In 1984, American breadwinners who were sixty-five and over made ten times as much as those under thirty-five. The year Obama took office, older Americans made almost forty-seven times as much as the younger generation.
Wow, this is a stunning statistic:
I tried to do the math on that, based on my own experience........ the numbers just didn't work like that.
Why Don't Young Americans Buy Cars? The Atlantic, Marsh 25, 2012
Auto makers are worried about the Millennials. They just don't seem to care about owning a car. Is this a generational shift, or just a lousy economy at work?
Kids these days. They don't get married. They don't buy homes. And, much to the dismay of the world's auto makers, they apparently don't feel a deep and abiding urge to own a car.
This week, the New York Times pulled back the curtain on General Motors' recent, slightly bewildered efforts to connect with the Millennials -- that giant generational cohort born in the 1980s and 1990s whose growing consumer power is reshaping the way corporate America markets its wares. Unfortunately for car companies, today's teens and twenty-somethings don't seem all that interested in buying a set of wheels. They're not even particularly keen on driving.
But, that's not what he said, he said they "Made" 47 times as much. I guess if you're going to use numbers, you should probably use the right words too. When the truth we have to assume from an article is different from what the article says, there is a fundamental problem.
Here's Rubio: "Americans chose a free-enterprise system designed to provide a quality of opportunity, not compel a quality of results.
In households headed by adults younger than 35, the median adjusted annual income in 1967 was $38,555, compared with $49,145 in 2010, an increase of 27% (all figures are expressed in 2010 dollars and standardized to a household size of three). By contrast, in households headed by adults ages 65 and older, the median adjusted annual income in 1967 was $20,804, compared with $43,401 in 2010, an increase of 109%.
Retirement and health care costs, unsurprisingly, rise when one becomes old: the basic idea is to save and invest for the future, in an attempt not to be forced into having to work to survive exactly when health is more likely to fail, often catastrophically in a matter of a few months, or to try and learn a new trade exactly when your brain is the least likely to be quick enough to grasp a new job, or quick enough when compared to a youngster.
In the 1991 book Generations, William Strauss and Neil Howe call this generation the "13th Generation" and define the birth years as 1961 to 1981. 1970, the approximate mid-point of the "13th Generation", had the lowest birth rate of this period.
According to the authors, Generation X is "the 13th generation" to be familiar with the flag of the United States (counting back to the peers of Benjamin Franklin). The label was also chosen because, according to their generational theory, it is considered a "Reactive" or "Nomad" generation, composed of those who were children during a spiritual awakening.
Older generations—whose members tend to be pragmatic and perceptive, savvy but amoral, more focused on money than on art—generally have negative perceptions of Reactive generations. The use of 13 is also intended to associate this perception with the negative connotations of that number.
The authors highlight this negative perception by noting the popularity of "devil-child" movies, wherein children are portrayed as malevolent protagonists (e.g. Rosemary's Baby), released soon after the generation's first members were born.
If history tells us that the Boom-Thirteenth quarrel will worsen over the coming decade, it also suggests when and how this new generation gap could resolve itself. The experience of their like-minded ancestors suggests that once Boomers start entering old age, they will ease their attacks on Thirteeners. Once they see their values focus taking firm root in American institutions -- and once their hopes are fixed on a new and more optimistic (post-Thirteenth) generation -- Boomers will lose interest in the quarrel. As they enter midlife, Thirteeners will likewise tire of goading Boomers. As they change their life tack from risk to caution they will quit trying to argue about Boomer goals and will focus their attention on how to achieve their own goals practically, with no more hurt than is absolutely necessary.
That's what the Pew chart does: it compares (in constant 1984 dollars) net worth then and now for those cohorts, and it's not a pretty picture.
This article hits the two major points and gets them completely wrong. First it mentions the Industrial Revolution as the start of a New Golden Age when human potential started expanding forever. Well bullshit. That was when things started to go badly wrong.
Not only are many young people kept from attending college because of a lack of funds, but those who do make it frequently are forced to put up with grave overcrowding due to lack of facilities. Most important of all, it is the student who bears more and more of the cost of getting a college education. As the costs of higher education keep rising as part of the general inflationary trend, the price charged to students and their families for getting a higher education also goes up.
Despite recent declines, total funding per full–time equivalent student has generally kept pace with inflation for most of the last several decades at the California Community Colleges and California State University. Funding has been more volatile at the University of California, rising faster during periods of budget growth and declining more sharply during periods of contraction.
And are you seriously contending that cutting services won't affect the old? Seriously?
But hey, silly me, I don't think this is a generational conflict. I think it's class-based.
Also, speaking of elections... Boomers voted for Obama over McCain, as well.
This I also take exception to -- those of us born in the mid to late 70's graduated college in the mid to late 90's, which was a great time to start your career.
Tax rates are not low for old gray-haired working dudes. They are low for rich dudes, who can afford to influence politicians to keep tax rates low for themselves. They don't care about your old gray-haired working dude.
If by pay cut, you mean higher taxes, then yes. -- Higher taxes means inexperienced kids get paid more?
i'm not talking about money - i'm talking about social policy
Big hint: the ones who used these tactics to play on peoples' fears back then are the same ones doing it now; leveraging fears and divisiveness is how they achieved political power and engineered the 13%-and-less tax rates for the Mitt Romneys of the world
There are major problems but freaking out and dismembering Medicare - which is more efficient, administrative-costs-wise, than the private health insurance in the country - out of a propagandized belief that its existence is threatening the future of education, energy, and infrastructure really isn't going to do any generation any good.
the proposed table change you're linking to is a 2.4% increase in payroll taxes.
Description of Proposed Provision:
Beginning in 2011, make all earnings subject to the payroll tax and credit them for benefit purposes.
Chart C shows current-law scheduled cost and current-law non-interest revenue sources for HI and SMI combined as a percentage of GDP.
the projected drawdown of HI Trust Fund assets is accelerated until the trust fund is exhausted in 2024 (five years earlier compared to last year’s report), after which tax income would be sufficient to pay 90 percent of HI costs, declining to 76 percent in 2050, and then increasing to 88 percent by 2085.
In 2008 U.S. taxes at all levels of government claimed 26 percent of GDP, compared with an average of 35 percent of GDP for the 33 member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
« Older “Kipper und Wipper”: Rogue Traders, Rogue Princes,... | Maintaining a culture where pe... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt