overpriced North Side apartment. None of their friends live with their parents.
All of this is to say that I still feel there is a lot of generalization going on. The Millennials I know are willing to put in the effort to have middle-class (or better) lives. Some have advantages I didn't coming out of college, many have it worse though. My kids certainly had the advantage of being white and middle class when they were born; because they went to Chicago public schools, they have many friends of color who didn't have the first advantage.
As depressing as that HuffPo piece was, I agree with the semi-hopeful conclusion. As Millennials mature and become the dominant generation numbers-wise, they can affect change if they make the effort to do so.
As the primaries approached in NC this spring, I helped get Millennials registered and also gave rides to the polls to elderly folks. I plan to do the same in November. There are other ways "Olds" like me can help make the world better for our kids' generation, too, and a lot of us are trying. We shouldn't be labeled, either!
-
All of this is to say that I still feel there is a lot of generalization going on.
This.
My brothers and I are all boomers, and our lives took us to opposite ends of the socioeconomic spectrum. I have a lot of the characteristics of a "typical" boomer, but my brothers look like boomers only in age. While things worked out fine for me, I'm guessing they would strongly disagree that they were really lucky to have been born when they were.
Both of my daughters are millennials. While they share a sense of helplessness, they address it very differently. One looks at the helplessness and dire economic outlooks and uses them as motivation to stay at the top of the millennial class. The other needs encouragement to get things done, and views every setback at catastrophic. In the end, they're both bright hardworking kids who will likely do fine, just via different paths.
-
MU82,
A take away from the articles that I had was also that two-thirds of Gen Y didn't go to college. I think that is the segment that is really in trouble. At least a college degree gives you a semblance of a chance to get a good job, but otherwise it is very difficult to make enough to live on much less save.
The middle class has been hollowed out in part because there simply aren't the great middle class union jobs available to people without degrees anymore, at least not in sufficient numbers. Part is the relentless drive towards corporate profits, part is technology. There was a discussion on the board awhile back about whether technology creates or destroys jobs, but for the still-large non-college educated segment I think there is no question it has eliminated a great many good paying jobs.
I'm not too worried about my kids who are incredibly advantaged, but I think it portends major upheavals for society in the future.
-
One of the most telling lines in the article was the reference to baby boomers "lucking" into middle class life. I can't even conceive of how such a thought is rational, any more than millenials are "lucky" to have all the technology we currently enjoy as a society.
The economic prosperity that virtually ensured a middle-class life for Boomers began - like the Boomers themselves - with the end of WWII.
Think about it... in 1946, Russia, Japan and China were decimated. Europe was obliterated. Factories bombed, industry in turmoil, swaths of infrastructure reduced to rubble. Not to mention, millions of working-age people - from combat, collateral, executions, or otherwise - dead. Then there's America (and to a lesser extent, Canada). Although over 400,000 young, American men (and women) in their prime perished in battle, U.S. soil was virtually untouched by the destruction of WWII. Moreover, in response to the war, US industry went from a modest two-cycle engine to a turbo-charged jet engine in just a few short years.
In other words, in 1946, not only was the US the only superpower that had more industrial capacity than it did before the war, there was an entire continent that needed to be rebuilt. So not only has demand for everything in the world skyrocketed, but there's hardly anyone left to compete with the U.S. Remember when the hurricane wiped out all the other shrimpin' boats in Forrest Gump? Forrest and Lt. Dan were the U.S. in that story, the rest of the world were the shattered remains of all the other boats.
Millennial "luck" is better defined as the hard work and innovation of the generations before them. I'm sure the grandparents were talking about how lucky the kids were when the Atari hit the stores, or telephone came along, or when the wheel was invented, or when some guy from Nazareth finally opened the gates of heaven.
But to have your generation fall backwards into economic prosperity because your country was relatively unscathed in a war where upwards of 100 million people around the world lost their lives... I'll challenge anyone to present a better example of "luck."
-
But to have your generation fall backwards into economic prosperity because your country was relatively unscathed in a war where upwards of 100 million people around the world lost their lives... I'll challenge anyone to present a better example of "luck."
This.
Yet so many boomers either don't understand their situation or don't want to attribute their success to a coincidental time/set of circumstances.
Then they turn around and admonish millennials for not working hard enough or being snowflakes or not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.
BS
You'd see a much different situation today if corporate/private interests didn't concentrate wealth/power at the top. And if incomes/benefits and costs were comparable today as they were then
-
Every once in a while I find a solid millennial, who is willing to take the bull by the horns and not be a slacker. I immediately make them a job offer, no matter what position is available in our company. I am taking the Dallas Cowboys best athlete available draft approach. That is my way of dealing with this age group. Once they are on board I have to give them a very clear career path as they don't understand it any other way.
I am sympathetic to the millennial, as they are the first group since the Great Depression that has generally not done better than their parents. My generation was full of helicopter parents who, although well intended, made things worse for these people .
I do have great hopes for the current group of young people who seem to be a bit more engaged and willing to work hard.
Is this intended to be satirical?
-
MU82,
A take away from the articles that I had was also that two-thirds of Gen Y didn't go to college. I think that is the segment that is really in trouble. At least a college degree gives you a semblance of a chance to get a good job, but otherwise it is very difficult to make enough to live on much less save.
The middle class has been hollowed out in part because there simply aren't the great middle class union jobs available to people without degrees anymore, at least not in sufficient numbers. Part is the relentless drive towards corporate profits, part is technology. There was a discussion on the board awhile back about whether technology creates or destroys jobs, but for the still-large non-college educated segment I think there is no question it has eliminated a great many good paying jobs.
I'm not too worried about my kids who are incredibly advantaged, but I think it portends major upheavals for society in the future.
I think one thing we have to be careful about is what we classify as non-college educated. If you are talking high school only, I 100% agree. If you are including trade school/tech school/associate degree/etc in that I very much disagree.
I see it every day, companies are begging for people in IT/OT infrastructure space...they can't use engineers because they are too overqualified/expensive, but this stuff isn't plug and play either so you gotta have more than a high school education to do the job(until we get off our ass and design curriculum for the 21st century - replace shops class with networking class).
Every one of my friends that are in the trades are doing great (electricians, plumbers, steamfitters, etc) as well and tell me all the time how their company is looking for young folks to hire.
All of this is anecdotal of course, but I don't think things are as hopeless as we make it out to be.
-
The economic prosperity that virtually ensured a middle-class life for Boomers began - like the Boomers themselves - with the end of WWII.
Think about it... in 1946, Russia, Japan and China were decimated. Europe was obliterated. Factories bombed, industry in turmoil, swaths of infrastructure reduced to rubble. Not to mention, millions of working-age people - from combat, collateral, executions, or otherwise - dead. Then there's America (and to a lesser extent, Canada). Although over 400,000 young, American men (and women) in their prime perished in battle, U.S. soil was virtually untouched by the destruction of WWII. Moreover, in response to the war, US industry went from a modest two-cycle engine to a turbo-charged jet engine in just a few short years.
In other words, in 1946, not only was the US the only superpower that had more industrial capacity than it did before the war, there was an entire continent that needed to be rebuilt. So not only has demand for everything in the world skyrocketed, but there's hardly anyone left to compete with the U.S. Remember when the hurricane wiped out all the other shrimpin' boats in Forrest Gump? Forrest and Lt. Dan were the U.S. in that story, the rest of the world were the shattered remains of all the other boats.
Millennial "luck" is better defined as the hard work and innovation of the generations before them. I'm sure the grandparents were talking about how lucky the kids were when the Atari hit the stores, or telephone came along, or when the wheel was invented, or when some guy from Nazareth finally opened the gates of heaven.
But to have your generation fall backwards into economic prosperity because your country was relatively unscathed in a war where upwards of 100 million people around the world lost their lives... I'll challenge anyone to present a better example of "luck."
I guess the Boomers got lucky with all the dysfunction that came with their parents having to survive the great depression AND WWII that imprinted on them in all sorts of negative ways.
If you're gonna blame boomers for anything(and they should be blamed) its not for lucking into the middle class, it's for their complete selfishness that failed to pass that forward to future generations.
-
It's almost as if that generation was never taught the serenity prayer.
Yo
-
I think one thing we have to be careful about is what we classify as non-college educated. If you are talking high school only, I 100% agree. If you are including trade school/tech school/associate degree/etc in that I very much disagree.
Yes, you are right, and it is an important distinction.
-
Yo
I thought of you when I typed that but figured you'd see the bat signal ;D
-
Is this intended to be satirical?
No. Just hired a millennial yesterday at a good 6 figure salary. The young man demonstrated the drive and staying power necessary to compete.Loved his work ethic so we created a new position which we believe will allow him to best utilize his talents. We hired him with the intention of someday being a division President.
We are open to hire young people with drive to compete and have a mindset that sees opportunities and is willing to develop them.
-
One element I find interesting, is I think a lot of negative perception of Millennials comes from the same cognitive biases that apply to discussions of current versus past athletes. Much as today, everything from off the court/field troubles, to mood swings, to trouble with the media is amplified because of the internet, and social media, and over-availability of information, the Millennials were the first generation to truly begin to grow up in an environment where not only was much of what they did and were doing readily available for all to see, but there were tons of outlets for thinkpieces and studies and opinions on what was "wrong" with them. This isn't to say the Millennials are unfairly persecuted, but its a different landscape.
My other belief is the prior generations are very slow to adapt or realize that playing fields move and adjust. That manifests itself in many ways, but expecting the same behavior or actions to yield the exact same result as it did 30 years ago is both flawed and extremely unfair. Hell, I once had someone explain to me a bunch of personal finance advice, along the lines of how they sacrificed a higher salary to pursue something they were passionate about, and the lower salary they accepted was only about $5-7K less than my first position out of college...about 25 years earlier. Millennials were also taught that HS->College->well paying job. Suddenly millennials with college degrees in less than ideal jobs or no jobs became "slackers" or "unwilling to work", ignoring that the college degree was now a pre-req, not a bonus, and the percentage of the population holding one had tripled over the last 20-30 years. I tried to get into finance as a psychology major (finance minor, coursework and research in behavioral finance with multiple professors in undergrad) in 2008 and had trouble getting a callback, cause I wasnt econ or STEM. Meanwhile, the 4-5 people I received advice or mentorship in the field from had degrees ranging from history, to english, to philosophy. It was just a different world.
Finally, for the Herman's of the world. Don't even know where to begin, but I'm reminded of a conversation I had at a Marquette alumni event in Chicago about 7 years ago. Seated at a table with a coworker of mine from the ad agency we both worked at. Speaking to an older businessman around 60. Discussing out backgrounds, he praised my coworker who had been with the agency since she graduated, said something about dedication and perseverance. At the time, I had been with the agency for about 9 months, but it was my 3rd role out of school. He looked at me like I was on prison work release, and then said something about my generation doesn't like hard work, leaves jobs when things get difficult, and my resume would be a major red flag to him and anyone who worked for him. I explained that I graduated in 2008, right when things got dicey, and within 2 years, my entire starting/training class at my first job had been let go, and then my second job, the trading firm that I worked at closed its doors completely, and let all of us go. I kid you not, his response wasn't one of understanding or apology, but rather that I clearly hadn't proven myself or my value, and if I had someone would have snapped me right up. I was beyond taken aback. If you're looking for someone to mirror the exact traits and experiences of yourself in a wildly different situation, in order to deem them "successful" or motivated or hard working, its going to lead to very cynical and judgmental outcomes.
-
No. Just hired a millennial yesterday at a good 6 figure salary. The young man demonstrated the drive and staying power necessary to compete.Loved his work ethic so we created a new position which we believe will allow him to best utilize his talents. We hired him with the intention of someday being a division President.
We are open to hire young people with drive to compete and have a mindset that sees opportunities and is willing to develop them.
Cool, you can put him to work creating alt IDs in order to agree with your posts, so that you don't have to. Right, Gus?
-
Finally, for the Herman's of the world. Don't even know where to begin, but I'm reminded of a conversation I had at a Marquette alumni event in Chicago about 7 years ago. Seated at a table with a coworker of mine from the ad agency we both worked at. Speaking to an older businessman around 60. Discussing out backgrounds, he praised my coworker who had been with the agency since she graduated, said something about dedication and perseverance. At the time, I had been with the agency for about 9 months, but it was my 3rd role out of school. He looked at me like I was on prison work release, and then said something about my generation doesn't like hard work, leaves jobs when things get difficult, and my resume would be a major red flag to him and anyone who worked for him. I explained that I graduated in 2008, right when things got dicey, and within 2 years, my entire starting/training class at my first job had been let go, and then my second job, the trading firm that I worked at closed its doors completely, and let all of us go. I kid you not, his response wasn't one of understanding or apology, but rather that I clearly hadn't proven myself or my value, and if I had someone would have snapped me right up. I was beyond taken aback. If you're looking for someone to mirror the exact traits and experiences of yourself in a wildly different situation, in order to deem them "successful" or motivated or hard working, its going to lead to very cynical and judgmental outcomes.
How about the fact that that 60 year probably did actually work at 1 or 2 post-graduation jobs his entire career and was continuously rewarded with bonuses, raises, promotions, etc because of his loyalty and perseverance. Yet, his generation also created a job environment where millennials are only making significant gains in salary/compensation by jumping companies routinely. Sticking at one company is no longer in one's best interest and the older generation made it so. They want to admonish those who lack "loyalty", but will cut an employee at the drop of a hat if they can lower their costs and make the company more money. Or, my favorite, asking an employee to take on more responsibility/requirements without any increase in compensation or benefits "for the good of the organization" or because "we're like a family."
-
I guess the Boomers got lucky with all the dysfunction that came with their parents having to survive the great depression AND WWII that imprinted on them in all sorts of negative ways.
If you're gonna blame boomers for anything(and they should be blamed) its not for lucking into the middle class, it's for their complete selfishness that failed to pass that forward to future generations.
Please stop! I'm a boomer. First in my family to graduate college which my parents paid. I paid for my daughters college education and took out a 100K 529 for my grand daughter. My grand parents paid for my parents home which they repaid to my grandparents. My parents did the same for me and we did the same for my daughter. Our family through the generations of hard work and savings never had to go to a bank for a loan as we passed it forward. The secret instilled to us by my grandfather was always live below your means of income.
-
Please stop! I'm a boomer. First in my family to graduate college which my parents paid. I paid for my daughters college education and took out a 100K 529 for my grand daughter. My grand parents paid for my parents home which they repaid to my grandparents. My parents did the same for me and we did the same for my daughter. Our family through the generations of hard work and savings never had to go to a bank for a loan as we passed it forward. The secret instilled to us by my grandfather was always live below your means of income.
Your anecdote, while commendable, doesn't extend universally. You only have to look at all the boomers who wanted to institute so many social programs and provide government support for themselves (and highly benefit from them) and now want to halt those same programs for future generations to understand that.
-
Your anecdote, while commendable, doesn't extend universally. You only have to look at all the boomers who wanted to institute so many social programs and provide government support for themselves (and highly benefit from them) and now want to halt those same programs for future generations to understand that.
Not only that, but continued to cut taxes for themselves while they hit high income years shorting the funding for those programs when they took control knowing full well that Gen X doesn't have the same amount of workers to support them. Boomers are by far the most selfish generation ever. I mean they essentially accelerated global environmental damage while profiting from it only to hope that future generations can hopefully solve it.
-
Your anecdote, while commendable, doesn't extend universally. You only have to look at all the boomers who wanted to institute so many social programs and provide government support for themselves (and highly benefit from them) and now want to halt those same programs for future generations to understand that.
Wait, 85% of my SS is subject to income tax. I'm being taxed on the tax I already paid. I calculated that I would have to live to the age of 77 before I start receiving more that I put in. I also pay 105 per month for medicare and that will be going up. I agree these entitlements are not sustainable at present payouts. As a boomer I would gladly give up the COL allowance to my SS if it were not taxed. Having said all that, try to get a current politician (mostly democrats) to fix this crisis and restructure SS so it is vialble for your generation as well as my grand daughters you so rightly say is next to naught. Sorry to say your generation and my grand daughters' is going to be stuck with the bill and if I live as long as my dad (92) I could see a decrease in my SS check..
-
Not only that, but continued to cut taxes for themselves while they hit high income years shorting the funding for those programs when they took control knowing full well that Gen X doesn't have the same amount of workers to support them. Boomers are by far the most selfish generation ever. I mean they essentially accelerated global environmental damage while profiting from it only to hope that future generations can hopefully solve it.
Yup. And without even bringing up climate change... You only have to look at the likes of the Dupont family and Koch brothers and their crusade against things like the clean air act and clean water act simply because those things made the companies spend more than they wanted to protect the public.
-
Wait, 85% of my SS is subject to income tax. I'm being taxed on the tax I already paid. I calculated that I would have to live to the age of 77 before I start receiving more that I put in. I also pay 105 per month for medicare and that will be going up. I agree these entitlements are not sustainable at present payouts. As a boomer I would gladly give up the COL allowance to my SS if it were not taxed. Having said all that, try to get a current politician (mostly democrats) to fix this crisis and restructure SS so it is vialble for your generation as well as my grand daughters you so rightly say is next to naught. Sorry to say your generation and my grand daughters' is going to be stuck with the bill and if I live as long as my dad (92) I could see a decrease in my SS check..
Okay. Well, that sure covers everything boomers benefitted from... ::)
-
How about the fact that that 60 year probably did actually work at 1 or 2 post-graduation jobs his entire career and was continuously rewarded with bonuses, raises, promotions, etc because of his loyalty and perseverance. Yet, his generation also created a job environment where millennials are only making significant gains in salary/compensation by jumping companies routinely. Sticking at one company is no longer in one's best interest and the older generation made it so. They want to admonish those who lack "loyalty", but will cut an employee at the drop of a hat if they can lower their costs and make the company more money. Or, my favorite, asking an employee to take on more responsibility/requirements without any increase in compensation or benefits "for the good of the organization" or because "we're like a family."
As a member of that aging group you guys I don't believe are properly putting everything in context. You have some parts right, but you are coming at it from a POV of not having lived 60+ years, so it is a somewhat biased view.
1) Yes, there is some luck involved in all things in life and baby boomers (which I am one, born between '46 and '64) avoided some of the attrocities our parents had to go through, depending on when you were born in that 18 year period. Some went to Vietnam, many of us were too young or right on the cusp.
2) The cost of society has changed. A millenial from day one has been in a system with health care, family leave, longer vacations, etc. When my kids were born I was allowed to take that day off and back in the office the next day. It is wonderful what people receive today, but it comes at a cost, too. Those costs often burdened by companies that didn't have that burden years ago, not to the degree they do now. As a result you can either try to grow your way into paying for it, or cost cutting, or both.
3) Technology has cometh and will taketh. For the other old farts here, they can give a hell yeah. We used slide rules, it was a luxury to have a 10 key calculator and a PC, are you kidding me? They didn't exist. Pre spreadsheet days. What a nightmare. Impossible to sort, checking every calculation multiple times, footing everything. The amount of productivity improved by the spreadsheet alone is impossible to comprehend in resources and speed. That means some sectors don't need to quantity of folks like they used to.
4) Health and population growth. People are living longer than their parents, and as a result they need to work longer. That means fewer opportunities for advancement from younger workers. My children are in the same boat. Only one left in college, but they will have to battle it out for many years in some industries unless they choose to work for themselves.
5) Two people in the workforce. This one pains me because I'm conflicted. I'm 100% for women's rights and the ability to do anything and everything, but to ignore what the ramifications are to society is foolhardy. More people working has helped to accelerate the cost of living because families have more money. Look at the costs of housing, cars, and other big family items before and after the gender revolution into the workplace. It has made it almost impossible for a family to have one parent stay home to survive economically. For those that want to have a parent stay home, that choice is out of reach for most which is a shame but it is a result of purchase power built from two person working families.
6) Truth be told, back in my day we had gloom and doom scenarios, too. People saying they were screwed or had little opportunities. We didn't have any of the technology growth that is exploding today at a daily rate. Our job prospects were limited to a large degree.
Time to put one's head down, work hard, take risks, get noticed and maybe even do it yourself. Not everyone is going to be rich, but there are enormous opportunities out there.
-
Please stop! I'm a boomer. First in my family to graduate college which my parents paid. I paid for my daughters college education and took out a 100K 529 for my grand daughter. My grand parents paid for my parents home which they repaid to my grandparents. My parents did the same for me and we did the same for my daughter. Our family through the generations of hard work and savings never had to go to a bank for a loan as we passed it forward. The secret instilled to us by my grandfather was always live below your means of income.
Amen brother warrior. What MUEng and others fail to recognize here is that we have given and given and given throughout. Three kids put through college at enormous expense. Cars for them, helping with down payments. I got none of that stuff. Sometimes I feel people just want us to die sooner so they can get their hands on the money, but they don't factor in the cost of our healthcare is many times more expensive or the reality that we are going to live much longer than previous generations. So our generosity is there, but we also have to pay for us to stay around. Sadly, I'm guessing some hope we stop doing that sooner rather than later.
-
Despite having gone through some adversity (as most have), I fully admit to being lucky. If I ever write my autobiography, "Lucky" will be somewhere in the title. I was lucky to get the job I did out of college, lucky to have things (mostly) fall in place in my career, lucky to marry who I did, lucky to have the kids we had, lucky to be born white and middle-class, lucky to never really want for anything (even if I rarely had "luxuries"). I like to think I've given back, but I probably could do more.
I sometimes am frustrated by the actions of my fellow boomers, but quite often very proud. I sometimes am frustrated by the actions of Millennials, but I see a lot of amazing accomplishments by them, too.
I'm just not going to get into the blame game. There is plenty of blame to go around ... and plenty of credit that needs to be handed out, too.
-
Over half expect to be millionaires. Listen, this is the most educated generation in the history of the earth. The Greatest Generation brought in the Industrial Age 2. The Boomers brought in the Information Age. The Millennials are bringing the Age of Artificial Intelligence. All three had a rough start. All three will significantly change the world for the better.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5835419/amp/More-half-Millennials-expect-millionaires-someday-according-new-study.html
-
Amen brother warrior. What MUEng and others fail to recognize here is that we have given and given and given throughout. Three kids put through college at enormous expense. Cars for them, helping with down payments. I got none of that stuff. Sometimes I feel people just want us to die sooner so they can get their hands on the money, but they don't factor in the cost of our healthcare is many times more expensive or the reality that we are going to live much longer than previous generations. So our generosity is there, but we also have to pay for us to stay around. Sadly, I'm guessing some hope we stop doing that sooner rather than later.
Listen, my parents are boomers and yes they absolutely sacrificed (both served voluntarily in the military at a time when it was extremely unpopular to do so) and given to others and to their kids. There is no doubting that there are plenty of stories of boomers as individuals and as groups being selfless. However, as a collective generation the choices the boomers made socially, politically, and economically has created a selfish concentration of power and wealth while pushing down to future generations a butcher's bill that's gonna come due sooner or later. And this is another application of Hanlon's Razor, I don't think the boomer generation is evil or was Machiavellian when I call them selfish, simply that as a group their most important choices were to benefit themselves to the exclusion of other generations.
-
Despite having gone through some adversity (as most have), I fully admit to being lucky. If I ever write my autobiography, "Lucky" will be somewhere in the title. I was lucky to get the job I did out of college, lucky to have things (mostly) fall in place in my career, lucky to marry who I did, lucky to have the kids we had, lucky to be born white and middle-class, lucky to never really want for anything (even if I rarely had "luxuries"). I like to think I've given back, but I probably could do more.
I sometimes am frustrated by the actions of my fellow boomers, but quite often very proud. I sometimes am frustrated by the actions of Millennials, but I see a lot of amazing accomplishments by them, too.
I'm just not going to get into the blame game. There is plenty of blame to go around ... and plenty of credit that needs to be handed out, too.
It's an interesting discussion point to be sure. I absolutely get what you are saying but I don't know how much I view stuff as luck and how much I view it as taking advantage of the things you have. Take your job out of college, were you lucky or did you position yourself through education, experience, and other skills to be able make that job happen for yourself? I got a great job out of college(that I had to quit and then got another great one), I suppose it could be lucky but I also know I worked damn hard and put together all the things I needed to earn that job. For me (this isn't a value judgement just trying to explain my world view) I view the idea that people are lucky to be this idea that somehow things are out of your control or you didn't earn that. It feels like a different side of the "it's in God's hands" coin. There are absolutely things outside of our control but c'est la vie. I mean, I'm lucky that my dad came back from some stuff that some of the folks he flew with didn't, but by the same token other people didn't have to experience as a kid the knowledge that when their dad walked out the door in his flight suit he might not walk back in the door. It's this idea that life is outside of "my control" that I just don't want to accept because it feels easy to me to simply say oh well wasn't lucky enough to get that. I don't owe it to people to help out the less fortunate because I'm lucky....I owe it to them because that's part of making a better society and it's fulfilling.
At the end of the day with this generalization stuff, I don't want it to come off as blame at all. I think it's important to try to understand perspectives and past experiences, otherwise time is a flat circle.
-
Having said all that, try to get a current politician (mostly democrats) to fix this crisis and restructure SS so it is vialble for your generation as well as my grand daughters you so rightly say is next to naught.
Yes, since Democrats currently occupy the White House, control both branches of Congress, and have a majority of the Supreme Court I don't understand why they don't get this fixed!
-
Can we just not go the left/right political route in this thread that gets it canned?
Regardless of party, there is no will to actually fix SS for future generations because it would require current sacrifice and that's not on the table.
-
Really interesting stuff mu03, thanks for posting. Within the article there is a link to a HuffPo article that was well worth the time to read.
I agree with your summary, Millennials should be started to flex their generational muscle, but they aren't. What struck me in both articles was a sense of helplessness. While I don't disagree that Gen Y has been screwed economically, they should be fighting to make changes, but in general they are not.
I contrast this with my own Gen Z/iGen kids. Now, maybe they are simply ignorant of the economic train coming down tracks at them, but they operate very differently. They are of the same general age as the Parkland kids, and like them when they encounter a problem they don't spend any time figuring out all the reasons something can't be done or won't work, they just pragmatically charge in together and start working on how it can be done. Employers can't wait for this generation to hit the workforce.
The HuffPo article does a nice job documenting the reasons things got they way they are, and at the end talks about various solutions. But they aren't going to happen until Millennials actually wrest control away from Boomers by voting. Once again the article explains the barriers intentionally put in the way to prevent them from voting, but I again get this sense of helplessness (excuses?) instead of energy around actually making it happen.
And lastly, these are two articles that mention Gen Y, Gen Z, Boomer, and even The Greatest Generation. As always, us Gen Xers are completely ignored!
My kids are Gen Z and I see it. They are all connected on Instagram or text groups and if something goes on they all know, they're all connected and they fix in unison.
As Gen X, I always felt we were squeezed by the Boomers above us and the Millennials below us. We try to pull the Millennials up at the same time we're trying to change the Boomers and/or keep them from going off the rails. And both generations seem to outnumber us on top of it.
Both comments are generalizations too.
-
My kids are Gen Z and I see it. They are all connected on Instagram or text groups and if something goes on they all know, they're all connected and they fix in unison.
As Gen X, I always felt we were squeezed by the Boomers above us and the Millennials below us. We try to pull the Millennials up at the same time we're trying to change the Boomers and/or keep them from going off the rails. And both generations seem to outnumber us on top of it.
Both comments are generalizations too.
I absolutely see that as well.
-
https://www.citylab.com/life/2015/03/baby-boomers-were-job-hopping-before-it-was-cool/389207/
Yeah, about the notion that millennials are excessive job-hoppers/not loyal. Boomers started the job hopping trend, it was just so long ago that they might have forgot? They are getting up there in age after all ;)
By age 34 the average boomer had 10.9 different jobs. Not much difference to millennials today (and my experience). The difference is the economies for both. As somebody stated earlier, the only way to get decent increases over the last 10 years has been to switch companies. Back in the late boomer eras hourly increases went up an average of 6.2% per year, and those with bachelors degrees increased by 9.4% annually for those between 18-24. Millennials lived through the worst economic situation in our country since the great depression and the average wealth of boomers vs millennials showed that as boomers, on average, were 7% higher. With those average annual increases boomers did not have to jump companies to get ahead financially, unfortunately millennials do not have that luxury.
Now, new chicos mentioned the costs of companies and all the extra fringe benefits that are not being offered. Those are great, and definitely an added benefit that boomers did not have. He is also right that they do come with costs, but organizations have been forced to offer those now because they fostered an environment where millennials had no reason to be loyal to one company. The elimination of pension benefits, the stagnate salaries, general slashing/trimming of other benefits like vacation and sick leave (lower level jobs typically). The boomers leading their organizations during those times had one thing on mind, slashing costs to increase profit margins for short term stock bumps. I know it is the CEO's job to create value for their shareholders, but those tactics were all short sighted. I would argue that they did not see the long term impact of the true cost of employee turnover and the culture it has created among the largest working population in the US today. So yes, the do offer those benefits, but that is only because the true cost of turnover is greater than the cost of those extra benefits they dole out now. The second that stops you will see those benefits disappear.
This is not meant to bash boomers, it is really just a long winded way of saying it does not matter what generation you are part of. By and large they all act the same in their 20's, then when they get older they complain that the younger generation are lazy, or hippies, or not loyal, etc. Every generation wants to try and make the most money for themselves (people in general are selfish and the only true motivation for the majority is what benefits them) and when they have a family will sacrifice those earnings for the best interest of their family. The only difference is how they get there based on their current economic environment.
-
I guess the Boomers got lucky with all the dysfunction that came with their parents having to survive the great depression AND WWII that imprinted on them in all sorts of negative ways.
If you're gonna blame boomers for anything(and they should be blamed) its not for lucking into the middle class, it's for their complete selfishness that failed to pass that forward to future generations.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/xT9IgEkvaJhDbHtU64/giphy.gif)
Exec Summary: Boomers were lucky as hell, but that's not why they f#&ked everything up.
-
Can we just not go the left/right political route in this thread that gets it canned?
Regardless of party, there is no will to actually fix SS for future generations because it would require current sacrifice and that's not on the table.
That's why the U.S. needs compulsory voting more than ever.
-
With the near death of traditional Defined Benefit retirement plans, there is very little to incent a person to stay with a company, particularly if you are fortunate enough to have a Defined Contribution plan and have already vested any matching company contribution.
In my job I deal a lot with compensation structures at my clients, and the fact is it is often the right financial calculation to change employers. Newcomers are frequently given higher starting total comp packages than incumbents in the job, as companies fight for talent. So I don't frown on people that change jobs at all when it is the right thing for their financial security.
However, while it might be the right thing financially, there is a significant risk that the job changer is going into a culture and/or role that doesn't suit them, which is often very difficult to discern until you've already made the move.
-
With the near death of traditional Defined Benefit retirement plans, there is very little to incent a person to stay with a company, particularly if you are fortunate enough to have a Defined Contribution plan and have already vested any matching company contribution.
In my job I deal a lot with compensation structures at my clients, and the fact is it is often the right financial calculation to change employers. Newcomers are frequently given higher starting total comp packages than incumbents in the job, as companies fight for talent. So I don't frown on people that change jobs at all when it is the right thing for their financial security.
However, while it might be the right thing financially, there is a significant risk that the job changer is going into a culture and/or role that doesn't suit them, which is often very difficult to discern until you've already made the move.
Very much this.
I get the angst over extreme job hopping...lets call it 3 different companies over 5 year....but is changing a job every 2-3 years whether it's a move up within a company or a lateral move within a company a bad thing? If not if you do the same thing but from one company to another, is it really a bad thing?
Well know underground fact at my company is if you want a good shot at making a director level position or above you've got to leave and then come back.
-
That's why the U.S. needs compulsory voting more than ever.
Still not with you on that mountain top. Not sure how making everyone vote fixes the fact that people don't look past their own problems to try and solve society problems collectively.
-
Very much this.
I get the angst over extreme job hopping...lets call it 3 different companies over 5 year....but is changing a job every 2-3 years whether it's a move up within a company or a lateral move within a company a bad thing? If not if you do the same thing but from one company to another, is it really a bad thing?
Well know underground fact at my company is if you want a good shot at making a director level position or above you've got to leave and then come back.
Yep, the aforementioned agency that I worked at, lets say you started at entry level (L1) and if you progressed, you made it to Assistant Director (L4). I knew L3s who made more than L4s, some by a decent percent margin cause the L4s started at the agency and took their promotions and raises bit by it. Others left and came back, or moved to my agency after starting at other agencies and got much more ahead financially. In an environment like that, to hell with antiquated viewpoints on loyalty and how long you should stay at a company before moving on. That was a landscape that clearly rewarded ambition and looking outside of your daily work bubble, both in magnitude of earnings increase as well as time to progress upwards.
-
It's an interesting discussion point to be sure. I absolutely get what you are saying but I don't know how much I view stuff as luck and how much I view it as taking advantage of the things you have. Take your job out of college, were you lucky or did you position yourself through education, experience, and other skills to be able make that job happen for yourself? I got a great job out of college(that I had to quit and then got another great one), I suppose it could be lucky but I also know I worked damn hard and put together all the things I needed to earn that job. For me (this isn't a value judgement just trying to explain my world view) I view the idea that people are lucky to be this idea that somehow things are out of your control or you didn't earn that. It feels like a different side of the "it's in God's hands" coin. There are absolutely things outside of our control but c'est la vie. I mean, I'm lucky that my dad came back from some stuff that some of the folks he flew with didn't, but by the same token other people didn't have to experience as a kid the knowledge that when their dad walked out the door in his flight suit he might not walk back in the door. It's this idea that life is outside of "my control" that I just don't want to accept because it feels easy to me to simply say oh well wasn't lucky enough to get that. I don't owe it to people to help out the less fortunate because I'm lucky....I owe it to them because that's part of making a better society and it's fulfilling.
At the end of the day with this generalization stuff, I don't want it to come off as blame at all. I think it's important to try to understand perspectives and past experiences, otherwise time is a flat circle.
Someday you and I will have a beer and I'll tell you my lucky story. Not ashamed of it at all!
Did I take advantage of some of that luck through hard work and/or skill and/or being willing to have sex with beautiful women ... well sure, but ...
-
Listen, my parents are boomers and yes they absolutely sacrificed (both served voluntarily in the military at a time when it was extremely unpopular to do so) and given to others and to their kids. There is no doubting that there are plenty of stories of boomers as individuals and as groups being selfless. However, as a collective generation the choices the boomers made socially, politically, and economically has created a selfish concentration of power and wealth while pushing down to future generations a butcher's bill that's gonna come due sooner or later. And this is another application of Hanlon's Razor, I don't think the boomer generation is evil or was Machiavellian when I call them selfish, simply that as a group their most important choices were to benefit themselves to the exclusion of other generations.
Is it selfish to want to take care of yourself, invest your money for a nest egg and insurance down the road? Or even to listen to your banker / broker on how to handle money? What exactly are the selfish decisions as a whole that we made? Many of my boomers were hippies, most normal people trying to live the American dream.
Are we not pushing the butcher's bill the last 10 years, too? Well beyond the boomers role, but decisions made by non-boomers? Exploding debts, deficits, projects that make you wonder what construction company is lining their pockets with which lawmaker?
This is why I said you are coming from it from a place of youth, not experience. Go back to media at the turn of the century, the same themes. The 30's, the same themes. The 50's, the same themes.
-
Yes, since Democrats currently occupy the White House, control both branches of Congress, and have a majority of the Supreme Court I don't understand why they don't get this fixed!
We had that setup from 2009 to 2011 Tsmith, and when you look back on it we failed in a lot of areas. Immigration, gun control, etc. We had much larger majorities than exist today for the other side.
-
That's why the U.S. needs compulsory voting more than ever.
How completely unAmerican. Tee up George Carlin
-
With the near death of traditional Defined Benefit retirement plans, there is very little to incent a person to stay with a company, particularly if you are fortunate enough to have a Defined Contribution plan and have already vested any matching company contribution.
In my job I deal a lot with compensation structures at my clients, and the fact is it is often the right financial calculation to change employers. Newcomers are frequently given higher starting total comp packages than incumbents in the job, as companies fight for talent. So I don't frown on people that change jobs at all when it is the right thing for their financial security.
However, while it might be the right thing financially, there is a significant risk that the job changer is going into a culture and/or role that doesn't suit them, which is often very difficult to discern until you've already made the move.
Excellent response. Agree with everything here.
-
Memory lane, quotes about those wretched youth going back the last couple hundred years.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/52209/15-historical-complaints-about-young-people-ruining-everything
-
Still not with you on that mountain top. Not sure how making everyone vote fixes the fact that people don't look past their own problems to try and solve society problems collectively.
Because the people who truly care about other people’s problems and want society to improve for the greater good are the vast majority of those who don’t vote.
On the flip side, the vast majority of those who do vote (i.e. those voting D or R) have been polarized such that the only problems they have been conditioned to care about are their own.
-
How completely unAmerican. Tee up George Carlin
George Carlin was a great American whose mantra could be summed up in two words: “f#@k everyone.” In other words, Carlin was an equal opportunity offender, who by definition, wanted to fix society for everyone.
That makes him more genuinely American than the current voters in this country whose mantra is apparently, “f#@k the half of you.”
Ask yourself this... when’s the last time one of our elected politicians did something for everyone and it made front page news? That’s what happens when voting is optional... politicians legislate for optics, not for benefit.
-
How completely unAmerican. Tee up George Carlin
Another poster used to reference George Carlin when it came to voting. I'm sure it is just coincidence
-
Because the people who truly care about other people’s problems and want society to improve for the greater good are the vast majority of those who don’t vote.
They must not care that much if they can't be bothered to vote.
-
George Carlin was a great American whose mantra could be summed up in two words: “f#@k everyone.” In other words, Carlin was an equal opportunity offender, who by definition, wanted to fix society for everyone.
That makes him more genuinely American than the current voters in this country whose mantra is apparently, “f#@k the half of you.”
Ask yourself this... when’s the last time one of our elected politicians did something for everyone and it made front page news? That’s what happens when voting is optional... politicians legislate for optics, not for benefit.
Great stuff ... but do we know if Carlin himself actually voted?
Another poster used to reference George Carlin when it came to voting. I'm sure it is just coincidence
Hmmm ... and now chicos ii says "we" Dems. The plot, like my waistline, thickens.
-
Another poster used to reference George Carlin when it came to voting. I'm sure it is just coincidence
He is referenced every 2 years for as long as I can remember, that would hardly be coincidence. Carlin is not some obscure celebrity nor were his views not widely known. That bit is as mainstream as it gets and surfaces every election year.
Over 10M views on YouTube alone for his voting views. His shows had this as a common theme, CNN interviews, and other media outlets. Best liberal comic in history. RIP
You can even purchase merchandise. https://www.amazon.com/Complain-George-Carlin-Holiday-Birthday/dp/B06XGZZCJL
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/332351647484506830/?lp=true
-
Because the people who truly care about other people’s problems and want society to improve for the greater good are the vast majority of those who don’t vote.
On the flip side, the vast majority of those who do vote (i.e. those voting D or R) have been polarized such that the only problems they have been conditioned to care about are their own.
They care so much that they don't vote? Doesn't sound like they care that much. Do you have evidence to back up the claim that those that care the most about society are the non voters?
George Carlin was a great American whose mantra could be summed up in two words: “f#@k everyone.” In other words, Carlin was an equal opportunity offender, who by definition, wanted to fix society for everyone.
That makes him more genuinely American than the current voters in this country whose mantra is apparently, “f#@k the half of you.”
Ask yourself this... when’s the last time one of our elected politicians did something for everyone and it made front page news? That’s what happens when voting is optional... politicians legislate for optics, not for benefit.
I'd ask you, when is the last time when everyone agreed on ONE thing? I cannot think of anything, therefore by definition whatever a politician does will always have a segment of the population not happy. Your premise, in my opinion, is impossible because there is no one thing that everyone can get behind and is good for everyone, because nothing is good for everyone. There will always be some winners and some losers, that goes for any system in the world.
-
Great stuff ... but do we know if Carlin himself actually voted?
Hmmm ... and now chicos ii says "we" Dems. The plot, like my waistline, thickens.
Ok chicos. Been a Democrat since able to register in the 70's. The party is much different now than then, but still registered the same and still largely vote that way.
The last time Carlin voted was 1972, to answer your question. https://www.thenation.com/article/george-carlin-american-radical/
-
They must not care that much if they can't be bothered to vote.
I suppose if you call participating in a process that perpetuates divisiveness “bothering to care.”
When’s the last time a major political candidate won because the majority believed in what he/she stood for? Never. Because we’ve been conditioned to believe that there’s a dichotomy in everything and voting for one means voting against the other.
Listen, I’m a moron when it comes to stuff like complex nuclear engineering algorithms, bicycles and hedge trimming, but if anyone thinks that voting more democrats or republicans is going to improve society, then they are a complete moron when it comes to leadership and advancement.
But the real morons are a) the people who actually voted for Hillary or Trump because the believed more in what the candidate stood for than they than they hated about the other and b) those who think resigning ourselves to have to elect “the lesser of two evils” is perfectly acceptable.
Because guess what... the candidates don’t care about you and what you stand for. When politicians have to spend over half their time in DC on the hone fundraising, they don’t care. So voting for someone who doesn’t care is counterproductive to those who want everyone to advance and better themselves.
-
We had that setup from 2009 to 2011 Tsmith, and when you look back on it we failed in a lot of areas. Immigration, gun control, etc. We had much larger majorities than exist today for the other side.
False. And you're fooling no one Chicos.
-
False. And you're fooling no one Chicos.
Chicos, what is false?
In 2009 to 2011 we had 55 to 60 Senators (it was fluid) because of special elections and independents caucusing. We had 253 to 256 in the House, a large advantage. Tell me what is false? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#Party_summary
-
They care so much that they don't vote? Doesn't sound like they care that much. Do you have evidence to back up the claim that those that care the most about society are the non voters?
This is a general idea I have heard from various sources - basically that the fringes of political discourse have become the most fired up, electrified by their fringe sources that cater only to them and have no interest in objectivity/etc. Thus, these are the crowds of people that tend to deliver much higher turnout at the polls compared to groups closer to the middle (such as independents, which are the largest group of voters today). Independents tend to be much more focused on issues compared to tribes. Fringe groups tend to be more focused on the tribe. I'm nearly certain this is what Benny is referencing. Independents could care less about the tribe and vote along with what they believe in, but they have become increasingly disenfranchised by the process, which has shown a dramatic increase in "tribalistic behaviors". It's rare for an independent to find someone to vote for that actually wants to pursue the common person's goals.
Just as a totally made-up example. An independent voter might be very interested in law enforcement reforms as well as education system reforms (things that a large majority of the public wants). It turns out that, more often than not, neither the D or R candidate have any interest in those topics - the R might be selling immigration/border reform and the D might be selling that Rs suck.
There are issues that 80-90+% of the public agree with and want to see happen, but neither party shows interest because they don't cater to average citizens - they cater to the fringes and the donor class.
-
Yes, since Democrats currently occupy the White House, control both branches of Congress, and have a majority of the Supreme Court I don't understand why they don't get this fixed!
The last time SS was reformed was 1983, under Reagan. To my recollection, none of 2 Bushes, Clinton or Obama even tried. 17 months in, haven't heard anything from Trump either.
-
The last time SS was reformed was 1983, under Reagan. To my recollection, none of 2 Bushes, Clinton or Obama even tried. 17 months in, haven't heard anything from Trump either.
One might opine that policies tangential to SS/Medicare/etc have a large effect, perhaps even larger than the policies themselves. For example, a reasoned influx of tax-paying young people would do wonders for the solvency of these programs. Therefore, the opposite (cutting off or significantly limiting immigration) will help keep things status quo - meaning the balance of elderly vs. tax-paying will continue to get worse, and make these programs less viable. So, you could say that restrictive immigration policy, keeping the "others" out of our country, etc (positions associated with the elderly) will hurt the elderly in the long run.
-
Someday you and I will have a beer and I'll tell you my lucky story. Not ashamed of it at all!
Did I take advantage of some of that luck through hard work and/or skill and/or being willing to have sex with beautiful women ... well sure, but ...
I'll hold you to that :D
Are you telling me Deuce Bigelow, male gigolo is a biography?
-
I'll hold you to that :D
Are you telling me Deuce Bigelow, male gigolo is a biography?
All's I know is that as a Millennial, you obviously are too entitled and coddled to understand.
-
All's I know is that as a Millennial, you obviously are too entitled and coddled to understand.
I refuse to identify as a millennial....I HATE avacados
-
I refuse to identify as a millennial....I HATE avacados
How do you feel about avocados?
-
Chicos, what is false?
In 2009 to 2011 we had 55 to 60 Senators (it was fluid) because of special elections and independents caucusing. We had 253 to 256 in the House, a large advantage. Tell me what is false? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#Party_summary
Cheekz, if you're going to pretend to be a Dem, you should know why it's false. It's not the numbers, it's that 2009-2011 was far from a failure -- indeed, a remarkable amount was accomplished, especially in light of the inertia that has followed ever since conservatives took the House. Only a FoxNews-tainted Chicos would be blind to that. But you've proven as well as anyone the maxim that "we are who we are."
Also, the constant "other side" thing is super weak. You know that no one actually talks like that, right?
-
How do you feel about avocados?
They are even worse than avacados
-
They are even worse than avacados
Sounds like someone who is bitter about putting all their money in kale futures.
-
Sounds like someone who is bitter about putting all their money in kale futures.
The only good kale is when it has been slathered in olive oil and baked into a kale chip. The wrinkly dinosaur kale is best for this, or you end up with microscopically thin kale chips that are exceptionally fragile.
I like to dip the kale chips in some delicious avocado guac.
-
The only good kale is when it has been slathered in olive oil and baked into a kale chip. The wrinkly dinosaur kale is best for this, or you end up with microscopically thin kale chips that are exceptionally fragile.
I like to dip the kale chips in some delicious avocado guac.
The only good kale is really, super dead kale
-
With the near death of traditional Defined Benefit retirement plans, there is very little to incent a person to stay with a company, particularly if you are fortunate enough to have a Defined Contribution plan and have already vested any matching company contribution.
In my job I deal a lot with compensation structures at my clients.......
#FakeNews
Do you see no retention benefit of long-term incentive awards such as stock options and restricted stock? I walked away from six-figures of unvested stock comp in the past, but stock comp has kept me less interested in being open to other opportunities over the years.
-
#FakeNews
Do you see no retention benefit of long-term incentive awards such as stock options and restricted stock? I walked away from six-figures of unvested stock comp in the past, but stock comp has kept me less interested in being open to other opportunities over the years.
Then by all means stay. Not even a discussion for most organizations I've worked for, with, or know of through relatives and acquiantances. In my experience, those benefits are largely set aside for the suits only. Further, if the company does have some form of stock options/etc, it tends to be something that was sunsetted at some point and therefore only applies to the older crowd (who were likely to be paid off for it at that point).
One company I did work for provided "stock" in the company after 5 years. It started out as a measly amount of monopoly dollars and advanced to a moderate amount of monopoly dollars after 10-15-20 years. In the end, it added up to very little even for those on the higher end of the spectrum. We're talking like $20-25k after cashing the monopoly money in for US dollars. And I vaguely remember there being "creep" where even in my few years of working there, where to qualify you had to have accrued 7 years, and there were more stipulations.
For the most part, it's relatively safe to say that stock offerings amount more to a gift for those that receive them as opposed to a major investment or retirement fund. For the suits at the biggest companies, though, we all know that a large part of their winnings is in stock.
-
Then by all means stay. Not even a discussion for most organizations I've worked for, with, or know of through relatives and acquiantances. In my experience, those benefits are largely set aside for the suits only. Further, if the company does have some form of stock options/etc, it tends to be something that was sunsetted at some point and therefore only applies to the older crowd (who were likely to be paid off for it at that point).
One company I did work for provided "stock" in the company after 5 years. It started out as a measly amount of monopoly dollars and advanced to a moderate amount of monopoly dollars after 10-15-20 years. In the end, it added up to very little even for those on the higher end of the spectrum. We're talking like $20-25k after cashing the monopoly money in for US dollars. And I vaguely remember there being "creep" where even in my few years of working there, where to qualify you had to have accrued 7 years, and there were more stipulations.
For the most part, it's relatively safe to say that stock offerings amount more to a gift for those that receive them as opposed to a major investment or retirement fund. For the suits at the biggest companies, though, we all know that a large part of their winnings is in stock.
I think you're just ignorant. Plenty of companies give healthy stock awards to middle management and top performers at even lower levels.
-
The only good kale is really, super dead kale
I love avocados, and I haven't been a Millennium since ... well ... ever. Love guac. I whip up a batch a couple times a week.
As for that other green thing mentioned ... kale no!
-
I think you're just ignorant. Plenty of companies give healthy stock awards to middle management and top performers at even lower levels.
My daughter started with Starbucks as a barista and worked her way into corporate management before leaving for another company. She worked there for 8-9. They do give employees some stock - even part-time baristas - and also made it available to purchase for 85 cents on the dollar IIRC. They also offer reasonably priced health insurance, even for part-timers.
Costco, if I'm not mistaken, does the above, too. And there are others.
-
I think you're just ignorant. Plenty of companies give healthy stock awards to middle management and top performers at even lower levels.
And I think you are just ignorant to the reality of what most companies are offering millennials and the point they are at in their lives. Even if they do offer some sort of stock award it usually is not significant to where a high performer cannot make up for that with an increase in salary at another organization. There is also usually some sort of vesting period, so if you are in your mid to late 20's chances are you have not been with the company long enough to actually cash those in to help with a down payment on that first house you are looking to buy. Then there is that little thing that most Millennials have that is called student loan debt, those unvested options will not help pay that down any quicker either.
-
My daughter started with Starbucks as a barista and worked her way into corporate management before leaving for another company. She worked there for 8-9. They do give employees some stock - even part-time baristas - and also made it available to purchase for 85 cents on the dollar IIRC. They also offer reasonably priced health insurance, even for part-timers.
Costco, if I'm not mistaken, does the above, too. And there are others.
Sure, and there are definitely examples out there. I would just say that, in general, employer-contributed retirement options as a whole have decreased significantly outside of the c-suite, etc. I would consider offering significant stock to your employees an aspect of employer-contributed retirement options. And these were far more common in the past - they still exist but (without doing a research project on this topic) I'm certain that they are a pittance compared to what was previously given, even to assembly line workers or similar.
For example, my father started out as an assembly line worker for a well-known manufacturing company long time ago, around 32 years ago. He is not a union worker and he never was. A few years in, he started to accrue stock in the company in lieu of some other benefit they were offering (a bigger Christmas bonus, something like that?). Over the years I remember the company offered various other yearly deals regarding stock to tenured employees and looking back (I was a child) it likely had to do with how the company was faring. He continued to accrue stock for about 25ish years, I'd say? My father, coincidentally, was also one of the last few that got in the company before they removed pensions, and he will "earn" a ton of money through the end of his days (more than his current salary).
I have no idea what the actual sum of his company stock is but we are talking at least in the mid 6 figures. Plus the value of his pension which is well over a million. Not to mention his 401(k) for which he contributed up to the amount that made the company maximally match. Long story short this guy is going to be a few times more wealthy as a retiree than he was as an employee. He definitely hit the "lottery" and he feels blessed, but many of his peers have similar situations. Now, however, the company only offers a modest 401(k) and less generous stock options (if at all, I don't remember exactly). As I said, pension was done away with long time ago, 25ish years ago. Even though the company is significantly more profitable today (chicken/egg?).
If you worked at Starbucks for 30 years, even as a manager, I just really doubt you could accrue enough company-granted stock to make much of an impact on your retirement plans. 85 cents on the dollar for general Starbucks stock is a horrible deal for employees if they have their retirement in mind. The 85 cents deal likely helps Starbucks just as much as the employees.
But anyway, that's just my opinion without doing any further research beyond what I know off the top of my head. It's a good topic, any single factor could be debated ad nauseum and just happy to be able to discuss without resorting to flaming.
Edit: also wanted to add that my father started working for this manufacturing company with no degree. They paid the entire bill for him to attain a bachelor's, master's, and professional degree at very competitive private universities. They actually used to pay for any degree you wanted if you'd worked for them for at least a year (and there were probably various requirements about staying with the company for x years). He eventually progressed from assembly line to middle management.
-
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2015/03/18/why-starbucks-pays-its-baristas-with-stock-a-beginners-guide-to-company-stock/amp/
-
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2015/03/18/why-starbucks-pays-its-baristas-with-stock-a-beginners-guide-to-company-stock/amp/
Thanks. As I said, wasn't looking to perform a book report as my own anecdotes were a mouthful on their own. Multiple points I suspected as true (out of sheer anecdotal opinion) are true:
1. Companies still offer stock, but the amount is more in the small-to-medium bonusish level as opposed to a reasonable aspect of a retirement plan. Interestingly the study showed that even a small amount of stock led to higher retention, which obviously makes sense but was not something I expected to hear (I just couldn't imagine making under $15/hour at Starbucks and committing to said job long-term due to the stock bonuses)
2. Companies offer the stock as a way to lower the amount of cash they have to pay out, investors like it, broadening their investor base, etc - they are benefitting by creating these programs outside of simply making the employee(s) happy. It is helpful to their business.
3. C-suites are generally the employees that are amassing huge amounts of stock
Sorry, I know it's easier to argue against someone if you assume they take the most extreme stance. But I didn't, I don't think it's really that incredible of a debate, either. Companies don't offer as much in benefits as they used to. They now contribute a small amount to 401(k) if you are lucky (some do, some don't) and some offer stock in the company through various programs (sometimes in lieu of cash bonuses, raises, etc) that doesn't add up to a huge amount at the end of the day.
Benefits are decreasing. It just is what it is. Arguing that since a benefit still exists, doesn't mean that it is the same as it was before. If an analysis was done I would assume that stock benefits have decreased along with and comparable to the greater trend.
-
It's a moot point for vast majority of people, anyway, since they work for organizations other than publicly traded companies.
-
Thanks. As I said, wasn't looking to perform a book report as my own anecdotes were a mouthful on their own. Multiple points I suspected as true (out of sheer anecdotal opinion) are true:
1. Companies still offer stock, but the amount is more in the small-to-medium bonusish level as opposed to a reasonable aspect of a retirement plan. Interestingly the study showed that even a small amount of stock led to higher retention, which obviously makes sense but was not something I expected to hear (I just couldn't imagine making under $15/hour at Starbucks and committing to said job long-term due to the stock bonuses)
2. Companies offer the stock as a way to lower the amount of cash they have to pay out, investors like it, broadening their investor base, etc - they are benefitting by creating these programs outside of simply making the employee(s) happy. It is helpful to their business.
3. C-suites are generally the employees that are amassing huge amounts of stock
Sorry, I know it's easier to argue against someone if you assume they take the most extreme stance. But I didn't, I don't think it's really that incredible of a debate, either. Companies don't offer as much in benefits as they used to. They now contribute a small amount to 401(k) if you are lucky (some do, some don't) and some offer stock in the company through various programs (sometimes in lieu of cash bonuses, raises, etc) that doesn't add up to a huge amount at the end of the day.
Benefits are decreasing. It just is what it is. Arguing that since a benefit still exists, doesn't mean that it is the same as it was before. If an analysis was done I would assume that stock benefits have decreased along with and comparable to the greater trend.
Your assumptions and the chatter are not relevant. My reply bringing up stock compensation was in response to someone who said, "With the near death of traditional Defined Benefit retirement plans, there is very little to incent a person to stay with a company, particularly if you are fortunate enough to have a Defined Contribution plan and have already vested any matching company contribution."
The reality is that there are many companies who value stock compensation grants as a method of retain employees. If you disagree, you are wrong.
As to your unrelated comments... re: 1, that's false. Many companies make meaningful grants to a fairly wide group. re: 2, that's false. If investors loved it, the ISS wouldn't ding companies for "high" burn rates.
Now, many investors DO LOVE when compensation for the c-suite is heavily performance based stock awards... which is generally the case.
-
It's a moot point for vast majority of people, anyway, since they work for organizations other than publicly traded companies.
#FakeNews
First, what is your definition of 'vast majority'?
Second, many people receive stock awards despite not working for publicly traded companies. Think about what you do for work - there are many people in your same line of work who have benefited from such grants, and many who are staying with a certain employer because of stock awards.
1) Get stock awards for private company A.
2) Private company A is acquired by private company B.
3) Employee get PAID.
I've seen it many times. No publicly traded companies involved, but stock comp very meaningful and helpful for retention purposes.
-
Read much of this, skimmed some, so sorry if I'm replicating some of what was already said.
One problem with the boomers in here, they look at what they "gave back" and only speak about it in terms of their family. "Put my kids through school, set things up for my family, took care of my parents" but all of that ignores the massive damage they did to the economy and planet long-term.
1) Boomers benefitted for decades from unions. Benefits like vacation time, insurance, fair labor standards, all of those things were fought for by unions and would not exist today if not for unions. Now that they don't need unions anymore, they have bought into the Koch propaganda BS that unions are bad and are all to happy to destroy them. Take unions away and over time, all those benefits unions provided will go away. All of them. 40 hour work weeks, employer subsidized insurance, overtime pay, safety practices, it will all be gone. It won't be overnight, but over years. The boomers voting to get rid of unions will do untold damage to future generations.
2) Boomers enjoyed the clean-up of the environment and an improvement in national health. They will live longer than any generation before them. And in response they have voted to allow things that destroy the environment. They ignore climate change and accept policies that will deliberately do damage to the environment. They were able to enjoy cities finally cleaned up, but didn't care enough to insure they stayed cleaned up for the future. I'm just hoping Gen X, the Millennials, iGen, and whatever comes after them are able to clean it up and the damage isn't irreparable.
3) Entitlements like Social Security, Medicaid, and Welfare were all things Boomers took advantage of, but once they got old, they slashed taxes so these programs would become unsustainable. As noted above, a generation blessed with kismetic fortune and rather than paying it forward so that these would be sustainable programs, they sucked them dry and will leave them bereft for the people that come after.
4) The job market is being destroyed right now by Boomers, specifically the Boomers that own businesses. For decades, we were able to corner the market on industry. The world needed what we produced. Made in the USA, whether cars, textiles, beverages, or whatever else, was actually a thing and actually mattered. However as we helped rebuild industry in Europe, Japan, and around the world, our products went into less demand as we started to import. But rather than insure we stayed competitive, we jumped on that importing ship. We sent jobs overseas to low wage countries. Whether cars in Mexico, technology in China or Taiwan, or even this week as Harley prepares to move more of their jobs overseas, the Boomer business owners sent jobs out of the country to insure that while their generation had thrived for decades, future generations would not be able to do the same.
5) The constant belief that tax cuts for the rich would improve the economy, which has been repeatedly proven false. It didn't work in the 1970s, 80s, 90s, 00s, and isn't working today. But because of the constant stigma over raising taxes, we have an upper and business class that pays virtually zero taxes and a tax burden that has been wholly shifted to the lower classes. Instead of doing the logical thing and taking money from the people who can afford to lose the most, we take money from those that can afford to lose it the least. Decade after decade, we've tried the same economic plan and while it's been great for the retiring Boomers who are now wealthy enough to enjoy those cuts, it has destroyed the safeguards and programs we need for society to keep on functioning beyond their deaths.
Boomers may have done plenty to take care of their own families, but they did a terrible job of taking care of the society. They lived in a ridiculously prosperous time and instead of using that prosperity to guarantee America would continue to be a land of plenty going forward, they insured it would be a dead end nation for future generations. The great irony is the 'American Dream'. Because of our economic policy, it is harder to change your socioeconomic status in America than almost any other developed country in the world. It's easier to live the 'American Dream' in Europe than it is here because they haven't bankrupted the system which actually allows industrious members of the lower classes to improve their station, something that is virtually impossible here.
In America, if you are born poor, you will likely die poor. If you are born rich, you will likely die rich. There are certainly the occasional exceptions, but the odds of being one of those is only slightly better than winning the lottery.
-
But because of the constant stigma over raising taxes, we have an upper and business class that pays virtually zero taxes and a tax burden that has been wholly shifted to the lower classes.
Patently false. Just horribly wrong.
-
Patently false. Just horribly wrong.
Uhh huh. Keep telling yourself that as 85% of a $1.5T tax cut goes to the highest 1% of earners as permanent cuts and all the cuts to the middle and lower classes are set to expire in a few years.
-
Uhh huh. Keep telling yourself that as 85% of a $1.5T tax cut goes to the highest 1% of earners as permanent cuts and all the cuts to the middle and lower classes are set to expire in a few years.
What are you talking about? Try staying on topic. What I told you was patently false was what you said:
"we have an upper and business class that pays virtually zero taxes and a tax burden that has been wholly shifted to the lower classes."
That is patently false and the unrelated commentary in your latest reply doesn't address that fact.
-
In America, if you are born poor, you will likely die poor. If you are born rich, you will likely die rich. There are certainly the occasional exceptions, but the odds of being one of those is only slightly better than winning the lottery.
Devils advocate: name me a country where this is not the case? Or better yet, name me a country where the odds of breaking the mold and being those exceptions is better than the US?
And not on some rah-rah the US is the best country ever, but for all its economic and class issues, it still rises well above its peers in opportunity to rise above the status you were born into, regardless of the issues stated ad nauseum. A stance that a society or economy where you limit some of that ceiling or potential in order to create more protection/advantage/services to the lower or middle class, that’s a position that is certainly understandable, but to pretend the US is an exception in the developed world cause you often die in the economic strata you were born in, that’s not entirely truthful IMO.
-
#FakeNews
Do you see no retention benefit of long-term incentive awards such as stock options and restricted stock? I walked away from six-figures of unvested stock comp in the past, but stock comp has kept me less interested in being open to other opportunities over the years.
No, not fake news.
Yes, LTI is intended as a retention mechanism, as well as an incentive to perform. However, the percentage of employees eligible for equity awards is significantly lower (~4%-9%, depending on if you look at tradition equity vs. LTI more broadly) than are still under a DB plan. So you're talking a very narrow slice of the workforce.
-
Read much of this, skimmed some, so sorry if I'm replicating some of what was already said.
One problem with the boomers in here, they look at what they "gave back" and only speak about it in terms of their family. "Put my kids through school, set things up for my family, took care of my parents" but all of that ignores the massive damage they did to the economy and planet long-term.
1) Boomers benefitted for decades from unions. Benefits like vacation time, insurance, fair labor standards, all of those things were fought for by unions and would not exist today if not for unions. Now that they don't need unions anymore, they have bought into the Koch propaganda BS that unions are bad and are all to happy to destroy them. Take unions away and over time, all those benefits unions provided will go away. All of them. 40 hour work weeks, employer subsidized insurance, overtime pay, safety practices, it will all be gone. It won't be overnight, but over years. The boomers voting to get rid of unions will do untold damage to future generations.
2) Boomers enjoyed the clean-up of the environment and an improvement in national health. They will live longer than any generation before them. And in response they have voted to allow things that destroy the environment. They ignore climate change and accept policies that will deliberately do damage to the environment. They were able to enjoy cities finally cleaned up, but didn't care enough to insure they stayed cleaned up for the future. I'm just hoping Gen X, the Millennials, iGen, and whatever comes after them are able to clean it up and the damage isn't irreparable.
3) Entitlements like Social Security, Medicaid, and Welfare were all things Boomers took advantage of, but once they got old, they slashed taxes so these programs would become unsustainable. As noted above, a generation blessed with kismetic fortune and rather than paying it forward so that these would be sustainable programs, they sucked them dry and will leave them bereft for the people that come after.
4) The job market is being destroyed right now by Boomers, specifically the Boomers that own businesses. For decades, we were able to corner the market on industry. The world needed what we produced. Made in the USA, whether cars, textiles, beverages, or whatever else, was actually a thing and actually mattered. However as we helped rebuild industry in Europe, Japan, and around the world, our products went into less demand as we started to import. But rather than insure we stayed competitive, we jumped on that importing ship. We sent jobs overseas to low wage countries. Whether cars in Mexico, technology in China or Taiwan, or even this week as Harley prepares to move more of their jobs overseas, the Boomer business owners sent jobs out of the country to insure that while their generation had thrived for decades, future generations would not be able to do the same.
5) The constant belief that tax cuts for the rich would improve the economy, which has been repeatedly proven false. It didn't work in the 1970s, 80s, 90s, 00s, and isn't working today. But because of the constant stigma over raising taxes, we have an upper and business class that pays virtually zero taxes and a tax burden that has been wholly shifted to the lower classes. Instead of doing the logical thing and taking money from the people who can afford to lose the most, we take money from those that can afford to lose it the least. Decade after decade, we've tried the same economic plan and while it's been great for the retiring Boomers who are now wealthy enough to enjoy those cuts, it has destroyed the safeguards and programs we need for society to keep on functioning beyond their deaths.
Boomers may have done plenty to take care of their own families, but they did a terrible job of taking care of the society. They lived in a ridiculously prosperous time and instead of using that prosperity to guarantee America would continue to be a land of plenty going forward, they insured it would be a dead end nation for future generations. The great irony is the 'American Dream'. Because of our economic policy, it is harder to change your socioeconomic status in America than almost any other developed country in the world. It's easier to live the 'American Dream' in Europe than it is here because they haven't bankrupted the system which actually allows industrious members of the lower classes to improve their station, something that is virtually impossible here.
In America, if you are born poor, you will likely die poor. If you are born rich, you will likely die rich. There are certainly the occasional exceptions, but the odds of being one of those is only slightly better than winning the lottery.
Wow, brewsky ... lots and lots of generalizations in here.
I sure know lots of Boomers who give back to society. I like to think I'm one of them.
But yes, the whole born-poor-likely-die-poor thing is mostly true, unfortunately.
Everybody born to white, solidly middle-class (or better) parents starts life with a rabbit's foot, that's for sure.
-
Devils advocate: name me a country where this is not the case? Or better yet, name me a country where the odds of breaking the mold and being those exceptions is better than the US?
All of the Nordic countries certainly come to mind. Though, you might argue that the effective poverty of those countries is already much lower than in the US, so a true rags-to-riches example might be less dramatic there. Plenty of examples of how their society lifts up the impoverished and promotes equivalent opportunities in education/etc for children - rich kids get the same education as everyone else there.
-
All of the Nordic countries certainly come to mind. Though, you might argue that the effective poverty of those countries is already much lower than in the US, so a true rags-to-riches example might be less dramatic there. Plenty of examples of how their society lifts up the impoverished and promotes equivalent opportunities in education/etc for children - rich kids get the same education as everyone else there.
No. There are private schools and what tends to happen in Nordic countries is that many people have so much given to them that they do not try to advance and become successful.
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-socialist-scandinavia-has-some-of-the-highest-inequality-in-europe-2014-10
-
Read much of this, skimmed some, so sorry if I'm replicating some of what was already said.
One problem with the boomers in here, they look at what they "gave back" and only speak about it in terms of their family. "Put my kids through school, set things up for my family, took care of my parents" but all of that ignores the massive damage they did to the economy and planet long-term.
1) Boomers benefitted for decades from unions. Benefits like vacation time, insurance, fair labor standards, all of those things were fought for by unions and would not exist today if not for unions. Now that they don't need unions anymore, they have bought into the Koch propaganda BS that unions are bad and are all to happy to destroy them. Take unions away and over time, all those benefits unions provided will go away. All of them. 40 hour work weeks, employer subsidized insurance, overtime pay, safety practices, it will all be gone. It won't be overnight, but over years. The boomers voting to get rid of unions will do untold damage to future generations.
2) Boomers enjoyed the clean-up of the environment and an improvement in national health. They will live longer than any generation before them. And in response they have voted to allow things that destroy the environment. They ignore climate change and accept policies that will deliberately do damage to the environment. They were able to enjoy cities finally cleaned up, but didn't care enough to insure they stayed cleaned up for the future. I'm just hoping Gen X, the Millennials, iGen, and whatever comes after them are able to clean it up and the damage isn't irreparable.
3) Entitlements like Social Security, Medicaid, and Welfare were all things Boomers took advantage of, but once they got old, they slashed taxes so these programs would become unsustainable. As noted above, a generation blessed with kismetic fortune and rather than paying it forward so that these would be sustainable programs, they sucked them dry and will leave them bereft for the people that come after.
4) The job market is being destroyed right now by Boomers, specifically the Boomers that own businesses. For decades, we were able to corner the market on industry. The world needed what we produced. Made in the USA, whether cars, textiles, beverages, or whatever else, was actually a thing and actually mattered. However as we helped rebuild industry in Europe, Japan, and around the world, our products went into less demand as we started to import. But rather than insure we stayed competitive, we jumped on that importing ship. We sent jobs overseas to low wage countries. Whether cars in Mexico, technology in China or Taiwan, or even this week as Harley prepares to move more of their jobs overseas, the Boomer business owners sent jobs out of the country to insure that while their generation had thrived for decades, future generations would not be able to do the same.
5) The constant belief that tax cuts for the rich would improve the economy, which has been repeatedly proven false. It didn't work in the 1970s, 80s, 90s, 00s, and isn't working today. But because of the constant stigma over raising taxes, we have an upper and business class that pays virtually zero taxes and a tax burden that has been wholly shifted to the lower classes. Instead of doing the logical thing and taking money from the people who can afford to lose the most, we take money from those that can afford to lose it the least. Decade after decade, we've tried the same economic plan and while it's been great for the retiring Boomers who are now wealthy enough to enjoy those cuts, it has destroyed the safeguards and programs we need for society to keep on functioning beyond their deaths.
Boomers may have done plenty to take care of their own families, but they did a terrible job of taking care of the society. They lived in a ridiculously prosperous time and instead of using that prosperity to guarantee America would continue to be a land of plenty going forward, they insured it would be a dead end nation for future generations. The great irony is the 'American Dream'. Because of our economic policy, it is harder to change your socioeconomic status in America than almost any other developed country in the world. It's easier to live the 'American Dream' in Europe than it is here because they haven't bankrupted the system which actually allows industrious members of the lower classes to improve their station, something that is virtually impossible here.
In America, if you are born poor, you will likely die poor. If you are born rich, you will likely die rich. There are certainly the occasional exceptions, but the odds of being one of those is only slightly better than winning the lottery.
Quite a manifesto. Angry, confused and often outright wrong or misleading on the facts.
-
No. There are private schools and what tends to happen in Nordic countries is that many people have so much given to them that they do not try to advance and become successful.
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-socialist-scandinavia-has-some-of-the-highest-inequality-in-europe-2014-10
??? Nice. Dude, I think you're taking things a little personal.
You forget to mention that the top 10% in the United States own 76% of the wealth, whereas in the Scandinavian countries listed (Norway, Sweden, Denmark) it is less. Between 60-70%.
Also: just to clarify. You made a straw man, in that I was discussing poverty and whether other countries provide more of an opportunity to "rise up the ladder". Your post about income inequality and the top 10% of earners is actually the inverse of what I was talking about, but actually unrelated to the argument (you essentially created a new argument, and proved me "wrong" in a new argument). I was not arguing that everyone should receive similar pay in the Nordic countries.
Your aside that people there "don't try to advance and become successful" is utter nonsense, childish, and not even worth addressing. As it's relatively clear that you're just trolling, I'll leave others to decide if they want to continue the convo with you. Peace
-
#FakeNews
First, what is your definition of 'vast majority'?
Second, many people receive stock awards despite not working for publicly traded companies. Think about what you do for work - there are many people in your same line of work who have benefited from such grants, and many who are staying with a certain employer because of stock awards.
1) Get stock awards for private company A.
2) Private company A is acquired by private company B.
3) Employee get PAID.
I've seen it many times. No publicly traded companies involved, but stock comp very meaningful and helpful for retention purposes.
#FakeNews
Patently false. Just horribly wrong.
You ask for definitions and then provide "proof" of your point with the word "many." You also use an article that shows an example of 1 employer, and states that something like 20% of the working population gets some sort of stock option. Now back out all the upper management, since those are not going to be millennials (the original topic was Millennials are not committed or willing to work hard), and you have maybe 10% who get some sort of small option. Any person with any sort of financial acumen will not turn down a job from another organization with a 10-20K bump in pay just for a 5-10K stock option. You are shifting the goal posts and just flat out wrong on this topic.
-
Why are stock options a good option for encouraging long term loyalty to a company? Would I take them, sure I would, I do with my 401k match, but I don't think stock options would do anything to engender long term loyalty.
I actually think it's another sign of generational differences, not meant pejoratively, but I think boomers think more tangible/materialistically whereas millenials think more intangible/culturally. I'm much more interested in the cultural fit of an organization and things like vacation days, work from home, work/life balance, etc than I am in making sure I'm maximizing my income in various ways. I could easily double my salary if I went to work in a more sales oriented role and/or went to a different company, but it would mean putting in 60 hour weeks and/or lots of travel. I'd much rather put in my 40-45 hours a week and go home to my family with our pretty good living than max out our income but never see them and/or spend it.
-
But because of the constant stigma over raising taxes, we have an upper and business class that pays virtually zero taxes and a tax burden that has been wholly shifted to the lower classes. Instead of doing the logical thing and taking money from the people who can afford to lose the most, we take money from those that can afford to lose it the least. Decade after decade, we've tried the same economic plan and while it's been great for the retiring Boomers who are now wealthy enough to enjoy those cuts, it has destroyed the safeguards and programs we need for society to keep on functioning beyond their deaths.
https://www.youtube.com/v/TPHlhzRSEnw
-
Uffdah. Lots to unpack here. Trying to stay in the middle lane on the data/links - it seems stock options and restricted stock are more common than they were 20+ years ago. But my concern is that a concentrated stock position isn't a replacement for more traditional, diversified retirement planning.
The reason stock options have traditionally been for the C-Suite is because (1) those folks already have their blocking and tackling retirement in place and high income levels, so that stock is a great high-risk, high-reward compensation perk, with the added benefit of subsequent growth taxed at cap gain rates rather than ordinary income; and (2) those folks' decisions presumably have a greater effect on the value of that stock (hence JB's point on why investors like it).
But eliminating defined benefit plans and pensions, and now even reducing employer matches to IRAs and 401(k)s, even if replaced with corresponding increases in popularity of stock options, doesn't create a secure financial future. Sure, some of that stock will grow or be cashed out in a downstream M&A deal, but a lot of those options will decline or go bust, too. And if that's the predominant source of your retirement capital, you're SOL. So through that lens, it would stand to reason that stock options wouldn't have as big an impact on retention as they used to. If you're a 35 year old with two kids making $75k/year, you need to make the move for the extra $10k/year, because while the stock option might be the higher ceiling compensation package, its a risk you just can't afford to take.
-
Why are stock options a good option for encouraging long term loyalty to a company? Would I take them, sure I would, I do with my 401k match, but I don't think stock options would do anything to engender long term loyalty.
I actually think it's another sign of generational differences, not meant pejoratively, but I think boomers think more tangible/materialistically whereas millenials think more intangible/culturally. I'm much more interested in the cultural fit of an organization and things like vacation days, work from home, work/life balance, etc than I am in making sure I'm maximizing my income in various ways. I could easily double my salary if I went to work in a more sales oriented role and/or went to a different company, but it would mean putting in 60 hour weeks and/or lots of travel. I'd much rather put in my 40-45 hours a week and go home to my family with our pretty good living than max out our income but never see them and/or spend it.
+10000000
-
Quite a manifesto. Angry, confused and often outright wrong or misleading on the facts.
Yeah, well, you know that's just like, uh, your opinion man.
-
Why are stock options a good option for encouraging long term loyalty to a company? Would I take them, sure I would, I do with my 401k match, but I don't think stock options would do anything to engender long term loyalty.
Because in a well-designed LTI plan they are 1) Performance-based, meaning you get more based on not only your performance but also the company performance. The intent is to not only keep talent, but improve company performance, which tends to have a halo effect--people will stay at a company longer if it is doing well, and 2) more importantly, LTI vests over rolling periods, so you often see only 1/3 vest in a given year, meaning there is always a portion you need to stick around for until it vests.
Of course, as Jay Bee noted, this isn't always enough incentive to get people to stick. They may still have a better offer, or the company may be performing poorly making your incentives worthless. If your grant was at say $25/share and you're trading at $12, the incentive has no value. There are swaths of people at dying companies such as JC Penney and even GE that have been sitting on worthless LTI grants for years.
-
If you're a 35 year old with two kids making $75k/year, you need to make the move for the extra $10k/year, because while the stock option might be the higher ceiling compensation package, its a risk you just can't afford to take.
Exactly right. Not to mention that outside of a start-up situation, someone making $75K/year is highly unlikely to be in line for equity grants, and if they are it is an insignificant pittance. So again, that is why it is the right financial move for job hoppers, because a $10K increase for someone earning $75K makes a tangible difference in their lives.
-
Because in a well-designed LTI plan they are 1) Performance-based, meaning you get more based on not only your performance but also the company performance. The intent is to not only keep talent, but improve company performance, which tends to have a halo effect--people will stay at a company longer if it is doing well, and 2) more importantly, LTI vests over rolling periods, so you often see only 1/3 vest in a given year, meaning there is always a portion you need to stick around for until it vests.
Of course, as Jay Bee noted, this isn't always enough incentive to get people to stick. They may still have a better offer, or the company may be performing poorly making your incentives worthless. If your grant was at say $25/share and you're trading at $12, the incentive has no value. There are swaths of people at dying companies such as JC Penney and even GE that have been sitting on worthless LTI grants for years.
I understand the concept, but the whole idea is predicated on someone "giving" you money that might not actually turn into money. Additionally, the people who are in position to take advantage of options are likely already highly compensated.
Granted I'm biased because I think as a country and corporations have tied to much performance and compensation packages. It was intended to provide long term stability, however with technological advances and generally improved access, stocks are much shorter in vision then they ever were before. Too much, what have you done for me lately IMO.
-
All of the Nordic countries certainly come to mind. Though, you might argue that the effective poverty of those countries is already much lower than in the US, so a true rags-to-riches example might be less dramatic there. Plenty of examples of how their society lifts up the impoverished and promotes equivalent opportunities in education/etc for children - rich kids get the same education as everyone else there.
I think Nordic countries are a problematic comp because they are countries with populations lower than NYC (save for Sweden) but yet blessed with tremendous and valuable natural resource deposits. That goes a long way in funding things like free education and healthcare. Even if you jacked up taxes in the US to Nordic levels, you wouldn't be able to fund things like they have due to a lack of per capita income the government has from non-tax based revenue.
-
I understand the concept, but the whole idea is predicated on someone "giving" you money that might not actually turn into money. Additionally, the people who are in position to take advantage of options are likely already highly compensated.
Understand, there has been a big shift from stock options to RSUs... so even if stock price declines, there is value.
-
https://www.bloombergquint.com/politics/2018/06/26/now-even-swedes-are-questioning-the-welfare-state
-
https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/558143/kansas-tax-cuts/
-
Also from The Atlantic
The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy
The class divide is already toxic, and is fast becoming unbridgeable. You’re probably part of the problem.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/
-
Also from The Atlantic
The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy
The class divide is already toxic, and is fast becoming unbridgeable. You’re probably part of the problem.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/
Looking forward to this.
I might recommend to this group this book. It does a great job (IMO) of de-romanticizing the American Revolution and surface who the revolution really changed culture while baking into society various inequalities. It's a fascinating read in the context of our current situation.
https://www.amazon.com/Whirlwind-American-Revolution-War-That/dp/162040172X (https://www.amazon.com/Whirlwind-American-Revolution-War-That/dp/162040172X)
-
Looking forward to this.
I might recommend to this group this book. It does a great job (IMO) of de-romanticizing the American Revolution and surface who the revolution really changed culture while baking into society various inequalities. It's a fascinating read in the context of our current situation.
https://www.amazon.com/Whirlwind-American-Revolution-War-That/dp/162040172X (https://www.amazon.com/Whirlwind-American-Revolution-War-That/dp/162040172X)
The problem of class inequality dates back to start of colonization. I recently started a book on the topic, but stopped reading 25 pages in. So I can't say I would recommend it.
But the gist of what I read called American colonies a dumping ground for the "rubbish" of English society. Today these "rubbish people" are referred to as "white trash."
-
Also from The Atlantic
The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy
The class divide is already toxic, and is fast becoming unbridgeable. You’re probably part of the problem.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/
I keep advocating for MU to pay attention to its US News ranking . At the end of the day it matters.
-
The problem of class inequality dates back to start of colonization. I recently started a book on the topic, but stopped reading 25 pages in. So I can't say I would recommend it.
But the gist of what I read called American colonies a dumping ground for the "rubbish" of English society. Today these "rubbish people" are referred to as "white trash."
It dates back to the dawn of modern humans, those with power (which often equates to wealthy) seek to retain and expand their power as well as the power of their descendants.
-
I think one of the things I struggle with in the "lucky" discussion and the debate over concentration of wealth is how do you pragmatically legislate outcomes to try and eliminate some of the imbalance. I think there are some obvious ones, like taxing capital gains at the same rate as normal income....i.e. we don't need to make it easy for the wealthy to make yet more wealth. On the other hand, I also wouldn't want to be punitive in someone trying to generate wealth because you can't legislate out the drive to better yourself, just ask any of the countries that have given socialism a try.
And maybe this is where Benny has something with the mandatory voting, it starts to take some of the governing power away from the wealthy which in turn allows government to legislate from a more neutral place.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/RIS1sypJ2Vfwc/giphy.gif)
-
I keep advocating for MU to pay attention to its US News ranking . At the end of the day it matters.
From the article:
“The colleges seem to think that piling up rejections makes them special. In fact, it just means that they have collectively opted to deploy their massive, tax-subsidized endowments to replicate privilege rather than fulfill their duty to produce an educated public.”
Amen. That is why this sh*t not only doesn’t matter, but actually runs counter to the mission of Marquette University and the reason colleges and universities are granted exemption from federal and state taxes.
-
I think one of the things I struggle with in the "lucky" discussion and the debate over concentration of wealth is how do you pragmatically legislate outcomes to try and eliminate some of the imbalance. I think there are some obvious ones, like taxing capital gains at the same rate as normal income....i.e. we don't need to make it easy for the wealthy to make yet more wealth. On the other hand, I also wouldn't want to be punitive in someone trying to generate wealth because you can't legislate out the drive to better yourself, just ask any of the countries that have given socialism a try.
And maybe this is where Benny has something with the mandatory voting, it starts to take some of the governing power away from the wealthy which in turn allows government to legislate from a more neutral place.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/RIS1sypJ2Vfwc/giphy.gif)
Invest more in education, especially moving back toward grant-based financial aid.
Cap deductions for mortgage interest, SALT taxes, etc.
IOW increase taxes, which will never happen due to the “libertarian” mindset that infects this country.
-
It dates back to the dawn of modern humans, those with power (which often equates to wealthy) seek to retain and expand their power as well as the power of their descendants.
To clarify, my comments were with regards to American history. The land of equal opportunity is a myth.
But, yes, class inequality stretches deep into history.
-
To clarify, my comments were with regards to American history. The land of equal opportunity is a myth.
But, yes, class inequality stretches deep into history.
I guess my point is that I don't know how you ever eliminate "class inequality". There will always be haves and have nots, whether someone is born into wealth/poverty, born talented/untalented, etc etc etc. I think we need to make every effort to eliminate artificial barriers but I truly believe you can't generate outcomes, only opportunities.
-
Invest more in education, especially moving back toward grant-based financial aid.
Cap deductions for mortgage interest, SALT taxes, etc.
IOW increase taxes, which will never happen due to the “libertarian” mindset that infects this country.
I'm not convinced it's a funding problem, or at least just a funding problem. I think, in part, we have really entrenched interests that are more comfortable with the status quo. College education has never been more accessible (in terms of availability and meeting entrance requirements) but it has never been less affordable. Is that because of the level of funding or is it because of the way we choose to structure the college experience that drives up cost or is that we're created an arms race amongst colleges while "forcing" more people into college to get lower level jobs (I'd argue some combination of the three)?
Yes, we do cater to the wealth in society and I think we need to roll that back, but I also don't think that means "higher taxes" I'd frame it more from the perspective of eliminating their exclusion from taxes.
Lastly, I'm curious as to this libertarian vitriol. As a self proclaimed libertarian I'd love to understand what about it you see as so prevalent (I don't think it is) and harmful
-
Lastly, I'm curious as to this libertarian vitriol. As a self proclaimed libertarian I'd love to understand what about it you see as so prevalent (I don't think it is) and harmful
+1
-
I'm not convinced it's a funding problem, or at least just a funding problem. I think, in part, we have really entrenched interests that are more comfortable with the status quo. College education has never been more accessible (in terms of availability and meeting entrance requirements) but it has never been less affordable. Is that because of the level of funding or is it because of the way we choose to structure the college experience that drives up cost or is that we're created an arms race amongst colleges while "forcing" more people into college to get lower level jobs (I'd argue some combination of the three)?
Yes, we do cater to the wealth in society and I think we need to roll that back, but I also don't think that means "higher taxes" I'd frame it more from the perspective of eliminating their exclusion from taxes.
Lastly, I'm curious as to this libertarian vitriol. As a self proclaimed libertarian I'd love to understand what about it you see as so prevalent (I don't think it is) and harmful
I think there is a mistaken belief that somehow we grew as a society due to rugged individualism. From Horacio Alger to Atlas Shrugged, there is almost a myth about how anyone can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. (Which obviously can happen but mostly it doesn’t.)
In reality we have advanced as a society due to the communities in which we have belonged. People sacrificed for one another and helped out their neighbor so society overall could benefit.
For many parts of society, that sense of community has broken down. Including the government, which despite propaganda of the past 50 years, has actually been quite effective at education, poverty reduction, defense, research and development, etc.
We’ve become selfish. Taxation is part of that. Libertarianism is by and large a selfish philosophy propagated by those who have benefitted from society and refuse to recognize it.
-
We’ve become selfish. Taxation is part of that. Libertarianism is by and large a selfish philosophy propagated by those who have benefitted from society and refuse to recognize it.
^^^^ ban this guy
People don’t like libertarians because we’re principled. The masses don’t want to live by principle. They want to live by feelings, group think and the swaying of the wind. Sad!
#banSultan
-
^^^^ ban this guy
People don’t like libertarians because we’re principled. The masses don’t want to live by principle. They want to live by feelings, group think and the swaying of the wind. Sad!
#banSultan
Talk about living by feelings instead of reality...
-
I'm not convinced it's a funding problem, or at least just a funding problem. I think, in part, we have really entrenched interests that are more comfortable with the status quo. College education has never been more accessible (in terms of availability and meeting entrance requirements) but it has never been less affordable. Is that because of the level of funding or is it because of the way we choose to structure the college experience that drives up cost or is that we're created an arms race amongst colleges while "forcing" more people into college to get lower level jobs (I'd argue some combination of the three)?
Yes, we do cater to the wealth in society and I think we need to roll that back, but I also don't think that means "higher taxes" I'd frame it more from the perspective of eliminating their exclusion from taxes.
Lastly, I'm curious as to this libertarian vitriol. As a self proclaimed libertarian I'd love to understand what about it you see as so prevalent (I don't think it is) and harmful
My perspective is that it has been driven by the Koch's and then others in the ultra wealthy corporate arena piled on when they saw the success the Koch's were having with politics/power/influence.
They have used their resources to push their libertarian, and some far-right, agenda to the middle. Some of them may have principles. However, the great majority are merely supporting issues which enrich themselves on a personal level. Few of their "wants" are geared toward enriching society or citizens outside of the ultra wealthy.
I don't fault libertarian ideals. Or libertarian philosophy. I fault those who call themselves libertarian in this gross mis-label.
-
Talk about living by feelings instead of reality...
False! The rule is no politics and you’re disparaging Libertarians. You’ve stuck your dainty middle finger up at the no-politics rule time and time again. Awful.
-
From the article:
“The colleges seem to think that piling up rejections makes them special. In fact, it just means that they have collectively opted to deploy their massive, tax-subsidized endowments to replicate privilege rather than fulfill their duty to produce an educated public.”
Amen. That is why this sh*t not only doesn’t matter, but actually runs counter to the mission of Marquette University and the reason colleges and universities are granted exemption from federal and state taxes.
There are different colleges for different people. You are correct certain schools should not care about US News and go about building their academic institution to best meet the needs of its customers.
Marquette University is a nationally recognized institution that has a peer group that it has to compete with. It is foolish not to play the marketing game if your Marquette, especially since MU has a very good academic product. That is a waste of an asset in my opinion.
-
Yes, we do cater to the wealth in society and I think we need to roll that back, but I also don't think that means "higher taxes" I'd frame it more from the perspective of eliminating their exclusion from taxes.
I think it is both, eliminating exclusions and restoring taxes to more balanced rates. To bring it back to the original topic, the tax code is stacked against low wage earners-- Gen Y and soon Gen Z--and highly in favor of the already wealthy through both the deductions and rates. The original articles touched on some of this, such as deductions on homes, for race horses, and pass through entities that allow a far lower tax rate than is applied to W-2 wages.
A study a few years back showed that the progressive tax system was actually relatively flat was you factored in ALL taxes, not just federal taxes. The lowest quintile paid 13%, while the highest quintile paid 18%. That was before the latest tax scam that shoved even more wealth to the already wealthy and $1.5T to the deficit, from the folks that rail about the deficit only when the other party is in power.
Further, the cut in corporate tax rates is misguided. While the nominal corporate tax rate was indeed "high" as the Republican's claimed, because of all the deductions allowed, it was squarely in the middle decile amongst the world in actual tax rate. Again, all it did was shove more wealth to the already wealthy--for just as in previous tax cuts the corporations are using the vast majority of the savings to do stock buy backs, not expand business as they were already awash in cash--and hollow out the federal government, just as planned.
All in all, the tax scam served to screw most Millennials even more.
-
I think there is a mistaken belief that somehow we grew as a society due to rugged individualism. From Horacio Alger to Atlas Shrugged, there is almost a myth about how anyone can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. (Which obviously can happen but mostly it doesn’t.)
In reality we have advanced as a society due to the communities in which we have belonged. People sacrificed for one another and helped out their neighbor so society overall could benefit.
For many parts of society, that sense of community has broken down. Including the government, which despite propaganda of the past 50 years, has actually been quite effective at education, poverty reduction, defense, research and development, etc.
We’ve become selfish. Taxation is part of that. Libertarianism is by and large a selfish philosophy propagated by those who have benefitted from society and refuse to recognize it.
I agree with the selfish part, but this is where I think philosophically we are different with different perspectives.
I whole-heartedly agree with the bolded statement, however while you espouse government as a mechanism to generate mutual support I would argue that government is actually an impediment to selflessness. The more government, especially at the federal level, picks winners and losers the more people either become dependent on the government(versus using their "neighbors") or oppose the larger society as intrusive in their life. I think the goal of government should be to promote both selflessness and independence because by it's very nature government is inefficient and unwieldy (the ineffiency is what keeps them from being totalitarian and preserves democracy). So in my view, government needs to be refined to create a fair playing field and foster the people to each other as opposed to themselves.
I'm not saying I am right (I think I am, that's why I believe it but doesn't mean I am) or that you are wrong but I think it is a crucial distinction that needs to be understood.
-
I think it is both, eliminating exclusions and restoring taxes to more balanced rates. To bring it back to the original topic, the tax code is stacked against low wage earners-- Gen Y and soon Gen Z--and highly in favor of the already wealthy through both the deductions and rates. The original articles touched on some of this, such as deductions on homes, for race horses, and pass through entities that allow a far lower tax rate than is applied to W-2 wages.
A study a few years back showed that the progressive tax system was actually relatively flat was you factored in ALL taxes, not just federal taxes. The lowest quintile paid 13%, while the highest quintile paid 18%. That was before the latest tax scam that shoved even more wealth to the already wealthy and $1.5T to the deficit, from the folks that rail about the deficit only when the other party is in power.
Further, the cut in corporate tax rates is misguided. While the nominal corporate tax rate was indeed "high" as the Republican's claimed, because of all the deductions allowed, it was squarely in the middle decile amongst the world in actual tax rate. Again, all it did was shove more wealth to the already wealthy--for just as in previous tax cuts the corporations are using the vast majority of the savings to do stock buy backs, not expand business as they were already awash in cash--and hollow out the federal government, just as planned.
All in all, the tax scam served to screw most Millennials even more.
One of the common failings of people who are not wealthy or unsuccessful is an obsession of what the other guy gets. I see that all the time in the business world.
-
One of the common failings of people who are not wealthy or unsuccessful is an obsession of what the other guy gets. I see that all the time in the business world.
(http://2oqz471sa19h3vbwa53m33yj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/us-wealth-inequality-chart.jpg)
you'll have to forgive us
-
(http://2oqz471sa19h3vbwa53m33yj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/us-wealth-inequality-chart.jpg)
you'll have to forgive us
The Tenth Commandment addresses your concerns.
-
I think there is a mistaken belief that somehow we grew as a society due to rugged individualism. From Horacio Alger to Atlas Shrugged, there is almost a myth about how anyone can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. (Which obviously can happen but mostly it doesn’t.)
In reality we have advanced as a society due to the communities in which we have belonged. People sacrificed for one another and helped out their neighbor so society overall could benefit.
For many parts of society, that sense of community has broken down. Including the government, which despite propaganda of the past 50 years, has actually been quite effective at education, poverty reduction, defense, research and development, etc.
We’ve become selfish. Taxation is part of that. Libertarianism is by and large a selfish philosophy propagated by those who have benefitted from society and refuse to recognize it.
I like what you have written here.
-
(http://2oqz471sa19h3vbwa53m33yj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/us-wealth-inequality-chart.jpg)
you'll have to forgive us
Does this adjust for the Boomers leaving the work force resulting in an income cut?
-
The Tenth Commandment addresses your concerns.
And the Eighth will be the one that comes back to get you.
-
Does this adjust for the Boomers leaving the work force resulting in an income cut?
To be honest, I'm not sure. I would guess that its priced into the data somewhat - but as the chart tracks net worth and not income, I would imagine that the impact of Boomers' retirement savings spend down between 1998-2013 wouldn't be significant enough to dramatically impact net worth figures? Like I said though, I'm honestly not sure.
Edit: I do see the chart tracks a reduction of workforce participation rate of 5%, so that's probably a clue that Boomers leaving the workforce has impacted the numbers, at least somewhat.
-
One of the common failings of people who are not wealthy or unsuccessful is an obsession of what the other guy gets. I see that all the time in the business world.
I am not in the top 1%, but I am in the top 10% and the idea that I needed a tax cut is stupid. I didn't, I am doing just fine.
The fact is, 83% of the benefits of the tax cut went to the top 1%, those that need it the least, except in their need to cement a permanent aristocracy.
-
To be honest, I'm not sure. I would guess that its priced into the data somewhat - but as the chart tracks net worth and not income, I would imagine that the impact of Boomers' retirement savings spend down between 1998-2013 wouldn't be significant enough to dramatically impact net worth figures? Like I said though, I'm honestly not sure.
Edit: I do see the chart tracks a reduction of workforce participation rate of 5%, so that's probably a clue that Boomers leaving the workforce has impacted the numbers, at least somewhat.
Right, I'm curious what the definition of wealth is. I think the heavy majority of boomers who were retired as of 2013 were skewed to the back half of the date range (say 2008-2013) which I think might impact the data. As Boomers transitioned from income based revenue coupled with retirement investment(asset creation/expansion) to a position on fixed income by drawing down assets which has to have an impact on "wealth"
Further, the timeframe is somewhat problematic given where it falls within the context of what was going on in the macro-economy (great recession and what not).
Having said all that the original point is valid, I'm looking at this more as a stat head than an substantiate objection
-
Lastly, I'm curious as to this libertarian vitriol. As a self proclaimed libertarian I'd love to understand what about it you see as so prevalent (I don't think it is) and harmful
mu03eng - My 2 cents to answer your question on the libertarian vitriol.
I'm in the Sultan camp on this. But a few reasons:
Social issues - Libertarians are supposed to be permissive on everything from religion, abortion, drugs, etc. yet the self proclaimed ones always seem to be the first to vote for restrictions on all the above. If your a true Libertarian then vote your belief and vote against restriction legislation related to social issues. (It doesn't happen.)
National Debt - I thought that was important? If your a true Libertarian then vote your belief and vote against laws that increase the national debt like the stupid tax bill of 2017. (It doesn't happen.)
Economics - See Kansas. They went full Libertarian and they are now the most f'd up state in the Union. We have big issues in Connecticut, but at least we are not Kansas.
The Koch Brothers - Spending $0.5 billion on an election in the name of Libertarianism, but in reality just to benefit themselves. Complete selfishness which is why regulation is needed. People and corporations are greedy, period. The government needs to at least attempt to level the field with taxes and "regulation" to protect citizenry.
The "Tea Party" was a fraud and completely funded by them.
[/list]
From 50,000 feet Libertarianism sounds great, but upon closer inspection it really isn't practical. No taxes sounds awesome, but how do we pay for infrastructure, public transportation (including highways), military, education, etc.
And the self-proclaimed libertarians never act or vote like a true libertarians, so how can anyone take them seriously? hence the vitrol.
(I know I'm missing a few points on this too.)
-
Didn’t David Koch leave and sh1t on the Libertarian party almost 35 years ago? Wtf
-
mu03eng - My 2 cents to answer your question on the libertarian vitriol.
I'm in the Sultan camp on this. But a few reasons:
Social issues - Libertarians are supposed to be permissive on everything from religion, abortion, drugs, etc. yet the self proclaimed ones always seem to be the first to vote for restrictions on all the above. If your a true Libertarian then vote your belief and vote against restriction legislation related to social issues. (It doesn't happen.)
National Debt - I thought that was important? If your a true Libertarian then vote your belief and vote against laws that increase the national debt like the stupid tax bill of 2017. (It doesn't happen.)
Economics - See Kansas. They went full Libertarian and they are now the most f'd up state in the Union. We have big issues in Connecticut, but at least we are not Kansas.
The Koch Brothers - Spending $0.5 billion on an election in the name of Libertarianism, but in reality just to benefit themselves. Complete selfishness which is why regulation is needed. People and corporations are greedy, period. The government needs to at least attempt to level the field with taxes and "regulation" to protect citizenry.
The "Tea Party" was a fraud and completely funded by them.
[/list]
From 50,000 feet Libertarianism sounds great, but upon closer inspection it really isn't practical. No taxes sounds awesome, but how do we pay for infrastructure, public transportation (including highways), military, education, etc.
And the self-proclaimed libertarians never act or vote like a true libertarians, so how can anyone take them seriously? hence the vitrol.
(I know I'm missing a few points on this too.)
I agree with everything you stated and I don't think anyone who does those things is truly a libertarian. One of the biggest issues I have in politics is how people's ideology is warped by how it impacts them personally. Your ideology should apply at all times regardless if it helps or hurts you on a case by case basis. Case in point, I'm minimally helped by the recent tax cut, but I definitely don't support it. Another case in point from Wisconsin, this tax "rebate" for parents with a kid....just pure graft even though it means $100 in my pocket.
Also I think there is a difference between this puritanical libertarianism that doesn't take into account the real world applications. This is why I generally declare myself a Whig rather than a libertarian because I acknowledge that government must exist in very important places and to think otherwise is foolish. Pure libertariansim is foolish just like all the other isms be it communism, socialism, capitalism, etc.
-
I agree with everything you stated and I don't think anyone who does those things is truly a libertarian. One of the biggest issues I have in politics is how people's ideology is warped by how it impacts them personally. Your ideology should apply at all times regardless if it helps or hurts you on a case by case basis. Case in point, I'm minimally helped by the recent tax cut, but I definitely don't support it. Another case in point from Wisconsin, this tax "rebate" for parents with a kid....just pure graft even though it means $100 in my pocket.
Also I think there is a difference between this puritanical libertarianism that doesn't take into account the real world applications. This is why I generally declare myself a Whig rather than a libertarian because I acknowledge that government must exist in very important places and to think otherwise is foolish. Pure libertariansim is foolish just like all the other isms be it communism, socialism, capitalism, etc.
mu03eng - I always like your posts because you are just so darn reasonable![/list]
-
My favorite ism is pragmatism.
-
mu03eng - I always like your posts because you are just so darn reasonable![/list]
Thank you for the very nice complement ;D
-
My favorite ism is pragmatism.
I might get that as a tattoo
-
I agree with everything you stated and I don't think anyone who does those things is truly a libertarian. One of the biggest issues I have in politics is how people's ideology is warped by how it impacts them personally. Your ideology should apply at all times regardless if it helps or hurts you on a case by case basis. Case in point, I'm minimally helped by the recent tax cut, but I definitely don't support it. Another case in point from Wisconsin, this tax "rebate" for parents with a kid....just pure graft even though it means $100 in my pocket.
This this this^^^. We need a clapping hands emoji.[/list]
-
mu03eng, you da man.
One thing for sure: Of all the Whigs I know, you definitely are my favorite!
-
My favorite ism is pragmatism.
my favorite ism starts with a J, aina.
-
mu03eng, you da man.
One thing for sure: Of all the Whigs I know, you definitely are my favorite!
ha ha ha, thanks....I'm just grateful I don't need a whig :)
-
Speaking of Whigs, I'm reading the Ulysses S Grant biography. In the Mexican War, General Zachary Taylor (a Whig) became super-popular after winning the first battle in Matamorros. President Polk got spooked when in the November mid-terms the Whigs picked up a ton of seats based on Gen. Taylor's popularity. So Polk did the political thing and replaced him with General Winfield Scott. He didn't tell anyone and just sent Scott to Mexico to Mexico who handed Taylor a message from the President that he was no longer in charge. (Grant loved Taylor and picked up many of his military decision-making procedures from Taylor.)
Whigs.
-
Speaking of Whigs, I'm reading the Ulysses S Grant biography. In the Mexican War, General Zachary Taylor (a Whig) became super-popular after winning the first battle in Matamorros. President Polk got spooked when in the November mid-terms the Whigs picked up a ton of seats based on Gen. Taylor's popularity. So Polk did the political thing and replaced him with General Winfield Scott. He didn't tell anyone and just sent Scott to Mexico to Mexico who handed Taylor a message from the President that he was no longer in charge. (Grant loved Taylor and picked up many of his military decision-making procedures from Taylor.)
Whigs.
The one by Chernow right? Excellent biography.
Lots of would've could've should've in around the Mexican War that significantly alters the landscape of the western hemisphere
-
Speaking of Whigs, I'm reading the Ulysses S Grant biography. In the Mexican War, General Zachary Taylor (a Whig) became super-popular after winning the first battle in Matamorros. President Polk got spooked when in the November mid-terms the Whigs picked up a ton of seats based on Gen. Taylor's popularity. So Polk did the political thing and replaced him with General Winfield Scott. He didn't tell anyone and just sent Scott to Mexico to Mexico who handed Taylor a message from the President that he was no longer in charge. (Grant loved Taylor and picked up many of his military decision-making procedures from Taylor.)
Whigs.
I'm reading Chernow's Grant right now too.
Speaking of Polk, my history teacher brother calls him the greatest president in US history. The guy ran on doing 4 things and did all 4. Then didn't run again, b/c he did what he said he was going to do. (add Texas as a state, expanded US territory to the Pacific with the acquisition of the Oregon Territory, lowered tariffs and established an independent US Treasury)
-
A couple of thoughts:
1) I'm a boomer. Everytime I get angry at some goofy thing a Millennial does, my Boomer and well-grounded wife looks at me and says, "do you remember when you were their age?" After I tell her I prefer not to, she reminds we did the same things they did!
2) In case of you don't believe me, just remember the boomer slogan, "Don't trust anyone over 30!" I don't think a Millennial ever said that.
3) As to opportunity, income gaps and opportunity, may I suggest that many Millennials were like us in that we all wanted instant gratification. If we weren't in executive leadership by age 30, our lives were a failure. If we did not have a 3,500 square foot home with granite, large yards, exquisite trims etc., we failed. None of these matter in the long run, for in the long-rum, we're all dead.
A few weeks ago, my wife and I celebrated our wedding anniversary (my wife and I have been married a long time). In looking at our faces the day we were married, we looked so young and so, well, naive. What I would tell young Dgies (relatively fresh out of Marquette) is the same thing I would tell my Millennial friends -- be patient and take life as it comes. You'll get there!
There are systematic problems in our country and in our economy. It isn't pretty and what's happened to many in manufacturing/industry has been sad. But each generation's knowledge grows almost geometrically and I have no doubt that what the 1980s-1990s tech boom was to we Boomers, something out there will do the same thing for our Millennial children and grandchildren.
Again, be patient.
-
A couple of thoughts:
1) I'm a boomer. Everytime I get angry at some goofy thing a Millennial does, my Boomer and well-grounded wife looks at me and says, "do you remember when you were their age?" After I tell her I prefer not to, she reminds we did the same things they did!
2) In case of you don't believe me, just remember the boomer slogan, "Don't trust anyone over 30!" I don't think a Millennial ever said that.
3) As to opportunity, income gaps and opportunity, may I suggest that many Millennials were like us in that we all wanted instant gratification. If we weren't in executive leadership by age 30, our lives were a failure. If we did not have a 3,500 square foot home with granite, large yards, exquisite trims etc., we failed. None of these matter in the long run, for in the long-rum, we're all dead.
A few weeks ago, my wife and I celebrated our wedding anniversary (my wife and I have been married a long time). In looking at our faces the day we were married, we looked so young and so, well, naive. What I would tell young Dgies (relatively fresh out of Marquette) is the same thing I would tell my Millennial friends -- be patient and take life as it comes. You'll get there!
There are systematic problems in our country and in our economy. It isn't pretty and what's happened to many in manufacturing/industry has been sad. But each generation's knowledge grows almost geometrically and I have no doubt that what the 1980s-1990s tech boom was to we Boomers, something out there will do the same thing for our Millennial children and grandchildren.
Again, be patient.
Superbly stated, my fellow Boomer!
-
mu03eng - My 2 cents to answer your question on the libertarian vitriol.
I'm in the Sultan camp on this. But a few reasons:
Economics - See Kansas. They went full Libertarian and they are now the most f'd up state in the Union. We have big issues in Connecticut, but at least we are not Kansas.
[/list]
(I know I'm missing a few points on this too.)
Kansas is a well-governed state compared to Illinois!
In fact, in a country that has Illinois for a state, Kansas and Connecticut don't even register as "watch list" problems.
When your public pension deficit reaches $200 billion, call us! You can then join the Illinois Club.
When you don't have a budget for three years, or when the speaker of your general assembly has been in place almost every year since 1979 because of a corrupt property tax appeals system in your largest county, you'll be nominated for the Illinois Club.
When 80,000 people a year with high-paying jobs flee your state because of confiscatory property taxes, corrupt spending and bureaucratic ignorance of basic economics, you too can join the Illinois Club.
-
Kansas is a well-governed state compared to Illinois!
In fact, in a country that has Illinois for a state, Kansas and Connecticut don't even register as "watch list" problems.
When your public pension deficit reaches $200 billion, call us! You can then join the Illinois Club.
When you don't have a budget for three years, or when the speaker of your general assembly has been in place almost every year since 1979 because of a corrupt property tax appeals system in your largest county, you'll be nominated for the Illinois Club.
When 80,000 people a year with high-paying jobs flee your state because of confiscatory property taxes, corrupt spending and bureaucratic ignorance of basic economics, you too can join the Illinois Club.
All of this. Our state is a wreck. 700K net exodus of citizens, debt as far as the eye can see and total dysfunction. We have been the poster child for corruption for as long as I can remember.[/list]
-
The difference is this: In only a few years, Brownback is doing in Kansas what took Illinois politicians decades - leading the state into financial ruin. At least some tech bros would approve of his unintentional "fail fast" approach.
-
Kansas is a well-governed state compared to Illinois!
That's a lot like saying "Himmler was a good citizen compared to Hitler!". Kansas is bankrupt, maybe not the extent IL is but you can't argue their budget management/financial policies are anything but crap and that it happened in a hurry. Add to that the non fiscal policy gems like overt voter suppression, anti LGBT sentiment, etc and it's not place anyone is calling a destination. It's population is growing but barely and the projections are for very low growth - most of which is attributed to KC.[/list]
-
That's a lot like saying "Himmler was a good citizen compared to Hitler!". Kansas is bankrupt, maybe not the extent IL is but you can't argue their budget management/financial policies are anything but crap and that it happened in a hurry. Add to that the non fiscal policy gems like overt voter suppression, anti LGBT sentiment, etc and it's not place anyone is calling a destination. It's population is growing but barely and the projections are for very low growth - most of which is attributed to KC.[/list]
Here's the difference. Kansas is important and the people who live there matter as people and, importantly, as Americans. I agree they deserve better and while I'm somewhat conservative, as you can tell, I believe the basic concept of government protecting its people. But as a national economic force and priority, Kansas is far less an issue than either Illinois or Connecticut.
Illinois is more than a local or even regional disaster. It is and will be at the center of commerce and industry. Chicago, sorry to say Milwaukeeans, drives the Midwest economy. The financial hub of our region; the creative and technological hub; the transportation center; and, the center of our natural resources in the Midwest is Chicago. To the extent that Chicago and Illinois fail, the fallout will be felt all over the region and likely all over the nation.
With Illinois' central location, natural resources, outstanding educational system and well-educated work force, the state should be driving the national economy. Chicago is an extremely desirable place to live and it is doing well with Millennials. But the state is broke and at some point, it has to be asked whether the banks and investment firms will continue to lend to a state that cannot repay its debts. It's not a partisan thing and those of us who have lived in Illinois for any length of time know that both the Republicans and the Democrats -- liberals and conservatives -- had a nasty hand in where the state is today.
At some point, the federal government has but two choices in Illinois. The first is to assume the debt/obligations and the responsibility for payment. Do that and you have six to 10 more states standing right behind Illinois waiting for the same treatment. There will be 40 to 44 more states that managed themselves fiscally soundly who will demand and probably get very confiscatory terms for the state bailout.
If you ignore the need to make whole on most of the state's obligations, guess what -- you will inevitably be paying it out in public assistance, food stamps or other social services aimed at Illinois public employees who now have no retirement (and no Social Security).
The second is to do something that has not been done since 1865. Essentially seize the state of Illinois and reconstruct it from the ground up. Readmit Illinois to the union after the state has enacted fiscally sound policies and procedures and after its constitution has safeguards to ensure the financial abuse of its citizenry never happens again.
-
Here's the difference. Kansas is important and the people who live there matter as people and, importantly, as Americans. I agree they deserve better and while I'm somewhat conservative, as you can tell, I believe the basic concept of government protecting its people. But as a national economic force and priority, Kansas is far less an issue than either Illinois or Connecticut.
Illinois is more than a local or even regional disaster. It is and will be at the center of commerce and industry. Chicago, sorry to say Milwaukeeans, drives the Midwest economy. The financial hub of our region; the creative and technological hub; the transportation center; and, the center of our natural resources in the Midwest is Chicago. To the extent that Chicago and Illinois fail, the fallout will be felt all over the region and likely all over the nation.
With Illinois' central location, natural resources, outstanding educational system and well-educated work force, the state should be driving the national economy. Chicago is an extremely desirable place to live and it is doing well with Millennials. But the state is broke and at some point, it has to be asked whether the banks and investment firms will continue to lend to a state that cannot repay its debts. It's not a partisan thing and those of us who have lived in Illinois for any length of time know that both the Republicans and the Democrats -- liberals and conservatives -- had a nasty hand in where the state is today.
At some point, the federal government has but two choices in Illinois. The first is to assume the debt/obligations and the responsibility for payment. Do that and you have six to 10 more states standing right behind Illinois waiting for the same treatment. There will be 40 to 44 more states that managed themselves fiscally soundly who will demand and probably get very confiscatory terms for the state bailout.
If you ignore the need to make whole on most of the state's obligations, guess what -- you will inevitably be paying it out in public assistance, food stamps or other social services aimed at Illinois public employees who now have no retirement (and no Social Security).
The second is to do something that has not been done since 1865. Essentially seize the state of Illinois and reconstruct it from the ground up. Readmit Illinois to the union after the state has enacted fiscally sound policies and procedures and after its constitution has safeguards to ensure the financial abuse of its citizenry never happens again.
IMO, illinois has proved that government corruption is bad. But, as well, kansas has proved that the "ideal" conservative/libertarian tax policy doesn't work either.
Taxpayers in both states suffer for what powerful/special interests want.[/list]
-
That's a lot like saying "Himmler was a good citizen compared to Hitler!". Kansas is bankrupt, maybe not the extent IL is but you can't argue their budget management/financial policies are anything but crap and that it happened in a hurry. Add to that the non fiscal policy gems like overt voter suppression, anti LGBT sentiment, etc and it's not place anyone is calling a destination. It's population is growing but barely and the projections are for very low growth - most of which is attributed to KC.[/list]
My company is a significant player in Kansas and prospering there. Do not believe what you read. The state is doing very well and has a bright future.
-
My company is a significant player in Kansas and prospering there. Do not believe what you read. The state is doing very well and has a bright future.
If you're judging on the state's latest tax plan, then you're head-in-the-sand wrong[/list]
-
My company is a significant player in Kansas and prospering there. Do not believe what you read. The state is doing very well and has a bright future.
i literally live 2 blocks from the kansas state line...it is not what i read it is what I see and hear. The people in Mission Hills KS (those not associated with Pay Day Loans) completely disagree with you. Assuming you are really a 'significant' player you must know people in Mission Hills and you know that it is where 99% of the wealth in KS is outside of the Koch brothers. As jesmu said, you're head-in-the-sand wrong
Next time you are in Kansas doing your "significant player' business, let me know and i'll buy you lunch. [/list]
-
IMO, illinois has proved that government corruption is bad. But, as well, kansas has proved that the "ideal" conservative/libertarian tax policy doesn't work either.
Taxpayers in both states suffer for what powerful/special interests want.[/list]
My only objection is characterizing the Kansas "approach" as libertarian, it is out right cronyism with a healthy dose of right wing social engineering thrown in. It's what happens when the government tries to interfer from a right wing perspective
-
My only objection is characterizing the Kansas "approach" as libertarian, it is out right cronyism with a healthy dose of right wing social engineering thrown in. It's what happens when the government tries to interfer from a right wing perspective
Yeah, I would agree Kansas' approach under Brownback wasn't libertarian at all, it was proudly and loudly trickle down taken to the extreme. And it did exactly what it was intended to do.[/list]
-
IMO, illinois has proved that government corruption is bad. But, as well, kansas has proved that the "ideal" conservative/libertarian tax policy doesn't work either.
Taxpayers in both states suffer for what powerful/special interests want.
There are examples from both sides that have gone far off the rails. Nothing is truly ideal because there are macro and micro inputs that cannot be controlled. Trickle down has failed in some places, worked in others. Keynesian examples that have failed in some places, worked in others. Both sides holding up the failed examples and ignore the successful ones of the other side.
-
We all realize that "trickle down economics" is a joke... Right? I mean, I know a few of us on here play an extraordinarily wealthy person on an internet message board (go you). But reality is that trickle-down economics redistributes money, and therefore power, away from us commoners (the type of people that spend time on a 2000's-style internet forum, myself included) and towards the top 1%. And, predominantly the top 10% of that 1%, at least in the way that our country likes to do it.
I mean, in the most recent episode of Trickle-Down Economics, most people didn't even know it was occurring. Just so long as there is a good enough distractor at the same time/in the same bill, it will keep happening. To be clear, this is a "ratchet"-type policy, where it will be nearly impossible to return to even a halfway reasonable effective tax rate on the uber-wealthy because they have consolidated power even further and will not allow their position to worsen. The state of things is only going to continue to improve for the uber-wealthy; it is a positive feedback loop. I'm not a historian (many of you may have studied history at MU) but, it's fairly obvious what has occurred since "Trickle-Down Economics" was introduced as a rational theory. It dramatically altered the course of US history, and not for the better.
-
There are examples from both sides that have gone far off the rails. Nothing is truly ideal because there are macro and micro inputs that cannot be controlled. Trickle down has failed in some places, worked in others. Keynesian examples that have failed in some places, worked in others. Both sides holding up the failed examples and ignore the successful ones of the other side.
Where has trickle down worked?
-
We all realize that "trickle down economics" is a joke... Right? I mean, I know a few of us on here play an extraordinarily wealthy person on an internet message board (go you). But reality is that trickle-down economics redistributes money, and therefore power, away from us commoners (the type of people that spend time on a 2000's-style internet forum, myself included) and towards the top 1%. And, predominantly the top 10% of that 1%, at least in the way that our country likes to do it.
I mean, in the most recent episode of Trickle-Down Economics, most people didn't even know it was occurring. Just so long as there is a good enough distractor at the same time/in the same bill, it will keep happening. To be clear, this is a "ratchet"-type policy, where it will be nearly impossible to return to even a halfway reasonable effective tax rate on the uber-wealthy because they have consolidated power even further and will not allow their position to worsen. The state of things is only going to continue to improve for the uber-wealthy; it is a positive feedback loop. I'm not a historian (many of you may have studied history at MU) but, it's fairly obvious what has occurred since "Trickle-Down Economics" was introduced as a rational theory. It dramatically altered the course of US history, and not for the better.
Trickle-Down is illogical in an age where Walmart has unequivocally proven that everything trickles up.
-
Trickle-Down is illogical in an age where Walmart has unequivocally proven that everything trickles up.
And apparently trickle-up economics is also a thing - but apparently is seen in a positive light. It has more to do with the fact that a more productive/prosperous middle class will lead to benefits for the wealthy. Which, should always be true, I think. It appears that the policies related to trickle-up economics simply focus on improving the lot of the middle class and assume those changes will make the wealthy even more prosperous.
You never hear stories about the oppression of the uber-wealthy, their lack of opportunities, etc. Yet somehow, policy always seems to have them in mind, regardless of any facade on said policy.
-
My company is a significant player in Kansas and prospering there. Do not believe what you read. The state is doing very well and has a bright future.
I'm really beginning to love this shtick. I used to roll my eyes but throughout this thread and the McAdams thread, it's obvious it's like The Onion. [/list]
-
I'm really beginning to love this shtick. I used to roll my eyes but throughout this thread and the McAdams thread, it's obvious it's like The Onion. [/list]
What, you think the guy that claims to do everything, know everyone, and be everywhere is perhaps a complete fraud?
-
What, you think the guy that claims to do everything, know everyone, and be everywhere is perhaps a complete fraud?
Yeah... that’s pretty much every regular Scooper. Could you be a little more specific?
-
That’ll learn ‘em!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/world/europe/denmark-immigrant-ghettos.amp.html
-
That’ll learn ‘em!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/world/europe/denmark-immigrant-ghettos.amp.html
I truly hate how the word "assimilation" has come to invoke feelings of something sinister. Assimilation is supposed to be about creating, growing and improving society, not loss of freedom, dignity, civil liberty or self-worth. Unfortunately, I believe it was the third reich who coined using the former to justify the latter, and so today the popular reaction is a knee-jerk to oppose assimilation at all costs, something that seems like a good idea until the established society (read: not people) starts to push back, thereby forcing a perpetuation of the aforementioned connotation.
And in a day and age where everything is highly politicized, you're either pro-assimilation or anti-assimilation, both of which carry dire consequences. And if you believe that the answer lies somewhere in the middle, the pervasive "with us or against us" mentality means you're hated by all.
Dichotomy kills democracy.
-
I truly hate how the word "assimilation" has come to invoke feelings of something sinister. Assimilation is supposed to be about creating, growing and improving society, not loss of freedom, dignity, civil liberty or self-worth. Unfortunately, I believe it was the third reich who coined using the former to justify the latter, and so today the popular reaction is a knee-jerk to oppose assimilation at all costs, something that seems like a good idea until the established society (read: not people) starts to push back, thereby forcing a perpetuation of the aforementioned connotation.
And in a day and age where everything is highly politicized, you're either pro-assimilation or anti-assimilation, both of which carry dire consequences. And if you believe that the answer lies somewhere in the middle, the pervasive "with us or against us" mentality means you're hated by all.
Dichotomy kills democracy.
I have transitioned to "social osmosis" myself.
-
What, you think the guy that claims to do everything, know everyone, and be everywhere is perhaps a complete fraud?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz46mb839fs[/list]
-
I truly hate how the word "assimilation" has come to invoke feelings of something sinister. Assimilation is supposed to be about creating, growing and improving society, not loss of freedom, dignity, civil liberty or self-worth. Unfortunately, I believe it was the third reich who coined using the former to justify the latter, and so today the popular reaction is a knee-jerk to oppose assimilation at all costs, something that seems like a good idea until the established society (read: not people) starts to push back, thereby forcing a perpetuation of the aforementioned connotation.
And in a day and age where everything is highly politicized, you're either pro-assimilation or anti-assimilation, both of which carry dire consequences. And if you believe that the answer lies somewhere in the middle, the pervasive "with us or against us" mentality means you're hated by all.
Dichotomy kills democracy.
I'm with you on the contortion of the word 'assimilation' both sides are enriched through natural assimilation. So what do we call forced/systemic assimilation like the Dutch are implementing? 'programming' immigrants? extreme nationalism? political tribalism?
-
Where has trickle down worked?
Supply Side economics has worked in the USA and in other countries. It has also failed in the USA and other countries. The same can be said about Keynesian policies, failures and successes. Having economists agree on anything is akin to herding cats, or watching Supreme Court justices all come together.
It usually comes down to interpretation and how much success one promises vs delivering. If a person receives a tax break and more money as a result, they have only several options. Put it in the bank or keep in your pocket where it does very little. Invest it, which is usually a long term potential benefit where any benefits won't be known for some time. Spend it, which does boost the economy as inventories are depleted, more products made to fill inventories, keep jobs to make those products. Typically what has happened is the very rich invest or pocket it, because they already have money to dispose of. Trickle down from the rich is small. For the middle class and poor, that is usually not the case, as they will either spend or invest, one having a bigger impact short term than the other.
The challenge, which supply siders usually fail in, is there growth from cuts do not reach their promises. There is growth, but not enough growth. In some years tax receipts do great, but too often they don't. That's the other side of the equation, you can't be a supply sider and not also cut spending, or you are screwed.
Keynesians make the opposite mistake. Raising taxes and raising spending, eventually the tipping point is reach, jobs are cut, corporations go overseas to lower tax havens.
-
What, you think the guy that claims to do everything, know everyone, and be everywhere is perhaps a complete fraud?
9-9-9 is make-believe? Who'da thunk it?[/list]
-
9-9-9 is make-believe? Who'da thunk it?[/list]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPTq9ki_oAs
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPTq9ki_oAs
So........an east coast elitist sexual predator? Gotta give you props, you nail that persona.[/list]
-
I'm with you on the contortion of the word 'assimilation' both sides are enriched through natural assimilation. So what do we call forced/systemic assimilation like the Dutch are implementing? 'programming' immigrants? extreme nationalism? political tribalism?
Wow... this goes a lot deeper than I realized. Not only is Denmark indoctrinating a bunch of immigrants to Danish culture, but the Danes' strings are being pulled by shadow actors in The Netherlands. Which begs the question... what does Amsterdam want with Copenhagen?
Perhaps they want to assimilate Holland into Scandinavia. Nevertheless, it looks like Germany is going to get caught in the middle of this... but far be it for Germany to complain about involuntarily being wrapped up in somebody else's proxy war.
-
I'm looking forward to my visit to Copenhagen this summer.
-
I'm looking forward to my visit to Copenhagen this summer.
Say hi to the Dutch while you're there.
-
Say hi to the Dutch while you're there.
A visit to Amsterdam 20+ years prompted a concern with the Dutch among my friends. The word "Dag"means hello and goodbye. We figured the Beatles song was confusing when translated, "You say Dag, and I say Dag, Dag, Dag...."
-
Wow... this goes a lot deeper than I realized. Not only is Denmark indoctrinating a bunch of immigrants to Danish culture, but the Danes' strings are being pulled by shadow actors in The Netherlands. Which begs the question... what does Amsterdam want with Copenhagen?
Perhaps they want to assimilate Holland into Scandinavia. Nevertheless, it looks like Germany is going to get caught in the middle of this... but far be it for Germany to complain about involuntarily being wrapped up in somebody else's proxy war.
I'm torn between which reply i should post, so i'll give you three options:
#1) i was hoping the time stamp from my reply would allow me to believe i was drinking. Nope, just an idiot.
#2) meh, they all look alike to me. and,
#3) you know nothing-you are nothing but a partisan hack trying to demean those who see the world different than you.
-
I'm torn between which reply i should post, so i'll give you three options:
#1) i was hoping the time stamp from my reply would allow me to believe i was drinking. Nope, just an idiot.
#2) meh, they all look alike to me. and,
#3) you know nothing-you are nothing but a partisan hack trying to demean those who see the world different than you.
1) "I was drinking when I posted" is the Internet equivalent of "my dog ate my homework."
2) Not really sure that's an appropriate response. Maybe you are drinking.
3) Evidently, you are drinking. Good for you.
Don't drink and Scoop.
-
Slight bit of hoopalooping..
New article.
https://www.businessinsider.com/biggest-financial-problems-for-millennials-2018-8#millennials-are-burdened-with-student-loan-debt-thats-higher-than-ever-1
-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2018/09/04/why-student-loans-swamp-millennials-job-pay-hasnt-kept-up-with-school-costs/
-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2018/09/04/why-student-loans-swamp-millennials-job-pay-hasnt-kept-up-with-school-costs/
The question is, how much of the debt to salary ratio in total is represented by the insane example represented in this article.....$200,000 debt to obtain an English Major.....how is that every economically justified??? If you told me the person took on $200K in debt to get a STEM degree and the same principles were at work, you have something but the anecdotal evidence the article depends on is stupid insane.
Having said that, I also think it represents something people overlook that I think Benny often highlights...it's not really the millineal's fault that the boomer generation was so damn selfish. Clearly parents were not planning for their children's education while simultaneous voting the educational coffers dry so let's not let them off the hook.
Further, let's talk about the university that charges someone $50K a year to get an English major....how can they possibly justify that???
Bottom line, everyone sucks, let's not say well pay people more to close the loop (though I do agree that wage growth is a problem).
-
Further, let's talk about the university that charges someone $50K a year to get an English major....how can they possibly justify that???
1. Because someone will pay for it.
2. There are a number of fields for English majors that can have a decent compensation - technical writers for example.
But your larger point is a good one regarding student loan debt. The average graduate in the Class of 2016 had $37,000 in loan debt. Using the federal rate of 5%, and taking 20 years to pay off, that's about $250 per month. A staggering amount? No. Still worth it in the long-run? Very likely yes. But is it enough to put a crimp in one's lifestyle? No doubt.
-
1. Because someone will pay for it.
2. There are a number of fields for English majors that can have a decent compensation - technical writers for example.
But your larger point is a good one regarding student loan debt. The average graduate in the Class of 2016 had $37,000 in loan debt. Using the federal rate of 5%, and taking 20 years to pay off, that's about $250 per month. A staggering amount? No. Still worth it in the long-run? Very likely yes. But is it enough to put a crimp in one's lifestyle? No doubt.
Pfft. Most millenials spend at least $250/month on avocado toast, artisanal cocktails and manbun maintenance.
-
Pfft. Most millenials spend at least $250/month on avocado toast, artisanal cocktails and manbun maintenance.
That's not a bad price, where does Glow go for his?
-
Further, let's talk about the university that charges someone $50K a year to get an English major....how can they possibly justify that???
Do some universities charge different amounts for different majors?
-
Do some universities charge different amounts for different majors?
Marquette does - but it is not much of a difference.
-
Think of it this way:
$250 a month is roughly $2 an hour if you work full time (once you take out payroll taxes). My guess is the majority of students who graduate with a degree will probably end up making at least that much more per hour than if they hadn't attended college at all, and that spread will continue to increase as their careers progress.
Sounds like a bargain to me.
-
I wish I only had to pay $250 a month for student loans. Over double that for me. Personally, I went into a field that doesn't make more than I would have made if I didn't go to college. Garbage men make more than I do. But this is the work that I enjoy and want to do and I needed a degree in order to do it. That was my decision.
-
Marquette does - but it is not much of a difference.
Is it an actual different in tuition? Or is it because of associated fees (lab fees, etc.) or number of classes required with a particular major?
-
Is it an actual different in tuition? Or is it because of associated fees (lab fees, etc.) or number of classes required with a particular major?
I stand corrected. They used to charge a few hundred more for engineering and a couple of other majors, but it doesn't look like they do that anymore.
http://marquette.edu/mucentral/bursar/documents/rate-guide-18-19.pdf
-
Further, let's talk about the university that charges someone $50K a year to get an English major....how can they possibly justify that???
I have raised that question to everyone from Father Pilarz to Dr. Lovell. Yet to get a strong answer from anyone.
The fact is that if you are a middle- to upper-middle class family with more than one college age child, Marquette may be close to out of reach. Assume you are going after a Communications degree and you're from Davenport, Iowa. Your family has reasonably good income and three children. You are a child, parent and academic advisor who is choosing between Marquette at $50,000+ all-in annually and the University of Iowa, with about a $15,000 to $18,000 all-in cost.
You come out with a Marquette degree, for which you paid $200,000 and have God-knows how much debt, or an Iowa degree with a $72,000 cost, all-in, with far less debt. You work for the Daily Wizzbang in Outer Bumfork and you make $36,000 annually. Which option makes your life better?
I love Marquette but I fear the university is pricing itself out of the market for too many good candidates.
-
I have raised that question to everyone from Father Pilarz to Dr. Lovell. Yet to get a strong answer from anyone.
The fact is that if you are a middle- to upper-middle class family with more than one college age child, Marquette may be close to out of reach. Assume you are going after a Communications degree and you're from Davenport, Iowa. Your family has reasonably good income and three children. You are a child, parent and academic advisor who is choosing between Marquette at $50,000+ all-in annually and the University of Iowa, with about a $15,000 to $18,000 all-in cost.
You come out with a Marquette degree, for which you paid $200,000 and have God-knows how much debt, or an Iowa degree with a $72,000 cost, all-in, with far less debt. You work for the Daily Wizzbang in Outer Bumfork and you make $36,000 annually. Which option makes your life better?
I love Marquette but I fear the university is pricing itself out of the market for too many good candidates.
Daily Wizzbang was recently acquired by Gannett. Salaries were cut to $29,000.
-
You come out with a Marquette degree, for which you paid $200,000 and have God-knows how much debt, or an Iowa degree with a $72,000 cost, all-in, with far less debt. You work for the Daily Wizzbang in Outer Bumfork and you make $36,000 annually. Which option makes your life better?
I love Marquette but I fear the university is pricing itself out of the market for too many good candidates.
I've asked/said this for years: As tuition/room/board continue to increase at multiples of inflation (and wages stagnate) the universe of people who can (or should) afford Marquette shrinks to zero over the long term.
This goes for all privates, really.
-
I've asked/said this for years: As tuition/room/board continue to increase at multiples of inflation (and wages stagnate) the universe of people who can (or should) afford Marquette shrinks to zero over the long term.
This goes for all privates, really.
But again, very few people pay the list price. What matters is the discount.
I have worked in both public and private higher education. I have a child that went to a private university and one to a public university. Here are my general observations. First, both give you a great education that can set you up for a great career. Second, private colleges / universities excel in personal attention and are much better at developing a community feel among their students and graduates. Third, public higher education struggles with the second point. Students have to navigate the system more on their own. For as much time, effort and money that publics have thrown into trying to improve this experience, it is hard.
So the question becomes, how much of this is worth it to the average student? Would you pay $5,000 more per year? (Or would their parents?) $10,000? $15,000?
I think you would be surprised at the number of students who want that experience. Or parents that want that experience for their child.
-
I feel the underlying point is, again, costs keep increasing while wages/income stays stagnant or decreases and overall money moves to the top.
-
But again, very few people pay the list price. What matters is the discount.
I have worked in both public and private higher education. I have a child that went to a private university and one to a public university. Here are my general observations. First, both give you a great education that can set you up for a great career. Second, private colleges / universities excel in personal attention and are much better at developing a community feel among their students and graduates. Third, public higher education struggles with the second point. Students have to navigate the system more on their own. For as much time, effort and money that publics have thrown into trying to improve this experience, it is hard.
So the question becomes, how much of this is worth it to the average student? Would you pay $5,000 more per year? (Or would their parents?) $10,000? $15,000?
I think you would be surprised at the number of students who want that experience. Or parents that want that experience for their child.
I am guessing your experience is with a large, flagship type public university.
The smaller state schools can provide that community experience for a fraction of the cost.
For example, UW-Eau Claire has about 10,000 students and total cost of attendance of $16,500 for residents ($25,000 for non-residents).
Compare that to UW-Madison: 43,000 students and total cost of attendance for residents is $25,000.
Some students are better off being an honor student at UWEC than a regular UW-Madison student.
Society tends to believe the name brand school is better. But the extra cost does not always equal a higher salary.
-
Daily Wizzbang was recently acquired by Gannett. Salaries were cut to $29,000.
Brother Benny, the salaries at the Wizzbang were cut after Gannett eliminated the prduction and advertising staffs, consolidating both at a production hub 400 miles away. Half the editorial staff was eliminated before the salary cuts.
Among the layoffs was the Daily Wizzbang's AP Award Winning Government Affairs reporter. She was reduced to blogging, day trading and as night job as a greeter at the West Bumfork Walmart. Frustrated with Journalism, she has been accepted at State University's MBA program and will study data analytics.
-
I am guessing your experience is with a large, flagship type public university.
The smaller state schools can provide that community experience for a fraction of the cost.
Actually my working and parental experiences have been at smaller state universities. I don't think it's a function of size. I think it's a function of midset.
-
But again, very few people pay the list price. What matters is the discount.
Brother Sultan, I am not sure I agree with this. You don't pay list if your income fits with what the FALFSA guidelines might be or if your student is in a demographic that a university wants. Otherwise, the financial aid is minimal.
The scarey part about Marquette is that both my Dad and my Wife worked their way through the university. My Dad was part of the post World War II generation that attended MU in the 1950s and my Wife is a boomer. It was not easy for either one of them but my Dad came out debt free and my Wife had a small National Direct Loan (cancelled after her first year due to changing eligibility requirements) that we paid off fairly quickly.
I doubt anyone today could do what either my Dad or my Wife did. Feel free to explain how I am misguided.
I had one Marquette say in response to my concerns about tuition, "well everyone else is doing it." Apart from a Mass Man Fallacy, I told the official, "I'm not of every other school. I am Marquette!" I've given to MU Scholarships for decades and my fear is that I'm subsidizing Marquette's bloated tuition.
-
Brother Sultan, I am not sure I agree with this. You don't pay list if your income fits with what the FALFSA guidelines might be or if your student is in a demographic that a university wants. Otherwise, the financial aid is minimal.
The scarey part about Marquette is that both my Dad and my Wife worked their way through the university. My Dad was part of the post World War II generation that attended MU in the 1950s and my Wife is a boomer. It was not easy for either one of them but my Dad came out debt free and my Wife had a small National Direct Loan (cancelled after her first year due to changing eligibility requirements) that we paid off fairly quickly.
I doubt anyone today could do what either my Dad or my Wife did. Feel free to explain how I am misguided.
I had one Marquette say in response to my concerns about tuition, "well everyone else is doing it." Apart from a Mass Man Fallacy, I told the official, "I'm not of every other school. I am Marquette!" I've given to MU Scholarships for decades and my fear is that I'm subsidizing Marquette's bloated tuition.
You're not wrong about most being unable to work their way through Marquette. But vast majority of attendees don't pay the sticker price, regardless of family income. Marquette is very liberal with scholarships for academics and service to help counter the high tuition. My family definitely did not qualify for any financial aid but I got nearly a third of my tuition paid for via scholarship from Marquette, and I'm not that smart of a cookie.
-
Actually my working and parental experiences have been at smaller state universities. I don't think it's a function of size. I think it's a function of midset.
Thanks for sharing. The people I know have had a mix of experiences with small state universities. Some feel they were part of a tight knit community, some don't. Those I know that went to a large state school almost never do.
You're probably right that private schools are best at providing that community feel.
-
Daily Wizzbang was recently acquired by Gannett. Salaries were cut to $29,000.
The Daily Wizzbang sounds like a great crapper newspaper. Does it have a crossword?
-
Brother Sultan, I am not sure I agree with this. You don't pay list if your income fits with what the FALFSA guidelines might be or if your student is in a demographic that a university wants. Otherwise, the financial aid is minimal.
That is absolutely not true. Marquette gives discounts off its tuition for the vast majority of students who attend. Not simply aid based on need, but based on how much they want you there for academic an other reasons.
Private colleges have it down to a science. How many students do they want, and how much do they want the average student to pay (or have covered by other sources like Pell Grants and private scholarships.) They then set up their scholarship programs accordingly. Essentially students who pay more than average are subsidizing those who pay less.
-
That is absolutely not true. Marquette gives discounts off its tuition for the vast majority of students who attend. Not simply aid based on need, but based on how much they want you there for academic an other reasons.
Private colleges have it down to a science. How many students do they want, and how much do they want the average student to pay (or have covered by other sources like Pell Grants and private scholarships.) They then set up their scholarship programs accordingly. Essentially students who pay more than average are subsidizing those who pay less.
Brother Sultan, then why go through the monkey business of having a list price nobody supposedly pays? Seems ridiculous and misleading and it suggests that higher income better than average students that don't fit their demographic are, politely, going to get screwed.
Right?
-
Brother Sultan, then why go through the monkey business of having a list price nobody supposedly pays? Seems ridiculous and misleading and it suggests that higher income better than average students that don't fit their demographic are, politely, going to get screwed.
Right?
It's about finding people's price point. And yes, the rich dumb kids subsidize the poor smart ones.
-
Brother Sultan, then why go through the monkey business of having a list price nobody supposedly pays? Seems ridiculous and misleading and it suggests that higher income better than average students that don't fit their demographic are, politely, going to get screwed.
Right?
Same reason retailers mark up prices, then put items on sale. To give the impression of getting a deal.
(Plus, letting alums know the true cost might show how important it is for them to donate.)
-
Same reason retailers mark up prices, then put items on sale. To give the impression of getting a deal.
(Plus, letting alums know the true cost might show how important it is for them to donate.)
Cool, MU is the Kohl's of the university scene ;D
(https://media.giphy.com/media/2HONNTJbRhzKE/200.gif)
-
The Daily Wizzbang sounds like a great crapper newspaper. Does it have a crossword?
Sadly, no. But 82’s daily column closely resembles a word jumble.
-
Sadly, no. But 82’s daily column closely resembles a word jumble.
He's no Myron Medcalf, aina.
-
Sadly, no. But 82’s daily column closely resembles a word jumble.
The Daily Wizzbang lacks a crossword puzzle because the average West Bumforkian who reads the Wizzer probably struggles with words having more than five letters.
Gannett loved the Daily Wizzbang because it was doing seven-paragraph feature stories (due to the average attention span of a West Bumforkian) long before anyone every dreamed of USA Today.
-
Not sure how much things have changed, but maybe TAMU can say ...
My daughter graduated HS in 2005 and went to Lawrence. It's a very expensive, small, private, liberal arts school. One reason she chose it is that they offered her a cost structure that ended up being fairly similar to what she would have paid had she attended Illinois (we lived in Chicago back then). We weren't rich, but we sure as heck weren't poor; my wife had just gone back to work a couple years earlier, and we had a decent combined income. I actually was surprised Lawrence gave such a nice discount, and my daughter really got a lot out of her college experience.
-
The Daily Wizzbang sounds like a great crapper newspaper. Does it have a crossword?
with a name like "wizzbang" there has got to be a great story to it's legacy or at least they could make one up with a straight face though anyway. it does leave some room for a customized feature page-what have they got to lose? it could go more along the lines of zigs target audience-who ain't gotta use the dubya C a few times a day
-
Not sure how much things have changed, but maybe TAMU can say ...
My daughter graduated HS in 2005 and went to Lawrence. It's a very expensive, small, private, liberal arts school. One reason she chose it is that they offered her a cost structure that ended up being fairly similar to what she would have paid had she attended Illinois (we lived in Chicago back then). We weren't rich, but we sure as heck weren't poor; my wife had just gone back to work a couple years earlier, and we had a decent combined income. I actually was surprised Lawrence gave such a nice discount, and my daughter really got a lot out of her college experience.
When I chose MU I was deciding between MU and Penn State, I was living out of state (Illinois) at the time so PSU and MU ended up being about the same price when you factored in the engineering scholarship money, etc. However, if PSU had ended up being cheaper I would have gone there....economics matter.
-
A follow up to the MU list price thing.....how many folks do you think MU keeps away due to "sticker shock"? I'd be a little worried that we aren't getting a diversity of backgrounds, experiences, and economic standing applying to the university simply because prospective students look at the sticker price and say "that's the rich kids school". Having said that, maybe kids aren't looking at the price at all if they are taking on $200K in debt so it doesn't really matter.
-
A follow up to the MU list price thing.....how many folks do you think MU keeps away due to "sticker shock"? I'd be a little worried that we aren't getting a diversity of backgrounds, experiences, and economic standing applying to the university simply because prospective students look at the sticker price and say "that's the rich kids school". Having said that, maybe kids aren't looking at the price at all if they are taking on $200K in debt so it doesn't really matter.
I am sure it's a huge issue. I think many parents assume that they won't be able to afford Marquette, not realizing that often with scholarships and other financial aid, it might be comparable to an in-state school where they have to pay rack rate.
-
A follow up to the MU list price thing.....how many folks do you think MU keeps away due to "sticker shock"? I'd be a little worried that we aren't getting a diversity of backgrounds, experiences, and economic standing applying to the university simply because prospective students look at the sticker price and say "that's the rich kids school". Having said that, maybe kids aren't looking at the price at all if they are taking on $200K in debt so it doesn't really matter.
I think it's an issue eng. I know for chick and I the cultural difference between now and when we went to school is quite large. Wonder how you see is as you attended a generation later? MU is trying hard to address it with its focus on 'first in family to college'. That's actually been quite successful given the numbers.
Oh, and I don't have the final stats yet but this year's Frosh crop is both huge (almost 2200) and extremely talented with I believe the highest average ACT ever. I guess I need to go find that thread about admissions where some said MU's new recruiting strategy was a mistake. ::)
-
I am sure it's a huge issue. I think many parents assume that they won't be able to afford Marquette, not realizing that often with scholarships and other financial aid, it might be comparable to an in-state school where they have to pay rack rate.
I think this is spot on.
My daughter was a very bright kid (she's still very bright - just not a kid!) and she could have gone just about anywhere. She got accepted to Carleton, Grinnell, all the small lib-arts schools, which is what she wanted because she wanted both a great education and the opportunity to play D3 hoops.
Her first choice was Carleton but after looking at the price I just assumed that we couldn't afford it and we crossed it off the list. She ended up at Lawrence ... but, as I said in my earlier post, only after we received their full offer. Several months later, I was told by friends who had been through the process that we probably would have gotten a fairly similar deal from Carleton. I was, in a word, ignorant. Or at least naive.
I hope that kids thinking about MU will go through the entire process of seeing what it will actually cost vs just looking at the sticker and being shocked away.
My daughter ended up loving Lawrence and getting a lot out of it, so there are no regrets, but she almost surely could have gone to Carleton for a fairly similar price.
-
Its a tough spot - MU has to "inflate" the sticker price high enough that the B- student from Winnetka sufficiently subsidizes MU's ability to grant scholarships and aid to the folks from underrepresented areas and populations, yet not scare off those underrepresented folks with that high sticker price. Kind of a zero sum game at some point, and I'm not sure there's any way to do it other than to set the sticker price where it needs to be and then hire really talented and energetic people to spread the word to the school districts and other extracurriculars about the economic realities ("ignore the sticker price") for underrepresented applicants.
-
Its a tough spot - MU has to "inflate" the sticker price high enough that the B- student from Winnetka sufficiently subsidizes MU's ability to grant scholarships and aid to the folks from underrepresented areas and populations, yet not scare off those underrepresented folks with that high sticker price. Kind of a zero sum game at some point, and I'm not sure there's any way to do it other than to set the sticker price where it needs to be and then hire really talented and energetic people to spread the word to the school districts and other extracurriculars about the economic realities ("ignore the sticker price") for underrepresented applicants.
There are no B- students getting into Marquette anymore. But I get your point.
-
There are no B- students getting into Marquette anymore. But I get your point.
They are if they went to New Trier.
-
What is the maximum amount given to the typical student for an academic scholarship (I'm not talking Bradley Scholars who when I was there got full tuition, if those still exist)? Many times an academic scholarship doesn't even cover half of the full cost of attendance for students living on campus (which they have to do for the first two years in school).
Also, many times the percentages of students receiving aid are deceptive as "aid" includes loans and student employment (MU says 98% receive aid). I got an academic scholarship but no need-based aid so I took out loans to cover what my parents did not pay (I was fortunate that they could contribute a large amount). Meanwhile, my siblings went to highly rated in-state public institutions and had no loans. In hindsight.....
Some schools have reduced tuition costs. LaSalle did so a few years ago, dropping tuition over 28%.
"La Salle found ahead of the reset that this was indeed the case—some prospective students would view the university’s cost on its website, never to return, said Lucas." I know that was the case with one of my early top choices, Colorado College. My dad vetoed it immediately based on the tuition.
-
What is the maximum amount given to the typical student for an academic scholarship (I'm not talking Bradley Scholars who when I was there got full tuition, if those still exist)? Many times an academic scholarship doesn't even cover half of the full cost of attendance for students living on campus (which they have to do for the first two years in school).
Also, many times the percentages of students receiving aid are deceptive as "aid" includes loans and student employment (MU says 98% receive aid). I got an academic scholarship but no need-based aid so I took out loans to cover what my parents did not pay (I was fortunate that they could contribute a large amount). Meanwhile, my siblings went to highly rated in-state public institutions and had no loans. In hindsight.....
Some schools have reduced tuition costs. LaSalle did so a few years ago, dropping tuition over 28%.
"La Salle found ahead of the reset that this was indeed the case—some prospective students would view the university’s cost on its website, never to return, said Lucas." I know that was the case with one of my early top choices, Colorado College. My dad vetoed it immediately based on the tuition.
Knowing that you really didn't mean 'typical', the best scholly short of the special ones are just north of 50% tuition. To get one of those, you best have about a 4.0 (with that extra AP bump), play a couple sports/activities holding leadership positions, and write about a 33-34ish on your ACT. Even then, your MU merit package will be weaker than one the competition offers. That's an endowment problem.
-
How many National Merit Finalists enroll at MU and what does MU offer that very select group?
-
They are if they went to New Trier.
For the class of 2021, the literally accepted 0% of students that were in the bottom half of their class. And I can guarantee you that a B- student at New Trier is not in the top half of his class.
http://www.mu.edu/about/student-demographics.php
The median student in the class of 2021 was in the 78th percentile in terms of class rank.
http://www.mu.edu/oira/fresh-dash.shtml
-
For the class of 2021, the literally accepted 0% of students that were in the bottom half of their class. And I can guarantee you that a B- student at New Trier is not in the top half of his class.
http://www.mu.edu/about/student-demographics.php
The median student in the class of 2021 was in the 78th percentile in terms of class rank.
http://www.mu.edu/oira/fresh-dash.shtml
A couple of thoughts:
1) My children's high school in the North Suburbs doesn't even rank its students. My own experience has been that rankings are more an art than a science anyway but...
2) If the average MU ACT is 33/34, then there's been a bit of ACT inflation since the days when I was at MU. No way MU students are THAT much smarter today than we were way back when!
3) Same for GPA. If a B- at New Trier won't get you into Marquette, then I can only imagine what our GPAs from the old days would be today.
It's been a lot of years since I was in high school and college (more than I want to remember, but that is beside the point). But good grief.
-
A couple of thoughts:
1) My children's high school in the North Suburbs doesn't even rank its students. My own experience has been that rankings are more an art than a science anyway but...
2) If the average MU ACT is 33/34, then there's been a bit of ACT inflation since the days when I was at MU. No way MU students are THAT much smarter today than we were way back when!
3) Same for GPA. If a B- at New Trier won't get you into Marquette, then I can only imagine what our GPAs from the old days would be today.
It's been a lot of years since I was in high school and college (more than I want to remember, but that is beside the point). But good grief.
It sounds like grade inflation has been on par with tuition inflation over the past 20 years. In 1996, a 33 on the ACT was 99th percentile nationally.
-
A couple of thoughts:
1) My children's high school in the North Suburbs doesn't even rank its students. My own experience has been that rankings are more an art than a science anyway but...
2) If the average MU ACT is 33/34, then there's been a bit of ACT inflation since the days when I was at MU. No way MU students are THAT much smarter today than we were way back when!
3) Same for GPA. If a B- at New Trier won't get you into Marquette, then I can only imagine what our GPAs from the old days would be today.
It's been a lot of years since I was in high school and college (more than I want to remember, but that is beside the point). But good grief.
Where do you see that the average is a 33-34? I am seeing 27 on the link.
-
It sounds like grade inflation has been on par with tuition inflation over the past 20 years. In 1996, a 33 on the ACT was 99th percentile nationally.
It still is, at least as recently as 2012.
-
Given my HS grades and SAT scores, there is a 0.00% chance I would have gotten into Marquette today.
Which, of course, would have been Marquette's loss.
So there!
-
The question is, how much of the debt to salary ratio in total is represented by the insane example represented in this article.....$200,000 debt to obtain an English Major.....how is that every economically justified??? If you told me the person took on $200K in debt to get a STEM degree and the same principles were at work, you have something but the anecdotal evidence the article depends on is stupid insane.
This statement is ill-advised. A student who used to work in my lab, was an English and Music double major, at a school with total cost of education well over $50k. By your statement he was stupid insane.
He got a full-ride to one of the top medical schools in the country, who allowed him to defer his start date so he can complete a Fulbright first.
One of the smartest people, and most amazing humans I've ever met.
-
This statement is ill-advised. A student who used to work in my lab, was an English and Music double major, at a school with total cost of education well over $50k. By your statement he was stupid insane.
He got a full-ride to one of the top medical schools in the country, who allowed him to defer his start date so he can complete a Fulbright first.
One of the smartest people, and most amazing humans I've ever met.
First, the stupid insane was in reference to the article using that particular anecdote to anchor the premise to, not the act of getting an English degree.
Second, your co-worker sounds like they had a great plan to account for the student debt they were taking on so that's great. It's fair to say I was perhaps too generic but I stand by the premise that if you can't tie a degree to a viable career plan that can support a high level of debt and/or you are comfortable at a high ratio like TAMU I'm not going to be sympathetic to your plight
-
Where do you see that the average is a 33-34? I am seeing 27 on the link.
Confirmed .. MU's own page shows 26.8 as the average ACT for recent freshman.
32+ is for Ivy Leagues and the like. Yale 32+, MIT 33+, Harvard 32+. Stanford 31+.
Marquette is a magnitude+ lower.
-
Confirmed .. MU's own page shows 26.8 as the average ACT for recent freshman.
32+ is for Ivy Leagues and the like. Yale 32+, MIT 33+, Harvard 32+. Stanford 31+.
Marquette is a magnitude+ lower.
Oh, Stanford. The Harvard of the Midwest of the West.
-
How many National Merit Finalists enroll at MU and what does MU offer that very select group?
Waitin' on y'all's answer, hey?
-
First, the stupid insane was in reference to the article using that particular anecdote to anchor the premise to, not the act of getting an English degree.
Second, your co-worker sounds like they had a great plan to account for the student debt they were taking on so that's great. It's fair to say I was perhaps too generic but I stand by the premise that if you can't tie a degree to a viable career plan that can support a high level of debt and/or you are comfortable at a high ratio like TAMU I'm not going to be sympathetic to your plight
Got it.
In all honesty, the number of students who rack up $200k in debt with a degree that can never pay it off, and then complain, is a very small pool of people in my opinion.
But some fault can fall on Universities, but not necessarily in the way you describe it. Many Universities are switching to models, where departmental budgets are solely dependent on the number of "majors", not any other teaching specific metric. This has led departments to get creative in recruiting, that can often involve misleading statistics.
-
A couple of thoughts:
1) My children's high school in the North Suburbs doesn't even rank its students. My own experience has been that rankings are more an art than a science anyway but...
2) If the average MU ACT is 33/34, then there's been a bit of ACT inflation since the days when I was at MU. No way MU students are THAT much smarter today than we were way back when!
3) Same for GPA. If a B- at New Trier won't get you into Marquette, then I can only imagine what our GPAs from the old days would be today.
It's been a lot of years since I was in high school and college (more than I want to remember, but that is beside the point). But good grief.
It's not. That the ACT required to get a max scholly. The average ACT coming into MU is around a 28 for this year's class. Too lazy to look it up.
-
Given my HS grades and SAT scores, there is a 0.00% chance I would have gotten into Marquette today.
Which, of course, would have been Marquette's loss.
So there!
Not commenting on your background at all but the student profile today is night and day different than when we were there in the 70s/80s. And those of you from the early 90s when the school was actually struggling? Probably half that class couldn't get admitted today.
-
It's not. That the ACT required to get a max scholly. The average ACT coming into MU is around a 28 for this year's class. Too lazy to look it up.
Too lazy or too indifferent?
I still argue a B- at New Trier and a mid-20s ACT probably would get you in, especially if the student was a legacy.
Arguably, if it would not, it's because Marquette has a huge draw from Northeastern Illinois. Now, if the B- was St. John Paul II High School in Hendersonville, TN, or Father Ryan in Nashville, with a mid-20s ACT, that may be another story.
Geographic diversity always has been important to Marquette.
-
Too lazy or too indifferent?
I still argue a B- at New Trier and a mid-20s ACT probably would get you in, especially if the student was a legacy.
Arguably, if it would not, it's because Marquette has a huge draw from Northeastern Illinois. Now, if the B- was St. John Paul II High School in Hendersonville, TN, or Father Ryan in Nashville, with a mid-20s ACT, that may be another story.
Geographic diversity always has been important to Marquette.
I'm not going to say more because I don't want to share too much info but my experience tells me you're incorrect. It's very tough to get into MU these days, especially in certain colleges. That's even true for legacies.
-
Too lazy or too indifferent?
I still argue a B- at New Trier and a mid-20s ACT probably would get you in, especially if the student was a legacy.
Arguably, if it would not, it's because Marquette has a huge draw from Northeastern Illinois. Now, if the B- was St. John Paul II High School in Hendersonville, TN, or Father Ryan in Nashville, with a mid-20s ACT, that may be another story.
Geographic diversity always has been important to Marquette.
Did the family also donate upwards of $500k+ to the University. If not they are not getting into MU with a B- average.
Not sure if MU has it, but a lot of schools now partner with Universities in Europe. That "legacy" students can be admitted to, and then transfer back to MU if they do well.
-
Legacy don't mean chit, unless its coupled wit donor sheckles, hey?
-
Not commenting on your background at all but the student profile today is night and day different than when we were there in the 70s/80s. And those of you from the early 90s when the school was actually struggling? Probably half that class couldn't get admitted today.
I don't doubt that every word of this is true.
-
Y's vs. Z's
https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-zs-habits-different-from-millennials-2018-6#gen-zs-are-exploring-new-gender-norms-or-discarding-gender-all-together-14
(https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-zs-habits-different-from-millennials-2018-6#gen-zs-are-exploring-new-gender-norms-or-discarding-gender-all-together-14)
Z's are going to kick ass as they enter the workforce
-
Y's vs. Z's
Z's are going to kick ass as they enter the workforce
I will believe that when I see it. I didn't see much in that article that would suggest one generation over another will be amazingly different in the workforce.
That Gen Z has never known a world without a cell phone in their hand means they've logged more hours of Youtube than any other generation. Super. I'm sure Gen Z's penchant for social justice and desire to show off their individuality will totally help them in the workforce too.
-
Y's vs. Z's
https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-zs-habits-different-from-millennials-2018-6#gen-zs-are-exploring-new-gender-norms-or-discarding-gender-all-together-14
(https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-zs-habits-different-from-millennials-2018-6#gen-zs-are-exploring-new-gender-norms-or-discarding-gender-all-together-14)
Z's are going to kick ass as they enter the workforce
This is going to help, how?
-
I will believe that when I see it. I didn't see much in that article that would suggest one generation over another will be amazingly different in the workforce.
That Gen Z has never known a world without a cell phone in their hand means they've logged more hours of Youtube than any other generation. Super. I'm sure Gen Z's penchant for social justice and desire to show off their individuality will totally help them in the workforce too.
Failing to see the difference between Y and Z on this one... the Y's seem to be working out ok despite their penchant for social justice and desire to show off their individuality. Hell, Mark Zuckerberg would be just another little man working for the Canadian marijuana industry today if it wasn't for the Millennial's unprecedented desire to show off their individuality.
As far as the social justice part... in a dichotomous political society, social justice can only be cyclical. Unfortunately, it is pushed to one extreme and then the other extreme will push back, and back and forth and back and forth, all the while Zuckerberg gets richer and richer but nobody cares because he's on the side of the pushers, not the pullers, or vice versa (depending on where you are in the cycle and/or who's side the media happens to be on) so the pullers (or the pushers) will pull (or push) and the pushers (or the pullers) will push (or pull), and all of those who are truly in need continue to suffer in the middle irrespective of the match between the pushers and pullers because neither the pushers nor the pullers honestly give a rat's ass about the victims so long as they are (or think they are) winning. That's social justice in a society that is increasingly adhering to a "with us or against us" mentality.
Just another of our society's ills that could be solved by compulsory voting. But hey, let's silence half of America not because we don't know if they're on the side of the pushers or pullers but because we lack the courage (or intellect) to have to decided among more than two choices.
[WTF kind of tangent was that? Must be a game day.]
-
That's social justice in a society that is increasingly adhering to a "with us or against us" mentality.
Just another of our society's ills that could be solved by compulsory voting. But hey, let's silence half of America not because we don't know if they're on the side of the pushers or pullers but because we lack the courage (or intellect) to have to decided among more than two choices.
This is my greatest concern and some of the things and actions coming out of people, especially in the last month should be alarming. Civility no longer allowed unless one side wins a chamber(s)? People are going to get killed, and that is going to lead to some escalations that could get very ugly. Social media has polarized more than ever because people only read and play in their echo chambers. And now if they don't get their way, they are taking it to extremes that are dangerous. Both sides better wake up to this because both sides are guilty of it.
-
This is my greatest concern and some of the things and actions coming out of people, especially in the last month should be alarming. Civility no longer allowed unless one side wins a chamber(s)? People are going to get killed, and that is going to lead to some escalations that could get very ugly. Social media has polarized more than ever because people only read and play in their echo chambers. And now if they don't get their way, they are taking it to extremes that are dangerous. Both sides better wake up to this because both sides are guilty of it.
Very fine people on both sides.
-
I don't buy that social justice is cyclical. There is some back and forth on some social justice areas, but not all. Take gay marriage for example, while there were small setbacks along the way eventually it was passed by the Supreme Court and I don't ever see it going back (Jay Bee your anti-marriage viewpoint is noted). I think it's pretty unarguable that life has gotten better, more equal, and safer for LGBQ+ individuals in this country. Not perfect, more work to be done, but better than even 5 years ago.
-
This is my greatest concern and some of the things and actions coming out of people, especially in the last month should be alarming. Civility no longer allowed unless one side wins a chamber(s)? People are going to get killed, and that is going to lead to some escalations that could get very ugly. Social media has polarized more than ever because people only read and play in their echo chambers. And now if they don't get their way, they are taking it to extremes that are dangerous. Both sides better wake up to this because both sides are guilty of it.
Not going to disagree, but will say the media promotes the messages of the extremes. To wit, a decent study (https://hiddentribes.us/) .. shows 8% are "Progressive Activists" with their counterpart "Devoted Conservatives" having 6%.
That 14% represents, what, 95% of the heated messages on the planet? There's a reason the study shows most people are in the "exhausted majority."
Now .. that being said, I think there is a 0% chance that there WON'T be large-scale violent "civil" action in the US in the next ~25 years.
-
This is my greatest concern and some of the things and actions coming out of people, especially in the last month should be alarming. Civility no longer allowed unless one side wins a chamber(s)? People are going to get killed, and that is going to lead to some escalations that could get very ugly. Social media has polarized more than ever because people only read and play in their echo chambers. And now if they don't get their way, they are taking it to extremes that are dangerous. Both sides better wake up to this because both sides are guilty of it.
You lack historical context. This isn't really all that new.
-
Very fine people on both sides.
Lol.
-
Very fine people on both sides.
Yes, and some terrible human beings on both sides, too.
-
Not going to disagree, but will say the media promotes the messages of the extremes. To wit, a decent study (https://hiddentribes.us/) .. shows 8% are "Progressive Activists" with their counterpart "Devoted Conservatives" having 6%.
That 14% represents, what, 95% of the heated messages on the planet? There's a reason the study shows most people are in the "exhausted majority."
Now .. that being said, I think there is a 0% chance that there WON'T be large-scale violent "civil" action in the US in the next ~25 years.
Define large scale violent civil action. Social media makes news and events travel in seconds. All it is going to take is someone crazy to light up the wrong people in a public way, captured on video to get the other side's wrong people to take the wrong actions. When we are encouraging people with this behavior, which is what I hear from the Cheeto and from leaders in my party, that is not good.
-
Define large scale violent civil action. Social media makes news and events travel in seconds. All it is going to take is someone crazy to light up the wrong people in a public way, captured on video to get the other side's wrong people to take the wrong actions. When we are encouraging people with this behavior, which is what I hear from the Cheeto and from leaders in my party, that is not good.
What leaders in "your party" have encouraged violence from their supporters? I could see an argument for that they aren't doing enough to condemn violence but I personally can't think of an example where any have encouraged violence.
-
What leaders in "your party" have encouraged violence from their supporters? I could see an argument for that they aren't doing enough to condemn violence but I personally can't think of an example where any have encouraged violence.
Ha, dude don't even engage. Cheekz loves him some false equivalence.
-
Not going to disagree, but will say the media promotes the messages of the extremes. To wit, a decent study (https://hiddentribes.us/) .. shows 8% are "Progressive Activists" with their counterpart "Devoted Conservatives" having 6%.
That 14% represents, what, 95% of the heated messages on the planet? There's a reason the study shows most people are in the "exhausted majority."
And to pile on here, magnifying the most extreme message *works*. Whether that's tact by "mainstream/moderate" political leaders, an unintentional consequence of the media promoting the extremes, or a savvy combo of both, highlighting extremes casts otherwise controversial positions as moderate and gives cover to "moderate" politicians fearing blowback. The right's success over the last couple of decades (I don't think there's a plausible argument that the moderate left has been more successful than the moderate right) is owed to their ability to force advantageous compromise by framing their extreme wing as a tacit threat of what will happen when the political winds shift.
-
Free BeeJay 2018, aina?
-
Folks, this is a prime example of the internet is not real life. Social Media/The Internet amplifies the extremes either intentionally (political purpose, media clicks, etc) or accidentally based on who you follow, etc. This is also proving the concept of data without content being worse than no data.
-
Just another of our society's ills that could be solved by compulsory voting. But hey, let's silence half of America not because we don't know if they're on the side of the pushers or pullers but because we lack the courage (or intellect) to have to decided among more than two choices.
Had a discussion with a couple of Millennials on one of my teams yesterday, neither of them ever vote. These are otherwise very intelligent professionals, but one can't be bothered and the other "doesn't trust politicians".
Exasperating.
-
I don't buy that social justice is cyclical. There is some back and forth on some social justice areas, but not all. Take gay marriage for example, while there were small setbacks along the way eventually it was passed by the Supreme Court and I don't ever see it going back (Jay Bee your anti-marriage viewpoint is noted). I think it's pretty unarguable that life has gotten better, more equal, and safer for LGBQ+ individuals in this country. Not perfect, more work to be done, but better than even 5 years ago.
I did not realize SCOTUS passes legislation. I thought they decide cases.
-
Damn activist judges
-
Had a discussion with a couple of Millennials on one of my teams yesterday, neither of them ever vote. These are otherwise very intelligent professionals, but one can't be bothered and the other "doesn't trust politicians".
Exasperating.
FIFY.
And yet... all y'all feel like their votes should be suppressed. Why is that? Because someone who doesn't trust politicians is deemed less intelligent?
Seems like someone who doesn't trust politicians would be someone of above-average intelligence.
-
FIFY.
And yet... all y'all feel like their votes should be suppressed. Why is that? Because someone who doesn't trust politicians is deemed less intelligent?
Seems like someone who doesn't trust politicians would be someone of above-average intelligence.
That's being obtuse. There's a pretty big jump between not trusting politicians and opting out of the system that allows you to elect the politician you distrust the least.
If the argument is that not voting is a more impactful statement than voting for either of the distrustful politicians, okay, but I have a hard time getting on board with that translating to the rest of us bending over backwards to hear more about what that person has to say through compulsory voting.
*Edited to mention that I'm also in favor of anything that makes voting easier and more straightforward for people who want to do it. But I'm unimpressed with the person who doesn't vote because they don't "trust politicians."
-
I did not realize SCOTUS passes legislation. I thought they decide cases.
Never said they did. Passed is a synonym for approved, decided, supported, chose, backed, etc.
-
FIFY.
And yet... all y'all feel like their votes should be suppressed. Why is that? Because someone who doesn't trust politicians is deemed less intelligent?
Seems like someone who doesn't trust politicians would be someone of above-average intelligence.
Absolutely true. This is precisely what David Foster Wallace homes in on in his excellent 2000 Rolling Stone article about McCain. (It becomes even more prescient considering the current occupant is a serial liar on an previously-unknown scale.) https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/david-foster-wallace-on-john-mccain-the-weasel-twelve-monkeys-and-the-shrub-194272/
Worth reading the whole thing, but here's a clip:
"...Because we’ve been lied to and lied to, and it hurts to be lied to. It’s ultimately just about that complicated: it hurts. We learn this at like age four – it’s grownups’ first explanation to us of why it’s bad to lie (“How would you like it if … ?”). And we keep learning for years, from hard experience, that getting lied to sucks – that it diminishes you, denies you respect for yourself, for the liar, for the world. Especially if the lies are chronic, systemic, if experience seems to teach that everything you’re supposed to believe in’s really just a game based on lies. Young Voters have been taught well and thoroughly. You may not personally remember Vietnam or Watergate, but it’s a good bet you remember “No new taxes” and “Out of the loop” and “No direct knowledge of any impropriety at this time” and “Did not inhale” and “Did not have sex with that Ms. Lewinsky” and etc. etc. It’s painful to believe that the would-be “public servants” you’re forced to choose between are all phonies whose only real concern is their own care and feeding and who will lie so outrageously and with such a straight face that you know they’ve just got to believe you’re an idiot. So who wouldn’t yawn and turn away, trade apathy and cynicism for the hurt of getting treated with contempt?
-
That's being obtuse. There's a pretty big jump between not trusting politicians and opting out of the system that allows you to elect the politician you distrust the least.
If the argument is that not voting is a more impactful statement than voting for either of the distrustful politicians, okay, but I have a hard time getting on board with that translating to the rest of us bending over backwards to hear more about what that person has to say through compulsory voting.
*Edited to mention that I'm also in favor of anything that makes voting easier and more straightforward for people who want to do it. But I'm unimpressed with the person who doesn't vote because they don't "trust politicians."
There are many reasons people don't vote. Many people consider their vote an endorsement of a candidate and take issue - moral or otherwise - with helping to elect a representative that isn't representative of who they are or what they stand for. Other people have no problem with electing a sociopath* as long as it puts a few more dollars in their own pockets. The latter is where the danger exists... most people vote because they feel a duty or obligation to vote. So why is it "bending over backwards" to have someone else cast their vote who otherwise would not? Sure, it's a little more work for the machines that count the ballots, and I guess someone has to spend 45 minutes watching a printing press than the usual 20 minutes. Maybe the poll workers have to stay a little later, or more volunteers will be needed to run the polling sites. But your implication that compulsory voting would be this great burden levied upon the people is simply untrue.
Political campaigns spend BILLIONS of dollars, $6.5B in 2016 alone according to the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/04/14/somebody-just-put-a-price-tag-on-the-2016-election-its-a-doozy/), for one reason: get people to show up to the polls. "With that much money you could fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for 15 years, fix the Flint, Mich., lead pipe problem 30 times over or give every public school teacher a $2,000 raise."
-
There are many reasons people don't vote. Many people consider their vote an endorsement of a candidate and take issue - moral or otherwise - with helping to elect a representative that isn't representative of who they are or what they stand for. Other people have no problem with electing a sociopath* as long as it puts a few more dollars in their own pockets. The latter is where the danger exists... most people vote because they feel a duty or obligation to vote. So why is it "bending over backwards" to have someone else cast their vote who otherwise would not? Sure, it's a little more work for the machines that count the ballots, and I guess someone has to spend 45 minutes watching a printing press than the usual 20 minutes. Maybe the poll workers have to stay a little later, or more volunteers will be needed to run the polling sites. But your implication that compulsory voting would be this great burden levied upon the people is simply untrue.
You also raised the bolded point in your last post about "suppressing" the votes of people who don't vote because they don't trust politicians. People who don't vote for broader ideological reasons are different than people who don't vote for practical reasons. The person who doesn't vote because all politicians are untrustworthy? Or takes issue with electing someone who they don't feel sufficiently represents them? I'd prefer that those folks not vote and I don't think the system gets better if we force them to. Their not voting isn't "suppression" and they aren't just having someone cast their ballot that "otherwise would not" - those are conscientious objectors to the whole process. Given that we have actual voter suppression going on, and concentrated efforts to make voting inaccessible to large groups of people, I think using hyperbole around people who don't want to participate anyway unduly overshadows the practical things we should be doing to make the election process we have easier to navigate and more accessible.
-
You also raised the bolded point in your last post about "suppressing" the votes of people who don't vote because they don't trust politicians. People who don't vote for broader ideological reasons are different than people who don't vote for practical reasons. The person who doesn't vote because all politicians are untrustworthy? Or takes issue with electing someone who they don't feel sufficiently represents them? I'd prefer that those folks not vote and I don't think the system gets better if we force them to. Their not voting isn't "suppression" and they aren't just having someone cast their ballot that "otherwise would not" - those are conscientious objectors to the whole process. Given that we have actual voter suppression going on, and concentrated efforts to make voting inaccessible to large groups of people, I think using hyperbole around people who don't want to participate anyway unduly overshadows the practical things we should be doing to make the election process we have easier to navigate and more accessible.
This.
-
While we're discussing voting...
Why are overseas military and citizens who live abroad permitted to vote by email/online, but we can't have that option for in-country citizens?
-
While we're discussing voting...
Why are overseas military and citizens who live abroad permitted to vote by email/online, but we can't have that option for in-country citizens?
It's because remote electronic voting is still eminently hackable, but is typically not worth the trouble for the small percentage of the total vote you could affect.
Roll that out to the general populace, though...
-
FIFY.
And yet... all y'all feel like their votes should be suppressed. Why is that? Because someone who doesn't trust politicians is deemed less intelligent?
Seems like someone who doesn't trust politicians would be someone of above-average intelligence.
Sorry, kinda confused what you are trying to say here. I feel like their votes should be suppressed? Please explain where I have ever made or implied that. In fact, I'm pretty sure I'm the only one that has stated that I agree with compulsory voting.
-
While we're discussing voting...
Why are overseas military and citizens who live abroad permitted to vote by email/online, but we can't have that option for in-country citizens?
They have to vote by absentee ballot, don't they?
-
It's because remote electronic voting is still eminently hackable, but is typically not worth the trouble for the small percentage of the total vote you could affect.
Roll that out to the general populace, though...
Voting machines are eminently hackable.
"Kids at hacking conference show how easily US elections could be sabotaged"
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/22/us-elections-hacking-voting-machines-def-con
-
Voting machines are eminently hackable.
"Kids at hacking conference show how easily US elections could be sabotaged"
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/22/us-elections-hacking-voting-machines-def-con
There is hackable and then hackable in a way that no one would notice.
-
It's one of the great scams going.
In-person voting fraud is almost non-existent, but it's relatively easy to make illegal votes remotely and/or by absentee ballot.
-
Musta spent lottsa tyme in da Banana Republic, hey?
-
Voting machines are eminently hackable.
"Kids at hacking conference show how easily US elections could be sabotaged"
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/22/us-elections-hacking-voting-machines-def-con
Not really as they also showed the circumstances in which those kids did that do not exist in the real world. Opening up the back of the machine, for example. That would be flagged immediately. Several articles that talk about yes it is possible, but with tools, a lot of work and remember that no machines are connected to each other. Overblown.
“In the real world of elections, it’s ludicrous,” said Clifford Rodgers, administrator of elections in Knox County, Tenn. “We’ve got people watching people come in to vote.They’re not coming in with screwdrivers to open it up. They’re not coming in with computers.”
https://gcn.com/articles/2017/11/15/voting-machine-hack.aspx
-
You lack historical context. This isn't really all that new.
Historical context didn't have social media, that's the game changer.
-
What leaders in "your party" have encouraged violence from their supporters? I could see an argument for that they aren't doing enough to condemn violence but I personally can't think of an example where any have encouraged violence.
The latter is the big part, step up and tell people to knock it off. The GOP has to tell Cheeto it is unacceptable his comments of support of slamming reporters. Examples. Eric Holder should not be saying "When they go low, we kick them" (said last week). The mayor out west in Portland with Antifa, that is unacceptable. Using charged words like "collateral damage" by Nancy Pelosi this week, even though it was related to economic policies it is charged in this environment. Hillary Clinton saying civility cannot occur unless we win the House and/or Senate. Civility cannot start unless we win was her comment. That is not the proper way to talk in and it is loaded and charged for the crazies. Those are examples with my party. There are numerous with the GOP, including their leader.
I have said before, I use the standard of putting the other party into the story to see how the reaction would be. If Cheeto or Graham said Collateral Damage, or take it to the streets, or we won't be civil unless we win one of the chambers, how would we react? How would the media react? The same needs to be applied to both sides.
Michele Obama had it right, stay above the frey.
-
The latter is the big part, step up and tell people to knock it off. The GOP has to tell Cheeto it is unacceptable his comments of support of slamming reporters. Examples. Eric Holder should not be saying "When they go low, we kick them" (said last week). The mayor out west in Portland with Antifa, that is unacceptable. Using charged words like "collateral damage" by Nancy Pelosi this week, even though it was related to economic policies it is charged in this environment. Hillary Clinton saying civility cannot occur unless we win the House and/or Senate. Civility cannot start unless we win was her comment. That is not the proper way to talk in and it is loaded and charged for the crazies. Those are examples with my party. There are numerous with the GOP, including their leader.
I have said before, I use the standard of putting the other party into the story to see how the reaction would be. If Cheeto or Graham said Collateral Damage, or take it to the streets, or we won't be civil unless we win one of the chambers, how would we react? How would the media react? The same needs to be applied to both sides.
Michele Obama had it right, stay above the frey.
Totally. As a conservative, I’m really disappointed in my party. We’ve gone absolutely insane, nothing like the 70’s when Richard Nixon represented us reasonable conservatives (well, until he had to resign in disgrace. Lol.). Now, I’ve noticed how my party is full of more snowflakes than an Oberlon cafeteria. And I realized, it’s both sides. All sides are snowflakes. Especially my Republican party.
-
The latter is the big part, step up and tell people to knock it off. The GOP has to tell Cheeto it is unacceptable his comments of support of slamming reporters. Examples. Eric Holder should not be saying "When they go low, we kick them" (said last week). The mayor out west in Portland with Antifa, that is unacceptable. Using charged words like "collateral damage" by Nancy Pelosi this week, even though it was related to economic policies it is charged in this environment. Hillary Clinton saying civility cannot occur unless we win the House and/or Senate. Civility cannot start unless we win was her comment. That is not the proper way to talk in and it is loaded and charged for the crazies. Those are examples with my party. There are numerous with the GOP, including their leader.
I have said before, I use the standard of putting the other party into the story to see how the reaction would be. If Cheeto or Graham said Collateral Damage, or take it to the streets, or we won't be civil unless we win one of the chambers, how would we react? How would the media react? The same needs to be applied to both sides.
Michele Obama had it right, stay above the frey.
I'll give you the Holder comment, though he is a former leader of the party, not a current one. I'm not familiar with the Portland mayor. The Pelosi and Clinton comments I would not bat an eye at if they were said by Republicans.
This is all false equivalency. There have been actual threats of violence and incarceration on one side. To try to hold these examples up as just as bad is disingenuous at best and dangerous at worst.
-
I'll give you the Holder comment, though he is a former leader of the party, not a current one. I'm not familiar with the Portland mayor. The Pelosi and Clinton comments I would not bat an eye at if they were said by Republicans.
This is all false equivalency. There have been actual threats of violence and incarceration on one side. To try to hold these examples up as just as bad is disingenuous at best and dangerous at worst.
Holder is considering running for President. He is not a former leader. https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/28/politics/eric-holder-interested-in-being-president/index.html
Would the media bat an eye? Yes they would. I find it unbecoming, for the same reason I find cheetos' comments unbecoming.
It sparks the crazies. Two Republican lawmakers were assaulted in the last week in Minnesota, one in California earlier this year with a switchblade. The softball shooting incident, Rand Paul attacked at his home. Susan Collins has Ricin sent to her home and office in the last week. Man arrested in NY this last week for threatening death to several senators and the new Supreme Court Justice. Someone is going to get killed with the crazy people on both sides.
I'm sorry, but we can do better and I expect better. I care about what we are doing, take the higher ground.
-
People from my Republican Party killed a girl at a neo-nazi rally. Both sides. We can do better. All MU fans.
-
People from my Republican Party killed a girl at a neo-nazi rally. Both sides. We can do better. All MU fans.
False equivalency. Only one side attracts Nazis and the Klan.
-
Not really as they also showed the circumstances in which those kids did that do not exist in the real world. Opening up the back of the machine, for example. That would be flagged immediately. Several articles that talk about yes it is possible, but with tools, a lot of work and remember that no machines are connected to each other. Overblown.
“In the real world of elections, it’s ludicrous,” said Clifford Rodgers, administrator of elections in Knox County, Tenn. “We’ve got people watching people come in to vote.They’re not coming in with screwdrivers to open it up. They’re not coming in with computers.”
https://gcn.com/articles/2017/11/15/voting-machine-hack.aspx
You're right, Chicos, our election systems are perfectly safe.
https://hackernoon.com/hacking-the-vote-security-vulnerabilities-and-the-future-of-voting-74ce7479a163
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/researchers-hack-voting-machine-for-26
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rigged-presidential-elections-hackers-demonstrate-voting-threat-old-machines/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/07/29/def-con-hacking-election-voting-machines/#20a37c861d55
Only one party seems to be strongly in favor of keeping these machines in place. Gosh, I wonder what that could be all about?
-
False equivalency. Only one side attracts Nazis and the Klan.
My Republican Party is not the party I grew up with, when we believed that everyone can and should pull themselves up by their bootstraps. It is true my Republican party has now become full of neo-nazis. Shameful. We can do better.
-
My Republican Party is not the party I grew up with, when we believed that everyone can and should pull themselves up by their bootstraps. It is true my Republican party has now become full of neo-nazis. Shameful. We can do better.
True. Nixon's policies would have had him screamed out of the current GOP as a "radical lefty".
-
True. Nixon's policies would have had him screamed out of the current GOP as a "radical lefty".
And Bobby Kennedy would be a solid Republican today. Things change.
-
And Bobby Kennedy would be a solid Republican today. Things change.
He would be? Which of these positions do you think are aligned with current Republican policy?
Positions[edit]
Kennedy's political platform emphasized racial equality, economic justice, non-aggression in foreign policy, decentralization of power and social improvement. A crucial element of his campaign was youth engagement. Kennedy identified America's youth with the future of a reinvigorated American society based on partnership and social equality.[20]
Kennedy's policy objectives were not popular with the business world, where he was viewed as a fiscal liability. Businesses were opposed to the tax increases that would be necessary to fund Kennedy's proposed social programs. During a speech given at the Indiana University Medical School, Kennedy was asked, "Where are we going to get the money to pay for all these new programs you're proposing?" Kennedy replied to the medical students, who were poised to enter lucrative careers, "From you."[21][22]
Civil rights[edit]
During a 1961 speech at the University of Georgia Law School, Kennedy expressed the administration's commitment to civil rights and school desegregation: "We will not stand by or be aloof—we will move. I happen to believe that the 1954 [Supreme Court school desegregation] decision was right. But my belief does not matter. It is now the law. Some of you may believe the decision was wrong. That does not matter. It is the law."[23]
In February 1962, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, who had called Martin Luther King Jr. an "enemy of the state",[24] presented RFK with allegations that some of King's close confidants and advisers were communists.[25] He viewed King as a troublemaker.[26] Kennedy gave written approval for limited wiretapping of King's phones on a short term "trial basis" in October 1963,[27] but Hoover extended the clearance so his men would be "unshackled" in their search for evidence against King.[28] Although the wire tapping continued through 1966, no evidence of Communist activity or influence was uncovered as to King.[citation needed]
Kennedy maintained a strong commitment to civil rights enforcement. In 1962, he commented about the large role the civil rights movement played in his public and private life—from prosecuting corrupt southern electoral officials to answering late night calls from Mrs. King when her husband, Dr. King, was imprisoned during demonstrations in Alabama.[29] During his tenure as Attorney General, Kennedy pursued a relentless policy of desegregation for his administration, which was unpredcedented on Capitol Hill. He demanded that every area of government begin recruiting realistic levels of black and other ethnic workers.[citation needed]
Law and order[edit]
In 1968, Kennedy expressed his strong willingness to support a bill that was under consideration[by whom?] for the abolition of the death penalty.[30][better source needed] He argued that rising crime rates could be countered with more job and educational opportunities.[31]
Gun control[edit]
Kennedy supported laws that would reduce casual firearm purchases.[32] He said he believed in keeping firearms away from "people who have no business" with them—specifying criminals, individuals with mental health issues, and minors as classes of persons who should be prevented from purchasing firearms.[33][34]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_presidential_campaign,_1968
-
And Bobby Kennedy would be a solid Republican today. Things change.
i woulda thunk his bro johnny more so
-
My Republican Party is not the party I grew up with, when we believed that everyone can and should pull themselves up by their bootstraps. It is true my Republican party has now become full of neo-nazis. Shameful. We can do better.
Maybe you can do better - the Party is going to get worse.
-
Teddy, no. Though he would be a poster child for #metoo
JFK, most likely.
Bill Clinton couldn't elected today from our side. Reagan probably not from the GOP. Funny watching a few guys here that are ultra liberal pretending to be Republicans, but that's where we are now. Attack the moderate Dem because he isn't liberal enough. Some day it all comes back to the middle.
-
You're right, Chicos, our election systems are perfectly safe.
Chicos, I'm going to believe my President the actual election experts. No one is going to allow someone to come in, TAKE APART THE MACHINE and bring their own computer with them to hack it. Preposterous. As he said, it is irresponsible. Get a tin foil hat.
My President is from my party and he says things are just fine. Elections aren't rigged, especially presidential.
https://www.youtube.com/v/UXpRswM-tzc
-
Chicos, I'm going to believe my President the actual election experts. No one is going to allow someone to come in, TAKE APART THE MACHINE and bring their own computer with them to hack it. Preposterous. As he said, it is irresponsible. Get a tin foil hat.
My President is from my party and he says things are just fine. Elections aren't rigged, especially presidential.
https://www.youtube.com/v/UXpRswM-tzc
1) Apparently you can't read
2) You're a pathetic liar
2a) Just like your actual president
-
Cubbiechicos just keeps getting funnier and funnier.
-
1) Apparently you can't read
2) You're a pathetic liar
2a) Just like your actual president
I read your links. The true ability to hack an election is largely a myth. Machines aren't connected to a network. It takes cracking them open, 10 to 15 minutes with expert background along with tools. Yet so many want to vote online? Way easier to hack something online. Did you read mine?
These are the voting machines I'm used to, but there are other flavors. How is someone going to crack open the back, use their computer without everyone in the room seeing? This is why experts, why the President (Obama) and others have said this is conspiracy crazy talk.
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv642%2Fshakespeares_sister%2Fshakes6%2Fap_obama_votes_kb_121025_wg.jpg&f=1)
The other thing people ignore is the Electoral College makes it extremely difficult to hack a Presidential election because it is actually 51 elections, not one national one where it would be easier to steal votes in some areas.
He's (cheeto) is the president of all of us. I didn't vote for him and despise him, but that is how it works, one isn't the president of only some people.
-
You know Cheeks, only one party, yours, actively resists securing our elections. Now why would that be? Seems like it would be a non-partisan desire to hold free and fair elections...only that isn't the case. Only one side actively resists the effort, just like that same side still frequently claims the Russians didn't influence the election.
Now I wonder why that would be? What could possibly be motivating your side? Why wouldn't your side want secure elections?
-
You know Cheeks, only one party, yours, actively resists securing our elections. Now why would that be? Seems like it would be a non-partisan desire to hold free and fair elections...only that isn't the case. Only one side actively resists the effort, just like that same side still frequently claims the Russians didn't influence the election.
Now I wonder why that would be? What could possibly be motivating your side? Why wouldn't your side want secure elections?
^^^ ban dis guy (?)
-
The country is closely divided. You don't need to hack 51 elections, 3 or 4 could very well be enough.
What'd they say .. 2016 was flipped by 40,000 votes out of 127m?
-
The country is closely divided. You don't need to hack 51 elections, 3 or 4 could very well be enough.
What'd they say .. 2016 was flipped by 40,000 votes out of 127m?
It was about 80,000 (<23k in Wisconsin, <11k in Michigan, <45k in Pennsylvania). But that's what happens when you don't have a democracy.
-
It was about 80,000 (<23k in Wisconsin, <11k in Michigan, <45k in Pennsylvania). But that's what happens when you don't have a democracy.
Yep, brewski, Tiny's "landslide" victory occurred thanks to 77,744 votes out of nearly 14 million cast in those 3 states. Then the yugest inauguration crowd ever assembled in the history of mankind helped him celebrate his multi-year Lie-A-Thon.
-
Yep, brewski, Tiny's "landslide" victory occurred thanks to 77,744 votes out of nearly 14 million cast in those 3 states. Then the yugest inauguration crowd ever assembled in the history of mankind helped him celebrate his multi-year Lie-A-Thon.
^^^ ban dis guy (?) and pray 4 him (?)