Slashdot Mirror
Millennials Earn 20 Percent Less Than Boomers Did At Same Stage of Life (usatoday.com)
According to a new analysis of Federal Reserve data by the advocacy group Young Invincibles, millennials earn 20 percent less than boomers did at the same stage of life, even though they are better educated. Their median household income is $40,581, and their home ownership rate is lower, while their student debt is drastically higher. USA Today reports: The analysis of the Fed data (PDF) shows the extent of the decline. It compared 25 to 34 year-olds in 2013, the most recent year available, to the same age group in 1989 after adjusting for inflation. Education does help boost incomes. But the median college-educated millennial with student debt is only earning slightly more than a baby boomer without a degree did in 1989. The home ownership rate for this age group dipped to 43 percent from 46 percent in 1989, although the rate has improved for millennials with a college degree relative to boomers. The median net worth of millennials is $10,090, 56 percent less than it was for boomers. Whites still earn dramatically more than Blacks and Latinos, reflecting the legacy of discrimination for jobs, education and housing. Yet compared to white baby boomers, some white millennials appear stuck in a pattern of downward mobility. This group has seen their median income tumble more than 21 percent to $47,688. Median income for black millennials has fallen just 1.4 percent to $27,892. Latino millennials earn nearly 29 percent more than their boomer predecessors to $30,436. The analysis fits into a broader pattern of diminished opportunity. Research last year by economists led by Stanford University's Raj Chetty found that people born in 1950 had a 79 percent chance of making more money than their parents. That figure steadily slipped over the past several decades, such that those born in 1980 had just a 50 percent chance of out-earning their parents. This decline has occurred even though younger Americans are increasingly college-educated. The proportion of 25 to 29 year-olds with a college degree has risen to 35.6 percent in 2015 from 23.2 percent in 1990, a report this month by the Brookings Institution noted.
So, more younger folks have college degrees. Does that actually mean that those folks are better educated? Are a bunch of for-profit institutions just churning out worthless degrees, while saddling young students with debt that they have no chance of paying off?
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
....spend a little less time grooming their beards and a little more time shaving, so someone will give them a job...
So, just from the headline (no, I didn't RTFA or RTFS) it seems like you are saying that the millennials are over-paid.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
If you work hard, you will do better than your parents.
davecb@spamcop.net
Boomers had to wait for their favorite song to be on the radio or buy the CD. I can download any song, for free, instantly.
Boomers had to wait for their favorite TV show to be on TV and then watch it. I can download any TV show, for free, instantly.
Boomers didn't have video games. I can emulate tons of slightly older systems, with any game, for free.
And that's ignoring that my job is comfortably sitting at a computer programming. Boomers still had to do physical work in unsafe conditions.
So yeah, let them have their extra 20%. My quality of life is so much better.
Suck it middle class, super rich for the win!
But the median college-educated millennial with student debt... THAT my friends is the crux of the story! Millennials have been SUCKERED into thinking they HAVE to have a college degree. Most of them, in a field with a POOR track record of job advancement, or jobs at all! Suckers, that's what they are. And who profited from all of this? "Big college" that's who! Apparently economics isn't something they teach you in high school, or, perhaps they would figure out, that a four year teaching degree at a 4 year college, that puts you in 40,50,60 thousand dollars in debt, for a job that pays 30,40 thousand a year, ain't gonna cut it when you factor in your car(s), rent/mortgage, clothes, food and what not.
And did GenX do better, or worse, or were we in between?
Oh that's right. There's only, like, 8 of us so we'll just fuck off...
How does purchasing power compare? I'm not a boomer, but know that I can get for almost free what would have taken half a year disposable salary to get in the past. I couldn't do my preferred senior design project and had to change it because I could not afford the electronic components. Now the full BOM can be purchansed @1hr minimum wage rate
Damn, I should have known there was a catch!
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Meanwhile we have a "recovery" that's not actually a recovery but a bubble fueled by low interest rates and the Fed printing more and more money.
The "sharing" economy is crap. It's basically participated in by people who can't find an actual job, so the wages are very low. Apparently these gigs count as jobs anyway for some reason, so unemployment numbers don't look too bad.
Add to that job competition from poor immigrants at the low end of the wage scale, and job competition from severely underpaid H1B workers at the high end of the wage scale, and the average will drop.
The US managed to delay the fiscal crisis which was imminent in 2008 by bailing the banks out with debt, but we didn't actually fix the problems. There's still massive speculation. There is still too much debt. There's still a trade deficit. I think some of us are feeling a little bit euphoric stocks going up again, but it's artificial.
and was surprised they covered it until they blunted the impact of the story by going on about how millennials eat out a lot and have lots of gadgets (read:cell phones). Just another Straw Man argument. I'm embarrassed to say I fell for it. I started to argue with their Straw Man trying to justify millennial's purchasing decisions until I realized that how they spend money has nothing to do with their declining wages.
It's amazing the lengths the media goes to these days to avoid acknowledging growing wealth inequality. Not really surprising when you consider who owns them. As always, follow the money...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
and he can't even land an interview. He's had to go through dodgy contracting outfits that take 50% of his pay. Crap work too. He doesn't make it through the HR filters.
Make no mistake. It's not like it was 20 years ago. Sure, if you've got a few decades of experience and a network of friends you might get by without a degree. But that doesn't apply to an 18 year old fresh out of high school. It's 2017 and they'll never get the chance to get experienced. Why the hell would I hire somebody without a college degree when all I have to do is go crying to congress and their give me as many H1-Bs as I want (since I couldn't find anybody with the proper experience: in this case a college degree).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
than other minorities in America. A study had controlled for family, education & environmental factors and found that, by and large, it was because for some reason they weren't constant victims of institutionalized racism. It had nothing to do with tough parenting and some nebulous "values". We just didn't shit on them like we do the blacks and Latinos. If I had to guess I'd say that's why those demographics are doing better. If nothing else we've made a lot of progress in that area.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
2016 value is roughly 20% of value just 20 years ago.
My buddy is in his 20s, was a solid C student in HS, no college experience, not a coder or anything. He makes around $400 a day busting his ass hustling online. Fiverr, mturk, other sites. Laugh or whine all you want but it can be done.
I grew up with all of my peers having just one working blue collar parent. I dont know of anyone today at any age group where that is true.
Funny thing about workers in other countries - they kinda don't want to bust their ass for meager wagers so that Americans can enjoy a standard of living higher than they deserve. The inevitable outcome is an equalization of income, where wages in established nations stagnates while wages in developing countries rises.
If you remember back a majority of people voted for these ill-conceived government programs. It sounds great and all, cause you know, now everybody can go to college, but someone is making a profit and pushing for these laws. Between the colleges and the banks I don't know which is worse. The college can and do charge more than what people can afford because they know the government will ensure the financing to go no matter what they charge. The banks issuing the loans *can't lose money on the deal* because the government guarantees they can't.
The government should have stayed out. The banks should have held the liability in full, colleges should be restricted to what the market will bear and students can actually afford to spend, and students should have remained able to default on their loans. Those whom are issuing the loans are the ones who should be best in a position to judge the risk of lending to a given student. Not everybody is college material and giving stars to every student regardless of abilities doesn't magically change that.
Government needs to get out of the charity business. It's not really charity when the money your using to guarantee the loans is stolen from the people. They say the Soviet Union failed because of socialism and yet what do you see us doing today? We're going to end up in a situation we can't afford to get ourselves into. We need to cut all socialism including public police forces, social security (it's theft of funds from current workers to be given to people who paid into it in the past, but nobody today will get what they pay in tomorrow), public schools, excess military expenditures, and open up the market to compete. It's amazing that any private school has managed to compete against "free" education, but when you have the money and the "free" education is that terrible or the people can't afford it because they've been deprived of their assets which otherwise would have afforded them such luxury this is what we get.
PolygamousRanchKid writes:
> So, more younger folks have college degrees. Does that actually mean that those folks are better educated?
It's a good question to ask. Somehow the number of college degrees has risen while the general understanding of science has fallen, to the extent that around half the US population has voted in a science denialist for President. The rest of the world is still picking its collective jaw off the ground at this. It's like a terrible quality B-movie with a script so ludicrous that you just want to get up and walk out.
This is what happens when you give people just enough rope to hang themselves, which they;re doing by misinterpreting scientific skepticism as opportunity for science denial. A little education can be a dangerous thing in the hands of those who lack basic understanding.
The answer to your question is a clearcut "No". The wave of anti-intellectualism that is sweeping America has taken its toll, and the population is far less well educated now than when degrees were fewer in number.
Worldwide, millennials are doing great. The World Bank Forecasts Global Poverty to Fall Below 10% for First Time.
The problem for Americans is that we can't exactly ask the Chinese to go back to having 45 million people starve to death in a new "Great Leap Forward", no matter how much taking their labor skills off the capitalist market might improve the labor demand for unskilled white Trump voting high-school dropouts. Globalism is a bitch if you were used to getting a free ride.
While I personally believe that debt loan levels are crippling to students from abt. 1995 onward, and that such MUST be fixed, they are NOT part of the study.
One area that is applicable is the limiting/incorrect focus on common/trivially understood technologies. In the world of Computing: Java induced incompetence. I have had to read a huge number of resumes over the last calendar year wherein the candidate claimed to "know" TPC/IP, HTTP, SqLite. But that meant they interacted with the Android APIs to do the actual work. Not one actually knew about the specific details re: a Syn/Ack handshake, or the impact of (manually) deleting a row/column from SqLite.
As a consequence, many corporations now pay based upon engineers ability to program to an API, rather than to be able to construct next-generation products/goods/services.
Really? Javascript as a competitive advantage? My 12-year-old nephew knows it, and I learned most of it in less than an hour (having already known C++) from him.
You are really turning me on right now... let's meet somewhere in private and have wild and amazing buttsex!
Was thinking the same thing. A additional 15% took an extra 4 or 5 years of partying before starting work. Graduate dumber, but better indoctrinated, than when they started.
Not just 'for profits', all schools are offering lots of watered down degrees, not that * studies wasn't already worthless 30 years ago.
It could also be globalism.
Jobs leaving the country create an excess of workers, so the remaining jobs can be offered for lower salaries. It's simple supply and demand.
Is there another economic explanation that could account for the difference between then and now?
Ignoring government numbers because of various controversies in how they are measured, the Gallup Poll survey puts us at 9.2% real unemployment, and less than half of those are rated "good" jobs.
We're supposedly out of the depression, the economy is doing great, and yet people are making 20% less than average from 30 years ago.
What other major economic forces could account for this?
We expect these young whipper snappers to pay for everyone's healthcare while they're healthy. Suck the marrow out of that bone. And keep them from saving for their future. Yay!
It used to be that college was less than a thousand bucks. What happened? A) Expansion B) Deep cuts in federal and state financial support. Basically, colleges were forced be become more like private entities because of tax cuts. Now the people that forced this behavior are blaming the colleges for doing what was required. The same people are also enjoying a glut of employable people so they decided that they aren't worth as much and thus paying them less.
"Boomers" and "Gen X" are crushing "Millennials" with debt and then turning around and blaming colleges for their own reprehensible behavior.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Wait until the bunch reaches retirement age. They'll cry because they didn't save for their retirement and hoped it would be "taken care of".
With companies eliminating their pensions and retirement programs, it's up to THEM to prepare for their retirement and they won't be doing that because of an immediate gratification approach to life.
Fortunately, I'll be dead by then so I won't have to worry about it.
Unemployment, according to Obama-accounting, is at the lowest record ever in decades. So how come people are making less money now than when they were unemployed?
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Dear boys and girl; when I was young a college education was a broad preparation for participation in worldly affairs. One learned languages- Greek, Latin, German, possibly French. One learned geography, history, literature, art, music and philosophy. There was extensive, though informal, focus upon social behavior (which is sorely missed in these days). One might opt for some training in business, accounting, law, medicine, etc if there was a need for earned income.
College education today is job training. And as jobs vary ever more widely and specialties form in ever narrower fields, that training is extremely vertical such that any change in the job market sends you back to square one. Today's programmers, lawyers, doctors and auto mechanics are required to continually update their training as knowledge and technology change. Because machines will adapt to those changes more effectively than humans, there will be fewer opportunities for humans.
There are fields that remain relatively stable and somewhat immune to automation. Management, sales, teaching, the arts, mattress tester... The kind of science we associate with Einstein; imaginative and inspired is a bright possibility. Inventors (real inventors, not the corporate kind) can also take leaps beyond logic. And while computers can compete, ultimately the best work in the arts will be done by humans. Young people might want to explore such areas rather than those of rapid change.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Both deserve less than previous generations as they are spoiled, untrainable, snot rags.
In the mid 1990s, you could find a job right out of high school at places like a telemarketing company, some tech support job, at $8 to $12 an hour. A car cost about $10-15k for a decent new one. A job out of college would get you $36,000, with your salary rising very quickly as you gain skills and specialization. You could buy a house for about $100-$150k.
Look at the times now. Those entry level jobs are now in India, so at best there is food service or retail. College grads are making $36,000 a year coming out, if they actually find work. Raises? The only way to really find pay hikes is to jump companies. Of course, a house is now $500,000, and a decent car is $40k.
One reason is that so many jobs have moved overseas. Manufacturing went to China and Mexico. Any tech support or phone bank support is now in India. Stuff that can't come by boat is made in Mexico. Globalism has made a select few rich, but it has done nothing for people in the US or Europe.
No, it's not "despite being better educated", it is because being better educated. Millennials lost 4-10 years of earnings and earnings growth relative to people who started working right out of highschool. For many college majors, the gain in post-college earnings isn't worth the cost.
The other significant influence is that all the employer mandates, healthcare, insurance, and benefits come out of salaries. Healthcare costs alone likely account for a large chunk of the earnings gap.
Pretty easy to make more when you're in league with Lucifer!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I blame the party who put on the ballot the only person in the country that Trump could beat.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I'll say it's mostly an R thing. There are some folks on the D side like Warren, Alan Greyson and (sorta kinda) Bernie (yeah, I know he's running as an I, but come on, he's so tight with the Ds the whole I thing is just to keep them on their toes). I haven't once seen anyone from the R side raise the issue of income inequality except to say it's either a) not real or b) the fault of anyone making less for not working hard enough. I'm open to being proven wrong, but I literally don't know of any. Maybe John Boehner, but he retired.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The myth of 'education' is a lie. It hasn't ever meant shit, and still doesn't. There is no secret formula, no automatic guarantees in life. Offer something of legitimate value in a way the truly benefits others, and you will find success. If you hope to coast on credentials, heaven help you and the debt you have accrued in your misguidance.
I've heard of many cases where the older generation does not have a degree, yet when they retire, their position is posted with higher educational requirements then they held.
Neither really existed in the extent that they do for current career entrants/re-entrants.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
If half of the safe space dwellers were to take half the energy they devote to figuring out how oppressed they are and instead put into learning a useful skill or trade like physical science, engineering, welding, or woodworking, then maybe there'd be more wealth created here so that we're not all dragged down by the dead weight of talking heads and grievance mongers demanding that we hire more degenerates and mental defectives at 15/hr to sit on their asses and preen in the proverbial mirrors of their facebook pages.
At least the education and degrees are all but guaranteed to be real on this side of the border.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Yes, indeed. When I left university, in 1976 with a UK degree in Computer Science (that's what it was called then), I was the first of a breed.
Employment was assured. I worked at Plessey for a few months, on the radar system for SE England (cool), then fled to the continent where I was paid quite astonishing amounts of money. First building a nuclear reactor monitor (even cooler), then a packet switching system for Holland (yup, that's the predecessor to our beloved Internet).
I made so much money [new sports car = 1 months disposable income] that after a few short years - ie when I was 25 - I took my money, bought an ocean going yacht and set off for a pretty decent adventure.
A couple of years later, I decided to stop (in USA), and ended up in Australia, still with enough money to pay for 1/3 of a house. (Houses were about 2-3 years salary at the time, really should have bought several).
So yup, I was definitely richer than today's poor kids, who get to leave university with huge debts, struggle to get an internship (otherwise known as slavery), then maybe, just maybe get a sensible job after a year of unpaid labour.
Then they might try to buy a house, now at 1 million dollars, 10 years salary (if you don't eat). Good luck with that. And have kids - can they afford to breed?
So they might have the internet, mobile phones, and great flat screen TVs, but they sure as heck aren't richer. I was way, way luckier with my timing.
"Cats like plain crisps"
I am continually surprised by those who are not knowledgeable about (or misattribute) the bigger macroeconomic factors that have driven our prosperity. The American economic miracle, the American dream, is largely a by-product of a brand new territory, open for expansion, a growing population whose material needs and wants grew to match the space for it. And where demand for services and goods made by those people exceeded the supply of labor to produce it. Not to mention 2-4 major wars and post-war booms that produced a huge demand for labor and the attendant growth of wages that comes with.
So for 6-7 generations, we came to associate American success with hard work, determination, education -- where I would argue that yes, while these factors have something to do with it, we were just mainly beneficiaries of a great macro situation. Factories, heavy equipment, washing machines, cars, steel -- these were the things we needed as a society that we would pay for, and they were produced here by labor that couldn't be substituted.
Now, we find that our post-war boom is over, the demographic curve has to support an increasing number of people who are no longer in their prime productive years, and a global market for the best / traditional jobs that has sapped the domestic demand for labor physically based in the US.
And so parents look at their kids and ask, "hey, why aren't you out there getting a job and using your skills like we did, after all that college and education?" Well, Dad, I can't get a job the way you did, because people aren't hiring hand over fist just because they need bodies to fill an assembly line because people want to buy washing machines as they move into their newly constructed 3 bedroom house in Levittown.
The harsh truth many are waking up to is that not everything grows forever, and perhaps this is the aftereffect of what happens when a society stabilizes, and other peoples/countries around the world start to experience the growth that we once had (and of course helped by the internet, trade, and information).
One could argue that increased corporate tax rates and regulations have made it more difficult to start new businesses, and increases in health insurance costs (benefit packages are labor costs) thanks to Obamacare have made it more expensive to hire inexperienced workers. The government itself, i.e. The Democrat platform itself, is to blame.
Who knew that when you make it harder to run businesses, fewer people get employed (forcing them into part time work) and the average wage goes down?
You got modded to oblivion, but I think that's an insightful post. It suggests an alternate explanation without rancour.
We need to be able to say "the other side did this" without assigning blame and getting into name calling. I don't care what polarity (left or the right) the position is, so long as it's to our benefit.
Looking at your post, I note that the Democrats did, indeed give us Obamacare, it was widely advertised as being a good thing, and it's widely viewed as being a problem at this point in time.
Some ACA aspects were good - getting everyone insured and eliminating "pre-existing conditions" clauses among them - but the end result was a fiscal runaway that's causing a lot of grief among the people.
I note that Republicans (house *and* senate) have already voted to repeal the ACA without having a replacement on hand, and that will probably mean that we go back to pre-existing conditions, dropping coverage after an accident, and insurance companies charging whatever the hell they want.
Which is not at all a good thing, right or left.
Trump said he wanted to get rid of Obamacare and replace it, but he specifically said he wanted the replacement in place *first*. So now we're left to trust that he will do the right thing when the bill comes to his desk. That'll be a good test of his character. If he dumps Obamacare without a replacement and a lot of people lose insurance because of it, it would be a betrayal of our trust.
We really need to fix healthcare in this country. We're paying 6x as much as other countries, and only getting 3rd world care for it.
Not rising standards, degree inflation. A bachelor's degree is the equivalent of a high school diploma: worthless.
Ha ha, capitalism is the CAUSE of Millennial woes: free trade, as in unrestricted movement of capital, labor, buying and selling of products and services across the globe. BUSINESS is fucking the USA's people over to maximize their own profits which must grow every year. I hope you like sleeping on a rat shit peppered mat made of reeds because your Third World competition does. Get tough!
GLOBALISM is killing regular Americans. The 1% profit.
Whether you believe globalization is good or bad, the free movement of capital and work, wages will stagnate or go down (at least in the near to mid term).
In Bill Clinton's Global Challenges speech at Yale is, perhaps, one of the clearest articulations of the goal of achieving an integrated global community characterized by "shared responsibilities, shared benefits, and shared values." If the goal is to "bring economic opportunity to the 50 per cent of the globe's population which lives on $2 a day or less" then that will involve capital flowing from wealthy countries to less-developed countries.
I think the vision is that the money supply would grow fast enough to minimize or eliminate the impact of the capital outflow. Unfortunately, the evidence shows that the bet did not pay off.
I just got done saying something (not really explaining) that education is lousy in general at this YouTube discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Ha! We as a planet are doing very little in comparison to what we could be doing. That being the case, I hardly care to give any respect to any of our government partisans from time immemorial! War... do you really think that is a great way of handling things? Just one glaring example.
There's no way he can earn respect. Nor can anyone else for that matter, except for those actively working to break us free from the shenanigans we call society. The presidency is a sham post for a sham way of doing things called countries, in a sham world providing little education.
Single-Total?
You should have your brother check out Mike Rowe's website (the "Dirty Jobs" guy):
Mike Rowe Works Foundation
He has programs with scholarships for young people willing to undertake trade school and corporate sponsored training to learn blue collar skills and then become employed in those professions. Seriously, this is worth looking into for your brother.
In terms of numbers of dollars, I'm earning significantly more than my parents ever did. In terms of dollar value, however, my money doesn't go anywhere near as far as theirs did. 20% less value, easily.
But I don't expect them to back it up with actions. Mainly I don't expect then to end visa abuse. They can't bring back manufacturing. There's too much automation. Bringing it back just means a few dozen engineers...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Not really. There are PhDs in biosciences who are doing similar things right now, and of course other areas.
The fact of the matter, which you forgot to mention, is that that is perfect possible for the 0.01% who happen to fall on the right path.
Of course it never happens for the average, because, quite obviously, it cannot.
And anyone who cannot understand that, wont be part of those 0.01% (or top 1%, or probably 10%..) sorry.
The world is getting more complicated. This has been a steady process since industrialization started. Only the truly insight-less manage to ignore that.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I find it curious that asians are often omitted in such articles.
Since millennials tend to actually do about 40% less actual work than boomers, generally speaking.
Seems like millennials are getting off too easy yet again- big surprise, eh?
In other news... boomers 20% more valuable at every stage of life than millennials.
}B^)
I'm convinced that it is partly because they had realistic expectations and took jobs that there was a demand for. I know very few people from my parents generation who had non-jobs, they did things like work in a trade like construction or in a factory. They had no expectation of being a sports phycologist or new media analyst, but most of the young people I know have no expectation of doing a real job. With ever increasing population we see massive migration of people to do these jobs from economically disadvantaged countries because nobody wants to do those jobs. We end up with 1000 young people after the same non-job. I am surprised that as many of them find employment as they do to be fair.
Whites still earn dramatically more than Blacks and Latinos, reflecting the legacy of discrimination for jobs, education and housing.
Random reminders of racism, often of dubious intellectual merit, randomly injected into articles not about racism. I don't think it's an evil tinfoil hat conspiracy so much as lefties overcompensating in their horror of the Trump phenomenon and thinking that the proper solution is to start subtly injecting their opinions everywhere, but it's starting to rub me the wrong way. And I'm afraid it'll backfire again, and once again wind up operating in exactly the opposite direction as intended (making racism more acceptable.) So, let's not let this shit slide any more:
1. The discrimination against Blacks did obviously have and still has a profound effect on their socioeconomic status, although it is ostrichlike head in the sand behavior to casually imply that other factors do not exist. In particular, I suspect that many black subcultures, which were indeed originally formed as a direct result of racism, nonetheless will not be found to promote such as academic achievement to the same extent as their white counterparts. This should not be any more controversial to suggest than it is to suggest that Han Chinese, Japanese, and Ashkenazi Jewish subcultures probably tend to promote academic achievement to a greater extent than most white subcultures. This has nothing to do with genetics.
2. The casual accusation that discrimination against Latinos is entirely or primarily responsible for their lower average socioeconomic status is far more contentious. First off, all of the objections from #1 apply here. Additionally, unlike black people, tens of millions of them have only been here for a generation or two, and those ancestors did not arrive on slave ships. Their socioeconomic status is thus quite heavily influenced by how poor they were when they (or their parents, or grandparents) arrived from Latin America, and it is additionally negatively affected by the fact that 11 million of them arrived here illegally, meaning that they face significant employment barriers that are not the result of discrimination, but rather are a result of their conscious decision to break the law[1]. The number of people who do not yet speak English fluently (a minority, to be fair) is also very relevant to the average socioeconomic outcome and the deleterious effects this has on job-hunting is not primarily a result of racism.
There are, of course, some far-left people who will deny both of these latter points and insist any limits or barriers to immigration is inherently racist and so is any insistence on a shared common language as a prerequisite for citizenship (without which the melting pot cannot function and over time the society and nation will inevitably fracture along ethnic lines, as history has repeatedly showed.) If you want to have that debate, sure, let's have that discussion some time. I'm actually for increased legal immigration overall, with a few caveats about things that need to be fixed first.
But cut it out with the snarky attempts at cultural mind control with these one-line assertions. You're not helping. You're simply feeding the right and alt-right narratives of the biased and lying mainstream media and mainstream academia. It's really, really hard to continue pushing back against the alt-right when you keep ensuring that ~30% of what they say is more or less correct.
1. I don't say they're evil people for doing so, just that it's not some kind of big secret that it's going to be harder getting a job if you're not here legally, and the primary responsibility for that outcome must therefore fall on their shoulders.
OR is it due to the fact that the west has been running on empty since the 70s, and using up the money supply to fund the neoconservative economic mantra of "cut the taxes to the rich so they can create jobs!" and now there's no money left unless you were born into it?
It doesn't matter if you have a PhD in computer design if they outsourced all the chip design jobs to cheaper countries. It doesn't matter if you have degrees in computer programming and design when they are getting H1Bs in to do the jobs. It doesn't matter how highly educated you are when the jobs using that education are not available in your country of origin at the same rate as there are degrees.
And is the problem that, to stop unemployment figures increasing, the mantra from government and industry is to go to university, oversupplying the number of degrees,which reduces the wages for the jobs needing degrees, and producing more highly educated workers who have the choice of leaving the country or working behind the shop counter tagging and bagging your groceries?
And now that businesses have a wealth of highly educated college students to pick from, they're now demanding that they get "vocational" education, so that they don't have to train their employees at their own expense,they can do so at government taxpayer expense, all the while avoiding taxes, and defended from this act by idiots claiming "But their employees pay taxes, and if you increase business taxes, they'll just increase the cost of their product!".
What other major economic forces could account for this?
That one's easy. 1989/1990 also marks the end of the only large-scale, competing economic system to capitalism: socialism. Before, the stakeholders of capitalism had to prove that the masses benefit from it. This restriction is gone. Unrestricted capitalism benetfis capital, not people.
THE WAGE GAP IS A MYTH!!!
Because they phonied their way through it
It feels more like 30~50%. But I'm sure trickle-down turbo-inequality will start to pay off for for the middle and lower classes any day now.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
only 50% when born in the 80's??? I was born in 72. I have a microbiology bachelors and an education masters and many tech certifications. I work in tech because thats what paid. I support myself and my wife alright in a 2 bedroom condo but barring winning the lottery my retirement looks grim and my I am one extended unemployment away from losing it all. My father never completed high school, actually never completed junior high. He was trained as a bricklayer but drafted right before he could earn. Never the less he finished and got to earning. Later the trade fell off and he became a janitor. He supported himself, his wife, and 7 kids. Me being one. In a home I could from my perspective as an adult only describe as a mansion. It had 5 bedrooms and full breakfast-nook, living room dining room, kitchen. Oh 2.5 baths plus a sink in one of the bedrooms. All the bedrooms had ample closets. The basement had massive space with a workshop, laundry room and enough left over to make two rooms of 2 different functions or just one heck of a big family entertainment type room. We always had two cars. That house had a good amount of lot around it. Front back and side yards. We had a big garden. In retirement he had military benefits, bricklayer pension, janitor pension, and social security. Im not sure how much he made but I can say my father in law with a quick devry tech degree (back when devry was the only option for that type of thing) was making more in retirement per month than I as an adult in my late 30's early 40's. The millennials I know make my situation look extravagant and they are not safe space whiners. We know what the problem is. We all know it. For a brief period in history thanks to the new deal and WW2 money was equally distributed and we had a robust not only middle class but working class. Sit there if you want and blame it on younger folks, but in the end you will not have the leverage to hang on to your assets as the vacuum at the top sucks it away. Then you might know what its like. To have to lose.
Trump baby boomers say "kids, deal with it, we won!"
It would be interesting to see a whole life estimate, something that takes into account (perhaps) reduced burdens on Milllenials for caring for aging parents if the parents are so rich or increased contributions from parents towards education healthcare or housing. I don't see boomers keeping in the money away from their kids to the same degree that the top 1% keep the money away from the lower 99%.
It would also be good to see this in a global context rather than just for a small geographic area
This shouldn't be cast as boomers vs millenials, if society were working properly we would all live to see our children prosper more than we did and not just inside some arbitrary historical border, but for everyone
Nullius in verba
No argument or data is given for this claim.
This is one of the things that we mean, when we say the media is biased.
Somebody's irrelevent personal opinion is given as the supposed cause for a thing.
As if it's proven or self-evident that discrimination is still rampant today and the reason for a purported wage difference.
Some two years ago US Census published data comparing young adults through decades. Here is a neat visualization of that data: https://census.socialexplorer.com/young-adults/#/
and how he got our Hawks under control he damn well did deserve that prize. A lot of Americans wanted blood and he calmed that crap the hell down and averted Iraq II (electric boogalo).
Obama has also done a metric ton of diplomacy that doesn't make the news because it's not obvious and it's not sexy. See, that's the trouble with Obama. He's a great compromiser. He's fantastic at making the best of a horrible situation. But that kinda patchwork never makes people feel good. They'd rather the whole thing go to hell and then get cleaned up. That's much more cathartic. It's also a big part of what got us Trump...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
When the economy crashed in 2008 everybody took a massive pay cut. They were told this was necessary to keep them employed (nevermind that all the loses were paper. It's not like we had a war or something). The economy recovered in about 4 years, but the rich got all gains from that recovery.
During the boomer's time the government stepped in and spread wealth around. Taxes were high. 90% top marginal high. And there weren't a lot of tax havens. That meant you had to use it or lose it. The rich are siting on 2 _trillion_ dollars in just cash. Nevermind what they've socked away by just buying crap (I"m in the market for a home and I'm having to compete with Chinese investors looking to hide money from their government...).
We just handed the entire economy over to the 1%. The boomers didn't have that. They fought in WWII so they had a sense of entitlement. And that's exactly why the rich have been pushing a bullshit narrative that millennials are entitled pricks. It's to chip away at their sense of entitlement and stop them from questioning their crummy lot.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
but I'm starting to think violence is.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
and is horrifically arrogant. She didn't campaign in the rust belt because she took it for granted that no sane person would vote Trump. Her voters (Young people, Blacks and Latinos) stayed home. The 538 blog has a nice analysis of all this.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It was a move by the Nobel committee to,try to influence him to act in a certain way.
They do it to someone nearly every year that doesn't "deserve it" yet.
If it was for actual actions it would have been given to Arafat and Begin after Israel and Palestine were at peace - but it's an encouragement award instead of really being a "Peace Prize". That all sounds a bit slimy in comparison to their awards for Physics etc but maybe we're just translating the award name wrong.
To sum up - he deserved it just as much or more than Arafat did.
It's like this.
As an owner of a business(Corporation).
I will maximize my pay and bonus. It's better for my business if the employee is making less than say, $8 dollars.
Can they live off of $8 dollars and raise a family?
As a CEO, I don't really care if they can raise a family off of $8 dollars.
The less they make, the bigger my bonus checks. I suggest my republicans stand in line for your checks and polarize America that we are doing the right thing.
Brought to you by "Right To Work". Now go thank a Republican.
If so, the committee was incredibly stupid. "I've already gotten the prize, so everything I want to do must be great." Given Obama's narcissistic inability to understand that he can make mistakes, no other outcome was possible.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
You could think that way or you could consider that the prize actually doesn't mean what you (and most people) think it means and the committee have different aims to what you think they are.
It's more of a political statement by the committee, about what the committee likes, than rewarding anything that has actually been done yet.
I thought pointing out that Arafat got the award should make it more clear. Surely you are old enough to have heard of Arafat? Do you really think he deserved something called a "peace prize" if it really was actually a "peace prize"? The perceived irony of a warmonger winning the "peace prize" happens probably around every three to five years.
It's just a sideshow to the real awards for Physics etc anyway.
Well I got my Computer Science degree during the middle of the dot-com craze, and graduated in 2000, just prior to the entire mess poping like the rest of my dreams... That said, I think I've done alright, but not the life of grandeur I thought might be headed my way... Graduating a couple years earlier might have been a different story.
At any rate, all you have to look at for this trend in average salary is what percentage of the workforce was unionized then VS now. I bet if you had the statistics to remove both salaries from the average equation (the 60% then, and probably the 10% now), the difference might not be so alarming. Unions have taken a beating the last 20 years or so and wages reflect this.
You've failed to refute anything.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.