Slashdot Mirror


Fed Says Millennials Are Just Like Their Parents. Only Poorer (bloomberg.com)

Millennials, long presumed to have less interest in the nonstop consumption of goods that underpins the American economy, might not be that different after all, a new study from the Federal Reserve says. From a report: Their spending habits are a lot like the generations that came before them, they just have less money at this point in their lives, the Fed study found. The group born between 1981 and 1997 has fallen behind because many of them came of age during the financial crisis. "We find little evidence that millennial households have tastes and preference for consumption that are lower than those of earlier generations, once the effects of age, income, and a wide range of demographic characteristics are taken into account," wrote authors Christopher Kurz, Geng Li and Daniel J. Vine.

Their findings [PDF] are grounded in an analysis of spending, income, debt, net worth, and demographic factors among different generations. The conclusion that millennials aren't all that different also holds for the researchers' more granular examination of expenditures on cars, food, and housing. "It primarily is the differences in average age and then differences in average income that explain a large and important portion of the consumption wedge between millennials and other cohorts," they conclude. So much for the young folks favoring "experiences" over tangible goods.

344 comments

  1. Go figure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're the ones picking our pockets. Now they're saddened that there's less to steal.

    1. Re:Go figure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Boomers are the ones who picked your pockets. Their chortling their way into retirement as they collect their checks from your SS contributions. The Millenials would just as soon end the program that they can never hope to get anything from, the program that amounts to a Ponzi scheme and generational theft. Now where's my damn Avacado toast...

    2. Re:Go figure by HornWumpus · · Score: 1, Troll

      Boomer made out like bandits, but 'the greatest generation' and especially their parents were the true thieves. At least the boomers and WWII gen paid something in.

      Anybody who voted for FDR should be dug up, the plot resold, headstone ground flat/reinscribed and any gold fillings, wedding rings etc used to retire a tiny share of the ponzi scheme's debt.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Go figure by cayenne8 · · Score: 0

      The Boomers are the ones who picked your pockets. Their chortling their way into retirement as they collect their checks from your SS contributions. The Millenials would just as soon end the program that they can never hope to get anything from, the program that amounts to a Ponzi scheme and generational theft.

      Actually, the boomers, especially many of the latter year boomers would have LOVED to have been able to get out of SS just for the reasons you listed, and instead put their money into the market and had it make MUCH more money for retirement.

      The Boomers didn't invent the Social Security ponzi scheme...that was LONG ago before them. They had to pay into it just as the later generations have had to.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:Go figure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Social Security was not a ponzi scheme, and until it was pilfered and rifled through by Clinton and the gang, had quite a bit of money. They "borrowed" from it, left an IOU that nobody wants to repay, and thus cut it's legs off at the knees. Clinton got to look as if he has a surplus, and all of the other agencies got richer and a chance to float the debt down the river to someone else.

    5. Re: Go figure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice propaganda, smear that target just like your masters want and sow division. You've earned your check this week

    6. Re:Go figure by lgw · · Score: 0

      Social Security was not a ponzi scheme, and until it was pilfered and rifled through by Clinton and the gang, had quite a bit of money. They "borrowed" from it, left an IOU that nobody wants to repay, and thus cut it's legs off at the knees. Clinton got to look as if he has a surplus, and all of the other agencies got richer and a chance to float the debt down the river to someone else.

      Sadly, Reagan started the theft. Bush continued it. Clinton did most of the looting, to be sure. I think there was a little left that Bush drained dry.

      The theft was very subtle, since they substituted one treasury bond for another, but the difference in kind was everything, as they exchanged marketable securities for non-marketable IOUs. It's exactly like borrowing from your 401K: you still technically have value in you 401K, in the form of an IOU to yourself, but that's useless to you in retirement. You have to replace that IOU with new income.

      So, yes, it went from a bad investment/pension plan, to directly taxing the young to pay the old. It's perhaps worth pointing out that the old are more wealthy on average than the young, so this is not a progressive tax: it's a money transfer from the less-wealthy to the more-wealthy.

      We'd be far better off with a government-regulated 401K with contributions stright from your paycheck (regulated to restrict it to only safe investments, as this is a safety net). It would be a real cultural change to the US, as almost everyone would accumulate wealth in a way they could see. That's the very reason it will never happen: too many politicians depend on the voters seeing themselves as downtrodden.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:Go figure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You understand that Clinton had a Republican congress that actually did this right? I'll give you that he ultimately signed off on it but it was hardly HIS gang that did any of this as they had no power at the time. Seriously, you can do better than this trolling. Republicans have always been the ones trying to destroy SS for more than 30 years now.

    8. Re:Go figure by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      LBJ was first to raid the SS trust.

      Since then the trust has been full of IOUs. Before him there was no money in the trust as the system was cash flow negative (until the baby boom started working).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:Go figure by jeff4747 · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is so much erroneous crap around the Social Security trust fund.

      First, the trust fund really got it's start after the Greenspan Commission finished in 1983. Before that, Social Security basically did not have a trust fund. It was more-or-less spending everything that came in, as designed.

      This broke down when GenX was much smaller than the Baby Boomers. There would not be enough money coming in from GenX and what would be called the Millennials to pay for the Boomer's retirement.

      The Greenspan Commission's solution was to increase Social Security taxes so that Boomers and GenX built up a large trust fund which would pay for the Boomer's retirement.

      The trust fund was never intended to be permanent. It was always supposed to be spent by the time the Boomers die. We're on-track for that, and the fact that the trust fund will be depleted around the time that the Boomers have died off means everything is working to plan.

      The trust fund has always been invested in special US Government bonds. There were not new, special bonds created later by some president you hate to "loot" the trust fund. There was never any cash to loot.

      The government can not default on only these bonds. If the government defaulted on these bonds, that would make all US government bonds be considered worthless. Because if you break a promise to one bondholder, no other bondholder can trust you to keep your promise to them. Even if Mitch McConnell pinky-swears.

      The money is not "gone". It was never a big bank vault full of cash. It has always been invested into special US government bonds.

      The debt does not "come due" at some specific point in the future where it all suddenly has to be paid back. Each bond has their own maturity date, and a constant stream of bonds are "coming due" at any particular time.

      It was never "your money". Social Security is not a savings plan. You don't have a pile of cash with your name on it. The money you paid went into the pool that paid current retirees (or the trust fund to pay current retirees later). When you retire, people younger than you will be paying you. This is a good thing for the majority of people, because you will be paid significantly more than you paid in, including interest on that money.

      No, you can not accomplish the same thing with a 401k with "safe" investments. It will not make enough money, because the return on safe investments is terrible.

      We now return to your regularly scheduled lying about Social Security so that you blindly follow attempts to end it.

    10. Re:Go figure by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 0

      Was always a ponzi scheme. As proven by the fact the first people to register for it, got more paid out than they paid in. The ponzi point really happened around 1970. From there on out, ALL retirees will pull out less, adjusted for inflation, than they put in.

      The process you cite only accelerated the problem, putting bankruptcy at 2048 instead of 2070. But I'd also add that the Boomers shot themselves in the foot by killing off 1/6th of the next generation's workforce with abortion, accelerating the end still quicker (because far fewer GenX, Gen Y, Millennial, and post-millennial workers will be paying in).

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    11. Re:Go figure by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 0, Troll

      As long as you keep aborting the children, the next generation will always be smaller.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    12. Re:Go figure by werepants · · Score: 2

      I would mod you up if I had the points. Thanks for injecting some reality into this misleading discussion.

    13. Re:Go figure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The President doesn't control the purse, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, none of them are responsible for this. The blame is firmly on the house which was Republican controlled while Clinton was forced to take all the blame from the military for all the budget decisions to close bases and ultimately attempt to balance the budget. Of course you can't actually balance a budget with fuzzy math like they tried to do.

    14. Re:Go figure by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      FDR's SS was at least honest-ish. It was clearly pay-as-you-go. The "reforms" of the 80s and 90s that attempted to make the program appear as though it was pre-funded are just the worst. Social Security is only in the black currently due to "interest" that the federal government pays to itself.... an accounting trick. It will soon be in the red despite this trick - but make no mistake: every dollar that flows in to SS is a dollar that cannot go toward other national priorities. Despite the accounting, the government only has one giant fund and it is zero-sum.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    15. Re:Go figure by moehoward · · Score: 1

      Excellent post. Close to the simplest explanation of this complex idea that I have seen. Here is an article that has some interesting suggestions. It gets a bit in the weeds. But, any fix will need to get a bit convoluted to explain to your average voter. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/h...

      --
      "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
    16. Re:Go figure by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      Then explain how there are more Millennials than GenXers.

    17. Re: Go figure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine, take it away, just give me back all of the money the government took. At this point it is simple theft anyway. I will never get back as much as I have contributed.

    18. Re: Go figure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is their most efficient means to lose votes. All they have to do is scare the old people and democrats get ahead.

    19. Re: Go figure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stfu incel. Your lack of manhood isnt helping anything either.

    20. Re: Go figure by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      It's just taxes to fund a social benefits program. This kind of stuff is not controversial anymore, but politicians need to make the difficult decision of where to either raise new revenue or where to make cuts. Remove the cap on the wage tax and you take care of about 70% of the problem. Raise the age of retirement by a single year more than makes up for the rest. Or, alternatively you could let rich people keep less of their SS income by increasing the tax on it above a certain threshold. The point is, treat it as an ongoing expense and try to balance the income and expenses rather than playing these stupid fucking games with fake trust funds. This just makes the problem worse when the fake trust fund "runs out".

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    21. Re: Go figure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally am not counting on social security, though I make more than my parents.

    22. Re:Go figure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >When you retire, people younger than you will be paying you
      AAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA~~~~

      Okay, so that bit wasn't The Point of your post. I don't dispute The Point, or the history, or much else. But that sound bite is begging to have holes poked in it.

      For fuck's sake, I'm not entirely sure the country will exist when I hit retirement age*. By which I might mean the nation. But shit, I could mean the life-sustaining condition of the landmass. Or I could mean our entire species. They're all genuine conditionals, oh he who casts "you're blind" stones.

      "When you retire" is so far off radar I'm struggling to depict the gap. The only "retirement" I can be sure will be around is ye olde barrel of a .45 in a drawer.

      This isn't me moaning and groaning about an indefensible territory that's being ceded to the enemy, as an expression of verbal disapproval. This is me laughing and asking "lol we lost that island ages ago, why are you even talking about it"

      *the astroglide on those goalposts is another conversation

    23. Re: Go figure by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Bullshit.

      All those fixes assume the bonds in the trust are good assets. We're down to 'print money'. It's about three trillion $US of pure bullshit, that's 15% of GDP.

      Our only hope is another currency fucks up even harder and capital flight saves us...I'm looking at you British Pound...You too Euro. We might ride it out on the presses, but someone is getting fucked. It's bad when your hope is other nations have screwed their baby boom retirement even worse.

      Also note we're all operating near the peak of the Laffer curve. Raising tax rates will certainly lower revenue for the euros, we might be able to raise ours a little and gain revenue.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    24. Re: Go figure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ditto. Best slashdot comment in 20 years easily

    25. Re: Go figure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, we're working on stealing the wealth of the next generation with crypto

    26. Re:Go figure by guruevi · · Score: 1

      But that's not entirely true. Social security works for a pre-1950's death and birth rate.

      Nowadays there are more people retiring than people entering the workforce, which is unsustainable because, being a government-thing, they can't just adjust the rates based on age (eg younger people pay more because they will require longer payouts) which a private 'insurance' company can do.

      There is an even bigger myth that the Social Security plan is a good investment.

      The rate you pay in is 6.2% of your income for 47 years. If you retire at 65, you benefit ~18 years from said plan (you pay in 2.5 times longer than you benefit). However, SS pays out an average of ~$16k/year (2.5x less than median income). So really you're taxed 15% of your entire life's income and your "savings account" will have only accrued at a rate slightly better than parking it in a bank savings account.

      Even during recessions a well spread rmarket investment on retirement funds accrues at 8-10%. If you have a private retirement fund when you're relatively young, you will know that you can match the social security projections (the 6.2%) at a rate of investment of ~2%.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    27. Re:Go figure by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Forgot to mention: If you're self-employed, your social security "investment" triples but you get the same rate out. So "small business" really pays for everyone's social security and has negative interest rates.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    28. Re: Go figure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone actually know where money comes from?

    29. Re: Go figure by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      All those fixes assume the bonds in the trust are good assets.

      Re-read my comment. I say "The point is, treat it as an ongoing expense and try to balance the income and expenses rather than playing these stupid fucking games with fake trust funds."

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    30. Re:Go figure by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Millennials and Boomers agree on one thing: GenX should pay for the whole thing. And we will, because they outvote us. Hooray for us!

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    31. Re:Go figure by lgw · · Score: 1

      The money is not "gone". It was never a big bank vault full of cash. It has always been invested into special US government bonds.

      No, it was for some time invested in marketable treasuries. Now it's not.

      It was never "your money". Social Security is not a savings plan.

      It damn well should be. People should become wealthy.

      No, you can not accomplish the same thing with a 401k with "safe" investments. It will not make enough money, because the return on safe investments is terrible.

      The return on Social Security is below inflation. You can make about 2% above inflation safely. Far better. You can make about 4% above inflation with a "target retirement date" fund, which have proven themselves well over the past couple of decades.

      Regardless, Social Security won't be something you can even subsist on if you're under 50 now, that much is obvious. We need to try something better - something with takes the money away from the sticky fingers of government and makes everyone wealthy.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    32. Re: Go figure by peragrin · · Score: 1

      The problem is the interest payments on those bonds is 25% of our income approximately a trillion dollars annually.

      Right now $8-10 trillion of the national debt is money owed to social security.

      We are only paying back interest we are not paying back principal. Once you start down the road of only paying interest the only way out is through a massive influx of non debt cash or bankruptcy.

      At some point the usa is going to have to declare bankruptcy as every time we fix the long term problem a republican comes along with tax cuts. Bush jt did it, and Trump has done it.

      Republicans saw this problem in the late 90's and forced Clinton into a 10 year tax schedule to shore and fix it. In 2002 bush started his tax cuts and in 2010 12 years later social security became a net drain on the budget and has been growing worse since.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    33. Re:Go figure by darronb · · Score: 1

      The only thing wrong with SS is the lack of protection against the money being redirected. SS is YOUR money, and any redirection from that purpose is essentially theft.

      That's the ONLY time that I'll actually agree with the crazy "taxes are theft" crowd. SS is a forced retirement account... one that I really don't have a problem with in concept apart from the way people find ways to steal your retirement money for some other purpose. Fix that, make it whole from past theft, and it'd work just fine.

      Saying the government shouldn't be able to force people to save some minimal amount for their own future is missing the point of government. Government exists to fix societal problems that wouldn't otherwise be addressed. People won't always just behave themselves? Police, laws, jail. People's houses burn down occasionally? Fire department. Foreign countries attack us? Military. People end up destitute because they suck at planning for the future? SS. All this stuff has to be paid for? Taxes.

    34. Re:Go figure by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      For fuck's sake, I'm not entirely sure the country will exist when I hit retirement age

      Then you're more interested in being edgy and nihilist than reality.

      But shit, I could mean the life-sustaining condition of the landmass

      No prediction about climate change renders any of the US uninhabitable by humans. It's a huge problem for agriculture, but humans can still live where specific plants can not.

      Or I could mean our entire species

      Extinction of an entire species with as many individuals as humans is extremely difficult. Climate change could kill billions, but that still leaves billions alive.

      But some people think massive hyperbole is the best way to get people to care about it, so they push it.

      "When you retire" is so far off radar I'm struggling to depict the gap.

      And the people seeking to destroy Social Security know that and are counting on it. 'Cause you're not going to kill yourself, but you will vote many more times before retirement starts to feel real to you. (And that reality is not necessarily pleasant. It could really feel like you're going to have to work until you die)

    35. Re:Go figure by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      But that's not entirely true. Social security works for a pre-1950's death and birth rate.

      It also works for the current death and birth rate. The increase in taxes to build up the trust fund has never been rescinded. That increased tax rate makes up for the smaller difference in generational size. Or almost makes up for it. Depends on who's predictions you want to believe about the economy 40-50 years from now.

      It will work as long as the following generations are at least a little larger than the previous ones. GenX will probably be fine - Millennials are larger than GenX, and the subsequent generation looks like it will be larger than Millennials. We can't really make any decent predictions about the Millennials since that relies on guessing how many kids will be born to people who are currently toddlers.

      Even if the predictions of an eventual shortfall are correct, the fix is pretty damn easy: Raise the cap on the tax. Income inequality means that Social Security taxes no longer apply to a significant percentage of total US income. Raise the cap a bit, and you get back to applying to the same percentage of income.

      Nowadays there are more people retiring than people entering the workforce

      That would be the entire reason for the Greenspan Commission and the creation of the massive trust fund. Baby boomers are retiring.

      It is a lie to pretend that this trend will continue forever. Because the Baby Boom followed by GenX is an anomaly.

      There is an even bigger myth that the Social Security plan is a good investment.

      What makes it a "good" investment for retirement is it is an extremely safe investment. It's the backstop for when all else has failed. Which means comparing it to the return you could get from a 401k or IRA is not the best idea. Those could utterly fail you if you happen to be unlucky, such as if you retired in 2006.

      So what you need to compare it to is the return on a similarly safe investment. Such as...the US bonds the Social Security trust fund invests in.

    36. Re:Go figure by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      If you're self-employed, your social security "investment" triples

      You're paying both halves of payroll taxes if you're self-employed. If you're paying 3x payroll taxes, you need a better accountant.

    37. Re:Go figure by strikethree · · Score: 1

      I am probably replying too early but I HAD to reply after this:

      First, the trust fund really got it's start after the Greenspan Commission finished in 1983. Before that, Social Security basically did not have a trust fund. It was more-or-less spending everything that came in, as designed.

      No no no no. Up until right around 1980, Social Security was kept as dollars, just sitting there. I was too young to vote or be involved in politics, but I saw the Senators and such discussing this and voting on it. What was said was something like:

      We have hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars just sitting here, set aside for Social Security. This money should be put to work instead of just sitting there. Soooooo, they passed a bill to, essentially, buy US Government bonds with those hundreds of billions of dollars. So they did. So now, there are only "promises" in the Social Security account and Social Security payments are made from the General Fund.

      A really nifty way to take a few hundred billion dollars. You get the additional benefit of now pointing out that since Social Security payments to individuals are made out of the General Fund, we can all complain about how the old people are costing us money... when the money those older people paid in was already spent! They already paid for their benefits, but now, it is a drag on modern society because the young are now paying for the old since the money that the older people put in (pre 1980) was spent by the Federal Government.

      I may have another reply to your voluminous post, but that Social Security statement REALLY riled me up because I remember thinking about what would happen when they changed the system... and it is happening, just as I predicted when I was 11'ish years old.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    38. Re:Go figure by strikethree · · Score: 1

      ooooooo I was right. There is sooooooo much wrong with your post. I really did reply too soon. Meh. I am not up to arguing with you about this so I will just leave this little morsel here:

      It was never "your money". Social Security is not a savings plan.

      Odd. It was always my money and always has been. It is listed right there in my check as me having earned it, they just took it out and made it "theirs".

      Hm. After a moment's thought, I am fairly well along on the idea that you are a plant or government agent. The information and attitudes that you are conveying are exactly opposite of what reality is: Social Security was established to be like a bank account where you are forced to put money towards taking care of yourself once you are older and unable to work. It was not until around 1980 that they took all of the money that was in Social Security and bought bonds with it so the Federal Government could spend the hundreds of billions dollars just sitting there. Well, once they spent that money, it became possible to turn everything around, like you are now, and claim that the "money was never yours". Ummm, yes it was. Fuck you for fucking over so many people with your greed. A country is NOTHING without its people so the idea of sacrificing older people on the altar of advancing American Exceptionalism around the world is a gross abuse of the people who make the country what it is.

      The cart is before the horse on this one. The country can't be important than its people because the country is nothing without its people.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    39. Re: Go figure by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      We are only paying back interest we are not paying back principal.

      False.

      Bonds work like this: "You give me $100. In 1 year, I'll give you $105".

      There are no "interest payments". It is not a credit card. When a bond comes due, both the interest and principal are paid.

      At some point the usa is going to have to declare bankruptcy

      Doubtful. We are still able to sell bonds at an extremely low interest rate, and that's not going to suddenly change. (There was a paper claiming there is an inflection point, but the authors of that paper "accidentally" forgot to include all the data they claimed to be using. Including all the data results in no "interest cliff".)

      There could be a potential problem if we had to stop issuing bonds in US Dollars. That's what happened to countries like Greece and Spain - the Euro meant they couldn't use monetary policy to make their downturns less painful. But the US is going to issue bonds in US Dollars for the foreseeable future.

    40. Re:Go figure by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      We have hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars just sitting here, set aside for Social Security

      We did not have hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars just sitting there, because there was not a large trust fund yet. The surpluses (in the years they had them) were fairly small.

      So now, there are only "promises" in the Social Security account and Social Security payments are made from the General Fund.

      So what? Breaking those promises would cause the economic collapse of the country. It would make 2008 look like a minor event. So they are not going to be broken.

      The alternative you strangely think is superior would be to literally have a vault full of cash that returns exactly 0% interest. Which would have made the Boomer-GenX size problem even worse because interest payments could not be used to reduce the Social Security taxes collected.

      You get the additional benefit of now pointing out that since Social Security payments to individuals are made out of the General Fund, we can all complain about how the old people are costing us money

      You seem to have forgotten about the years before 1983 when Social Security did run a deficit and was paid from a transfer from the General Fund.....and there were no mobs seeking to off grandma.

    41. Re:Go figure by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Odd. It was always my money and always has been. It is listed right there in my check as me having earned it, they just took it out and made it "theirs".

      Your quasi-religious belief that "taxation is theft" does not change the basic accounting involved. The money you pay in today gets paid out tomorrow. It can't be "saved for you" if it's already been paid out to someone older.

      And, here's the key to getting your head around this: The accounting has always been done this way. Since 1940, the tax money collected from the young was paid to the old.

      Your contributions are only tracked to determine how much money you get from young people when you do retire.

      Hm. After a moment's thought, I am fairly well along on the idea that you are a plant or government agent.

      You've been on the receiving end of a lifetime of propaganda. You're going to have some cognitive dissonance when reality starts intruding on your carefully-astroturfed worldview. But your desire for reality to be different does not change what reality is.

      The country can't be important than its people because the country is nothing without its people.

      Pssst...."people" is more than you. "People" includes the elderly. That's why we, the people, decided to provide a retirement backstop for them.

    42. Re: Go figure by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Your fixes are 'derp', the underlying numbers don't work.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    43. Re: Go figure by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Explain? It's very straightforward - either increase income or decrease expenditures. This isn't rocket science.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  2. Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The reason they have less is simple, we have more.

    And we like it that way.

    --The Top

    1. Re:Good. by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And we like it that way. --The Top

      And legally bribe Congress to keep it that way, thanks to the partisan Citizens United ruling.

    2. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is good to be the king, or have congress in you pocket.

    3. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except you live with your parents still and are in the bottom 10%. Delusions of Grandeur must be how you keep from offing yourself and ending your pathetic life?

      For the record, the top are not immune to a crackhead who's willing to murder them for a few hundred dollars. Expect this to become commonplace, as it's very easy to get rid of problems this way.

    4. Re: Good. by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      For the record, the top are not immune to a crackhead who's willing to murder them for a few hundred dollars.
      Except they can afford armed security guards.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >Except they can afford armed security guards.
      And they will hire them (Job creation!).
      As the wealthy continue to gut the country, people who still have money will retreat into gated communities, and let the rest of us go to hell.

      Wealthy Americans have gotten much more selfish in recent decades, and not only refuse to contribute to the country, but go insane at the thought of their taxes paying to keep America going.

    6. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people who still have money will retreat into gated communities

      Sorry you're too poor to get away from the third worlders being imported. Diversity is your strength though, you know? Bigot.

    7. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      You will notice those calling for removing borders and allowing unlimited illegal immigration already live in gated communities that would keep those people out. They are just upset you are demanding too much pay and are trying to put you back in your place.

      Keep voting DNC!

    8. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asshole.

      Remember the lesson of the French Revolution. Monsieur Guillotine is waiting in the wings for his chance at the spotlight again. You shit on people long enough and hard enough, then flaunt your wealth in their faces with your conspicuous consumption, and sooner or later you'll get what's coming to you.

      The destruction of the Middle Class in the U.S. is a Real Thing, and it's being orchestrated by The Rich 1%, who just don't like all these uppity white negroes who are 'getting above their station'. The irony is, you think you're part of The Rich; you're not, you're just one of the white trash so far as they're concerned. You're nothing to them, and if current trends continue, it'll all be taken away from you, too, when the next massive Recession happens -- and it's not that far off, because all the Bad Actors in the financial and real estate sectors that caused it 10 years ago are at it again, with the same shitty sub-prime lending practices. You'll lose everything and likely never get back up again. So maybe you'd better change your tune while you still can, buddy.

    9. Re: Good. by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      I think the problem is people getting isolated and cluster together vs selfish.

      Because they often don't interact on a personal level with people who are in a lower financial class. They really don't comprehend the problems, also the lower financial class doesn't understand the problems the rich have as well.

      For example.
      A Rich person who I was talking to didn't understand why I drove a small Toyota car where for only a few more hundred dollars a month I could have a nice luxury Audi SUV. Yes I will get more car for the money, and a higher resell value, but the idea that I would need to sacrifice my life style to get such a car didn't really click with them.

      However a Rich person was distraught because changes in laws meant he had to sell property so to have the liquidity to pay the taxes. These properties had staff which were laid off because they didn't have other jobs for them. But me as Mr. Middle class would see this as Alligator tears. because they have so much, they weren't willing to sacrifice a bit more to pay these people and find some other job for them.

      Most classism conflicts focus mostly around ignorance vs actual bad intent.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    10. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we like it that way. --The Top

      And legally bribe Congress to keep it that way, thanks to the partisan Citizens United ruling.

      I don't know if you've noticed, but it is quite clear that Trump isn't limiting himself to what is legal. He just knows that he will never be removed for it, so he might as well make as much money as possible.

      There is no longer any debate on weather Trump obstructed justice. He is blatant and frequent about it.

    11. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How does patently stupid shit like this get modded up? The economy is not a “pie.” Someone having more does not mean you automatically have less.

      -Econ 101

    12. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asshole. Remember the lesson of the French Revolution. Monsieur Guillotine is waiting in the wings for his chance at the spotlight again. You shit on people long enough and hard enough, then flaunt your wealth in their faces with your conspicuous consumption, and sooner or later you'll get what's coming to you. The destruction of the Middle Class in the U.S. is a Real Thing, and it's being orchestrated by The Rich 1%, who just don't like all these uppity white negroes who are 'getting above their station'. The irony is, you think you're part of The Rich; you're not, you're just one of the white trash so far as they're concerned. You're nothing to them, and if current trends continue, it'll all be taken away from you, too, when the next massive Recession happens -- and it's not that far off, because all the Bad Actors in the financial and real estate sectors that caused it 10 years ago are at it again, with the same shitty sub-prime lending practices. You'll lose everything and likely never get back up again. So maybe you'd better change your tune while you still can, buddy.

      No matter what you want to say about the 1% eating every other class, socialism isn't the fucking answer, dumbass.

    13. Re:Good. by geekmux · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Someone having more does not mean you automatically have less.

      -Econ 101

      I can only assume that Econ 101 is a course has been deemed "oppressive" and banned in every college campus across America, since the socialists we're churning out of those institutions believe this is exactly why they are poor.

    14. Re:Good. by lgw · · Score: 1, Troll

      And legally bribe Congress to keep it that way, thanks to the partisan Citizens United ruling.

      Urban legend. Citizens United was a bunch of guys who pooled their money to show a film critical of Hillary Clinton (if you've ever wondered why she opposes Citizens United). The SCOTUS ruled that a closely-held corporation was the same as a partnership, and thus the rights of members are preserved.

      It said nothing about "corporations are people", nor did it apply to corporations in general.

      The interesting question is: should the Washington Post be allowed to run a full-page story attacking Trump? Should Amazon be allowed to pay the Washington Post to run a full-page ad attacking Trump? What's the difference? It's the same guy in charge, either way. It's the same content, either way.

      I'd say "no public corporation can engage in politics" and make it that simple. The NYT would need to go private, but it could. And would anyone miss Fox or CNN?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    15. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is economy suddenly a hard science then? Sounds more like a fairy tale to me.

    16. Re:Good. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      It will be later not sooner. Generally people have to be starving before revolution happens. People are not starving today. Quite the opposite.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    17. Re:Good. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      They also believe that rich people have a vast hoard of bills locked in a safe somewhere, taking that money out of circulation. Instead of investing it in stocks and bonds - essentially letting other people expand businesses and hire people with it. Or even have it in a bank account, where the bank then lends it all out (and then some - fractional reserve banking). No, but rich people are evil because hoarding cash!

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    18. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The economy is not a “pie.”

      If that's true, they why does the provision of a Universal Basic Income require unsustainable levels of taxation of the rich?

    19. Re: Good. by Ambvai · · Score: 1

      Because they often don't interact on a personal level with people who are in a lower financial class. They really don't comprehend the problems, also the lower financial class doesn't understand the problems the rich have as well.

      That came up a few weeks ago between a friend I was helping and her boss-- she was lamenting how she had to spend an extra ten minutes walking to get to Walmart for their cheap money orders to pay her rent since her old local place closed.

      Her boss heard that and basically launched into a ten minute speech about how she should just use a checking account for extra convenience and lower costs. It was followed by a rather awkward silence that she broke by saying she couldn't afford it. It then went in circles for a bit about how you can buy checks on sale, and how that wasn't really the problem until I felt like I had to interject that the problem was she didn't have the savings to meet the checking account minimums. Mrs. Boss was floored by that-- that people may actually not have enough money to meet basic necessities was a tremendous shock to her.

      (Mind, she was a Chinese national trying to start a wholesale company in the US with her factories in China in one of the most expensive territories in SoCal, so her perception of things was... exceptionally interesting.)

    20. Re:Good. by clodney · · Score: 1

      I'd say "no public corporation can engage in politics" and make it that simple. The NYT would need to go private, but it could. And would anyone miss Fox or CNN?

      So no professionally produced advertisements either, since the ad agencies are mostly public corporations. And no rallies held in a venue owned by a corporation, and no catering of food at campaign events if the caterer is a public corporation. Can a candidate fly on a plane to get to a campaign event?

      I think you idea has some problems.

    21. Re: Good. by toadlife · · Score: 1

      During a recent study session, one of our local city council members was shocked to find out that low income housing existed in our city. We live in one of the most impoverished areas of the nation. He was incredulous at the thought and demanded to know where this supposed low income housing was.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    22. Re:Good. by lgw · · Score: 1

      Well, you're taking it a bit far. No "donations in kind" to be sure, but it comes down to platform vs publishers. Platforms that don't exercise any sort of editorial discretion are fine. If you look at the rule that applies to radio: they must accept ads for all sides in a political race; they're not allowed to be choosy. I think that's a great approach.

      So, can a candidate fly on an airline to an event? Only if he buys a ticket. The airline can't fly him for free (unless they fly all candidates for free), and must sell tickets to all candidates. Make sense? Platform vs editorial discretion.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    23. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can safety say that Even in socialist countries... That 1% still exists... The poor still exists...

      I live in a socialist country and I am an engineer... But I am still at Best... A part of the wide middle class

      But then again.. I am also a millennial

    24. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It then went in circles for a bit about how you can buy checks on sale, and how that wasn't really the problem until I felt like I had to interject that the problem was she didn't have the savings to meet the checking account minimums.

      I've never understood this myself...as if you'd just take a look online there are so many checking accounts available that have no minimum account balances.

    25. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're in a socialist country, you're likely not in the US. And if you're not in the US the term Millennial technically does not apply to you as all those defining studies and papers were mostly done with data from the US population.
      Although there may be some overlap here and there as ideology does not adhere to boarders you likely won't share a lot of the defining experiences that people in the US had during their childhood. Information globalism just didn't exist back then as it exists now thanks to the internet and constant access to it due to all those mobile devices.

    26. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you purchase this person a smartphone and data plan?
      Buy her buss tickets and agree to work her hours while she went to the library to use a computer?
      Are you aware of her credit history?
      (none or terrible because of a couch she 'rented to own')

      And the 'no minimum' account balance does not mean she does not need a few hundred in order to OPEN the account in the first place.
      OR the fact that it often takes a week or two for the account to be setup, meaning she would be without that money for that amount of time.

      Just $50 might be all the money she has for for food for the month.

      I can go on, but some people are just so clueless as to what POOR means.
      It means 'NO' to anything you think up like this.

    27. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are aware that imagrants, regardless of income level, are less likley to use scocial services as people who are born in the US right??
      Right?
      RIGHT!!!!!!
      https://www.cato.org/blog/immigrants-their-children-use-less-welfare-third-higher-generation-americans
      Immigrants and Their Children Use Less Welfare than Third-and-Higher Generation Americans

    28. Re:Good. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The SCOTUS ruled that a closely-held corporation was the same as a partnership, and thus the rights of members are preserved. It said nothing about "corporations are people", nor did it apply to corporations in general.

      As written, the first sentence seems to be contradicting the second.

      Sentence 1: Corporation = partnership = people

      Sentence 2: Corporations != people

      Unless "closely held" means something significant? I invite you to clarify.

      (There may need to be a way to distinguish organizations that broadcast political commentary, but that's another matter.)

    29. Re:Good. by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Unless "closely held" means something significant? I invite you to clarify.

      I don't know what you mean by "significant". However, "closely held" does have a very specific meaning. Here you go.

      Aside from that, your assertion that "Corporation = partnership = people" is flawed. A closely held corporation is a partnership between individuals. Those individuals are people, but the closely held corporation is not people; it's a relationship between people.

    30. Re:Good. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I'm no lawyer, but it doesn't look like it has formal legal meaning; it's only a short-hand concept. Your link gives no specific quantity (Integer) thresholds nor defines "often" in "often listed". I see fuzzy words.

    31. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a fixed pie.
      New wealth is literally being created every single day you go to work.

      Plants literally create new food: dirt + water + sunlight = food. Dirt, water, and sunlight weren't food before. But the plant converts them into food.
      Likewise the fruits of people's labor creates new goods and new value; there is more being added to the existing pie every day.

      Now to get a little more complex:
      The economic pie is actually more like a bucket of water with a faucet that pours water in and a small hole in the bottom out of which water flows-- the water is like the total of goods and value in the economy.
      Workers going to work and making new things and producing new value pours water in.
      Goods and valuables wearing out, becoming outdated, being destroyed, etc. drains water out.
      So the economy isn't infinitely flexible (there is only so much water in the bucket at any one time) but neither is it completely inflexible (the water level rises and falls).

      So here's my real argument against the idea of "X has more goods and resources and valuables than Y so therefore X has basically stolen from Y":
      Y can just go work for themselves. Yes, seriously. If you don't like how the game is played then stop playing that game and go do something else. In an economic sense: go buy your own land and grow your own food, or go set up your own factory and produce your own goods, or go into business for yourself and provide services for a fee for yourself. To go back to the bucket analogy: go create your own bucket or your own swimming pool that holds your own water and thus you don't have to care about how crowded it is or what's happening at the public swimming pool.

      Yeah, being poor sucks and sometimes life just isn't fair.
      But do you know what's worse than being poor? Being a self-entitled greedy asshole that wants to steal from others.
      No matter how much you think you deserve other people's wealth: you don't.
      No matter how much of an asshole you think a rich person is: you're still not entitled to anything they have.

    32. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plebs are poor and stupid. No worth, not like US!

    33. Re: Good. by Falos · · Score: 1

      >>Except they can afford armed security guards.
      >And they will hire them (Job creation!).

      Should I tell him about the killbots? His post seemed pretty blue already.

      Seriously though, last I checked african warlords were already using "security drones" to keep their mine slaves in check.

    34. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One big difference I notice between the haves and the have nots, is that the haves aren't always blaming someone else for their mishaps.

    35. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't speak for this lady, but I had no difficulty establishing good credit when I turned 18. I wasn't rich either, I just knew better than to allow interest to accrue. And really, there's no excuse not to know better. When you receive your card, you get a pamphlet with it that explains all of the rules and fees. And no, I've never had anybody co-sign for me in my entire life (truth be told, if you need somebody to co-sign for you, then you can't afford it.)

      People that have chronic bad credit are that way because they don't value saving money. They spend money just as quickly as they get it.

    36. Re: Good. by Falos · · Score: 1

      This is why people think they're wealthy. Their world is what their eyeballs see.

      I mean, obviously my house is huge. It's a mansion. I have several cars. I am the opposite of riding a bus. Normal people eat McDonalds and I don't. My six-figure income is indisputable math that I am rich. This is a reasonable conclusion as I look around me.

      And it is, in that field of vision.

      And so I'll lose my shit at any suggestion of any redistribution. I'm clearly "above average" and they're gonna take muh money.

      And I'm fucking oblivious to the fact that in a wealth redistribution, I would be given wealth.

      Me? No. That would mean I fit the word "poor", obviously. And that flies in the face of all demonstrated evidence. Impossible. I am wealthy. My salary is kept quiet because I am wealthy.

      And I have no idea what The Rich are. I have no idea where "wealthy" is on the curve. I have no idea of how astronomically, mind-fuckingly poor - dirt sleeping bus riding McDonalds begging poor - I am in comparison.

      Six figures. Christ.

      The point: I'll be totally voting against anything "wealth redistribution" with all my might. Poors ain't taking my richmoney.

    37. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We call em Y2Kers and rag on their love of Will Smith.

    38. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She probably still spends $8 a day on cigarettes.

    39. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldnâ(TM)t that make them Willenials?

    40. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't have any trouble saving money when you were 18? Good for you.

      We call that being born with a silver spoon in one's mouth.

      Real men pay their parents rent when they are 18.

    41. Re:Good. by lgw · · Score: 1

      Citizens United did not say that a corporation was itself a person. It said that in a narrow context, a corporation is made of people, and these people keep the rights they've always had.

      Unless "closely held" means something significant?

      Is your Google broken? A closely held corporation, like a partnership, is own by a small group of people who know each other. Contrast a public corporation, which is owned by random strangers. (Legally there's an allowance for a small percentage of shares to be owned by strangers, so a corporation could technically be both, but that's never come up in a first amendment case).

      There's no constitutional basis for a group of people united for a political purpose to be denied their rights because of how they pool their money. However, that doesn't describe most large corporations: they clearly exist for commerce, which doesn't look much like a group of people peaceably assembled to petition the government.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    42. Re:Good. by lgw · · Score: 1

      (There may need to be a way to distinguish organizations that broadcast political commentary, but that's another matter.)

      Oops, missed this. The SCOTUS very clearly pointed out (I think in Citizens United) why they should never go there: the government should never be in the self-serving position of deciding what sort of corporation is "the press". Imaging Trump getting to decide who's "fake news" and banning them from political speech.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    43. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're in a socialist country, you're likely not in the US. And if you're not in the US the term Millennial technically does not apply to you as all those defining studies and papers were mostly done with data from the US population.
      Although there may be some overlap here and there as ideology does not adhere to boarders you likely won't share a lot of the defining experiences that people in the US had during their childhood. Information globalism just didn't exist back then as it exists now thanks to the internet and constant access to it due to all those mobile devices.

      well.. we did feel the sting of the economic crisis and my carreer has been almost destroyed by it... I do not live in the US... but just because I live in a socialist country with insane taxes, then it does not mean that I live in a communist country... I still need to work and have a carreer if I want to survieve

    44. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you are right! Your money will be taken from you, because the truly wealthy people will game the system and pay even less taxes, leaving you to pick up the tab.

    45. Re:Good. by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      Because its all about productivity. If I buy wood for $1 and turn it into a box I sell for $2 I have created wealth. I have been productive.

      If you take my $2 and give $1 of it to 3 other people because UBI what you have done is unsustainable. Pies have nothing to do with it. Further If you're going to take my $2 why should I continue to make boxes at all. Rather I will take my $2 and go to Notaxia where people don't take the fruit of my productivity.

    46. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the expression "not automatically" is hard to grasp.

      If I punch you in the face, it does not mean you automatically get injured. But if you do, it was likely due to being punched.

    47. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had a similar conversation with extended family. (I'm one of those failed-at-life millenials; not rich at all, but I agree with you.) Just because someone's in the top 5 or 10 percent of wealth, doesn't mean that they should be the target of the occupy wall street crowd's ire. And I generally believe in that message.

      But really, even most of the 1-percenters are poor compared to the 400 richest families on Earth.

      Most people don't understand how extremely out-of-whack and unstable the current wealth distribution really is. We're well past the French revolution levels of inequality. We're past George Orwell's 1984, in terms of the societal control mechanisms employed, but not in terms of raw human suffering, at least in the US. There's a LOT of stuff that hasn't hit home for most people. I think 'we' have reached a wall with respect to simply trying to inform. I don't think traditional protesting really works any more for large-scale issues.

      ...off-topic rant incoming...
      It really feels like western civilization is dying in punctuated, irreversible steps. I'm a techie, so I notice the technological degradation: The populace so prioritizing convenience and low price to the exclusion of, well, everything else, that entire product lines disappear. Things that used to work just fine no longer work. Nobody remembers how to fix it. Bugs in new versions of Microsoft products that haven't been fixed in 20 years, and new bugs introduced. Apple completely forgetting how to make computers. Factories (including computer manufacturers), in business when I was in elementary school, have long since closed. When I search for low-level programming problems, increasingly the results are in Chinese. That's where the bulk of manufacturing talent on earth is right now. It seems like general purpose computers are becoming increasingly unmarketable to end-users, most of whom don't know any better. Instead we get inexpensive proprietary ARM SOC devices, with soldered-in microphone, battery, flash, and camera, designed by the Chinese to fail in 3 years. These devices are mandated by our purchased three letter agencies to blindly execute instructions from anything claiming to be a cell-tower, using un-auditable SIM cards. The same technology that powers chip-and-pin credit/debit cards, these smartcards are tiny computers that operate completely independently from the regular 'application' processor. The fact that Oracle licensed Java runs these smartcards is not lost on me. When I see advertisements that say "Google Pay, Apple Cash accepted here!" at the cash register, I can't help but recall references to the book of Revelations.

    48. Re: Good. by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      I think you described in a nutshell the misguided thinking behind America's foreign policy vis-Ã-vis its next-door neighbors. We managed to ignore what's been going on for far too long that they want to break into THIS gated community.

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    49. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah? I had great credit when i was 18 also, and had great credit for a long time. Didn't stop me from losing a job during the Great Recession, thereby losing my benefits. That didn't stop me from having a medical emergency, having to move back home, getting saddled with pretty significant debt, even after negotiating a big reduction in the bill with the hospital. Multiple unplayable bills (due to not having a job) from a number of hospital contractors destroyed my credit, but when able, I took care of the bonds that I willfully entered first.

      Bottom line: shit happens. You don't know everyone's circumstances.

    50. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you idea has some problems.

      Its not a bug, its a feature.

    51. Re: Good. by hipp5 · · Score: 1

      I wasn't rich either, I just knew better than to allow interest to accrue. And really, there's no excuse not to know better.

      There's knowing better, and there's being able to do something about it. There are millions of people who are one delayed paycheque away from having their tenuous financial position crumbling down like a house of cards. And their budgets are so tight, that the interest costs due to that missed payment quickly spirals out of control into further missed payments, then more interest, then more missed payments. It's pretty easy for things to go down the crapper pretty quickly.

      There's a saying that, "it takes money to make money." The corollary of that is "being poor is expensive."

    52. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except in today's economy, you can't sell the box for $2. You're competing against $0.80 boxes shipped in from Cheaponia.

      Making the box may be a productive act, but you're still going to starve.

      As for Notaxia, great idea! Just hope you don't get sick; the hospitals there charge $1 up front. Also, if you want to live there without being mugged, you'll need to hire private security guards for $0.50 apiece. Get used to walking, too; without taxes, nobody has built roads for your car to drive on.

      But hey, at least you don't have to pay those evil taxes!

    53. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is the logical quandary that no right winger has of yet to explain. This question has turned the more intelligent right wingers into socialists in droves. You ready?

      You can choose one or the other, as choosing both is a logical paradox. The economy is a zero sum game, and there are finite resources humans have access to; or the economy can grow infinitely, and thus government can print as much money as it wants with no ill effects.

      Remember, you can only choose one, as they are polar logical opposites. The vast majority of people choose "zero sum, finite resources" because otherwise they have to explain how a finite resource can indeed be made infinite (and also have to logically accept something they hate to accept). This is your first step in embracing socialism. The next step is to own your own business and embrace open source software, the two most anti-capitalist things one can do.

    54. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a well documented fact. There is over $30 trillion in offshore bank accounts (last I checked, which was a few months ago. It might be higher now). If that money was collected the US could fund universal healthcare without a tax increase for 100 years. You can disbelieve reality all you want, but the Earth will continue to be round whether you believe it or not :)

    55. Re:Good. by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Here's an idea: search Google for 'closely held corporation legal definition'. The term does indeed have a legal meaning, and it is, as you put it, fuzzy. You'll probably be disappointed, but life is full of disappointment. You'll get over it.

    56. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The next step is to own your own business and embrace open source software, the two most anti-capitalist things one can do.

      Owning your own business is anti-capitalist??

    57. Re:Good. by Agripa · · Score: 1

      How does patently stupid shit like this get modded up? The economy is not a “pie.” Someone having more does not mean you automatically have less.

      -Econ 101

      It does not mean it automatically but it often does. When the return on investment for lobbying for rents is an order of magnitude greater than the return on investment for research and development or capitol, that is exactly the situation.

    58. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't straw man about people thinking the money is being locked away. That's not what they think. Conservative ideology does not equal Econ 101.
      The argument is about more or less people having the ability to choose how the money is spent. If I can't buy stuff I need and some other guy spends his to build up his business, that is not necessarily helping me. At best it's in a roundabout way.

    59. Re:Good. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      and it is, as you put it, fuzzy

      So, my point stands.

      I have not seen anywhere where the SCOTUS limited which co's their ruling applies to. They may have considered certain kinds of co's for that particular ruling, but left open the interpretation of scope to lower courts.

    60. Re:Good. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      There's no constitutional basis for a group of people united for a political purpose to be denied their rights because of how they pool their money. However, that doesn't describe most large corporations: they clearly exist for commerce...

      The boundary between those is very fuzzy and easy to manipulate.

  3. Price is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Occasionally I watch price is right. In the final thing, even the youngun will usually pass on the first showcase if it does not include a car. And when they win a car, they seem much more excited than an experience trip. So yeah, I agree with the report.

    1. Re:Price is right by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Part of that may be taxes.

      You can sell a car to pay the taxes on the other prizes you won. It's pretty hard to sell a vacation.

    2. Re:Price is right by citylivin · · Score: 1

      Indeed! a friend of mine went on the price is right a few years ago. America and California together charge 33% + 7% tax on what you "win". So my friend won a trip and some electronics and ends up having to pay 2800 USD to claim it all.

      Of course they are charging you full retail price on these items, which no one would ever pay... What a scam, i had no idea. In canada if you win the lotto there is no tax. The government already makes money as they are the ones who run the lotto (the house always wins).

      Totally makes me rethink my childhood watching american game shows. I used to think these suckers were so lucky and dreamed of one day winning the showcase showdown.

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    3. Re:Price is right by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      I believe it is mandatory in my country that a game show like that also pays the taxes on the prices it gives.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    4. Re:Price is right by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      It isn't in the US. So winners on US game shows have a big tax bill the following April.

    5. Re:Price is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I figure that is what those people keep calling me about.

  4. Why would people that is not the case. by will_die · · Score: 0

    It is not that the millennials have skipped purchasing lots of large stuff, see the advertisements, it is that they require you to talk like you don't.
    From consumption, the environment or any other topic if you say you care on Twitter, instagram, or whatever that is the important thing and have a history of saying you care. Go fly on your plane, drive off in your canyonero but be sure to say and act like the environment is important and you are woke.

    1. Re:Why would people that is not the case. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are mixing up millennials with gen X here.

    2. Re:Why would people that is not the case. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Applies to both. Also applies to 1960s hippies and every other generation.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Why would people that is not the case. by bigman2003 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I had a friend. (Okay, not a friend, I couldn't stand her, but she was an acquaintance)

      She was going to build 'passiv haus' (we're American, but she liked the German spelling) communities to save energy, etc. etc.

      She drove from California to New York at least a dozen times to support this plan. I'm pretty sure she used more fuel on her roadtrips than she would have saved had the plan actually worked. The plan didn't work, and she ended up finding out that Upstate New York is really cold, and she didn't want to live in an unheated house in that environment.

      But she still talks about how dedicated she was...she does NOT like to hear about the wasted fuel.

      Her marriage went really bad because she ignored her spouse while being a road-tripping ecowarrior. And absolutely none of this is her fault- the system is against her.

      But damn...she can feel high and mighty knowing that she was THINKING about this stuff while you were watching TV.

      --
      No reason to lie.
    4. Re:Why would people that is not the case. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to really dislike this woman...

    5. Re:Why would people that is not the case. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      When people are the age of 18-30 these are their priorities.
      1. Find someone to mate with

      Beatniks, Hippies, Hipsters... who all seem to be the type of people the define how stupid of a generation is have a similar commonality. You are easily identified as part of a group, witch attracts people of your sexual persuasion who is also near your peer.

      A lot of these kids protesting whatever many of them really don't care, they just want to be out with people their peers and possibly attract a mate.
      if you are a straight guy and the lady you fancy feels strongly about a topic, you will probably go all in and feel just as strongly about that topic, only to attract her.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:Why would people that is not the case. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I think most people want to feel useful, and oddly enough we equate suffering to being useful.
      Hence why a lot of religions seems to have some harsh rules. Because we are suffering, we feel like we are getting more done.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    7. Re:Why would people that is not the case. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read an article about how Trump was ruining marriages. It was mostly about women putting politics above their marriage even when they were married to someone with similar views.

    8. Re:Why would people that is not the case. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The mind likes to oversell the small concessions, it's totally okay to fly a weekend to Paris as long as you get a Fairtrade caffe latte with ecological soy milk. A small savings on a big expense, it was expensive but you got it on sale. You walked the stairs so super size that burger, you earned it. For some people it forms into the delusion that they're saving the world if they're slightly greener than those around them, like you're not fat if you can point to some other guy and say "no, he's fat"...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    9. Re:Why would people that is not the case. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was probably married to her.

    10. Re:Why would people that is not the case. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The mind likes to oversell the small concessions, it's totally okay to fly a weekend to Paris as long as you get a Fairtrade caffe latte with ecological soy milk. A small savings on a big expense, it was expensive but you got it on sale. You walked the stairs so super size that burger, you earned it.

      It seems like you're entirely mixing up the groups you're ragging on. Those sound like two entirely different lifestyles.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  5. BULLSHIT !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They have fallen behind government decided to balance the budget on their backs.
    School loans have destroyed the future for a generation and everyone knows it.

    1. Re: BULLSHIT !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right and it's going to get worse. The debt from Trump's tax cuts is going to slow the economy and lower our standard of living. Well for except the very wealthy.

    2. Re: BULLSHIT !! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I know your just derping. But how is Trump's debt different from FDR's (and every other scumbag in between)?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re: BULLSHIT !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Debt that is still less than what Obummer manged to rack up in his time in office, if you take Obummers debt and divide it by time served compared to King Trump's debt so far for time served. Obummer managed to nearly double the national debt in two terms, compared to what all the previous administrations before him racked up. On January 20, 2009, when Obummer was sworn in, the debt was $10.626 trillion. On January 20, 2017, when Obummer left, it was $19.947 trillion.

    4. Re: BULLSHIT !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OP didn't even mention Trump. The truth is it's really more expensive nowadays than it used to be

    5. Re: BULLSHIT !! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You know the idiots that always spell 'Drumpf'? That's you.

      It takes away from your point.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re: BULLSHIT !! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      It's true that some previous presidents have implemented massive transfers of wealth to the 1% and/or run up the national debt for stupid reasons, but that shouldn't make it acceptable to do it again.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    7. Re: BULLSHIT !! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Give it time, Trump still hasn't built his useless monument to xenophobia in the middle of the desert, the effects of his massive wealth transfer to the 1% haven't yet been felt, and he's still working on those easy-to-win trade wars.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    8. Re: BULLSHIT !! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      When you post as AC, you should read at 0 or you'll get confused, like you just did.

      When have interest rates been lower? It's the _size_ of the debt to the SS trust that's a huge problem. Accrued over almost a century, will have to be paid out over a couple of decades. Better hook a big old bottle of nitrous to the printing presses.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re: BULLSHIT !! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      They never stopped pissing money away to buy votes. That's the problem, bread and circuses.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    10. Re: BULLSHIT !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "trade wars" if anything will reduce his debt load even more cause then there is more money coming into the treasury. Probably one of the reasons this country is in the debt condition that it is in currently, that nearly everything is made over seas with no or little tariff charged at all. Stops the corporations from ripping us off. They can either pay their fair share of the taxes by making it in the US or get charged a tariff "tax" to import it. And there is only so much the corporations can do to raise the price before the people slow or stop buying it. This would be the position that apple is in now, they have raised their prices so much that fewer are buying. Why they have now gone scammy and not going to be reporting the actual number of units sold, just the $ figure. Oh sure we made a billion in sales last quarter, (fine print you cant see now, they made 100 gold plated iphones and sold them to billionaires for $1milllion each. When said billionaires dont come back next quarter to buy more of them, your stock investment is FUCKED!

    11. Re: BULLSHIT !! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They didn't all spend it on themselves and their family/friends.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re: BULLSHIT !! by bkmoore · · Score: 2

      I know your just derping. But how is Trump's debt different from FDR's (and every other scumbag in between)?

      "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

    13. Re:BULLSHIT !! by DarkOx · · Score: 0

      Whaaat?

      How do student loans have anything to do with balancing the budget? Or are you using lefty looony accounting where unless we do loan forgiveness someone you claim these people were taxed?

      Facts are most of these people pay nothing at all. After the EIT is applied. The government is taxing the middle class not young people; well except when Obama is in charge than he makes them pay for their parents healthcare; with insane premiums and coverage most don't actually need.

      College costs what it costs because of the darn loans in the first place. Turns out when you make a bunch of unsecured money available to kids who have never seen such large sums before they really do think the extra $5000 a semester for fancier dorm and bigger football stadium is money well spend. Colleges figured that out and chose to compete on it. That really is the whole story its actually NOT more complex than that.

      Want bring down the cost of University. Dump Sallie Mae.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    14. Re: BULLSHIT !! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Xenophobia? Do you not understand the difference between a legal immigrant and an illegal immigrant?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    15. Re: BULLSHIT !! by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      A legal immigrant is one coming here to apply for Asylum - the ones we're taking the children from and putting in torture camps, or one with a valid visa - you know, like the ones we're cancelling with zero notice if the immigrant is coming from one of a handful of Islamic countries.

      If you think Trump's policies are about legal vs illegal immigration, vs outright xenophobia, I have wall to sell you. Operative word: sell. You'll be paying for it.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    16. Re: BULLSHIT !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hint a legal immigrant would apply for political asylum at a consulate if at all possible, or at the very least come to the border check point in an orderly fashion and apply there. When you rush a border, cross it illegally while waving the flag of the country you are claiming asylum from it is not immigration, it is invasion.

      At this point the "invaders" are out of the country that they are claiming asylum from, they could just as easily apply for political asylum in the country they are already in, Mexico.

      The US and many other countries only offer political asylum, for example you fear for your life or liberty from your home country. We do NOT provide economic asylum, If you want to come to the US because you think you can make more money here than at home, then fine apply for a green card and go though the same naturalization process that every other legal immigrant that has come to the US went though.

    17. Re:BULLSHIT !! by clodney · · Score: 1

      Facts are most of these people pay nothing at all. After the EIT is applied. The government is taxing the middle class not young people; well except when Obama is in charge than he makes them pay for their parents healthcare; with insane premiums and coverage most don't actually need.

      Approximately 19% of filers use the EITC, and since it is a refundable credit, they may indeed pay negative taxes.

      I don't know the specific numbers, but I expect that most people pay more in FICA (social security/medicare) taxes than they do in income taxes. So when you see stats about how much the top n% pay in income taxes, realize that if only income taxes are considered and not total taxes, the outlook is very different.

      Regarding insane premiums for coverage most don't need - wouldn't insurance companies price that coverage based on the expected frequency of use? The reason for the coverage mandates in Obamacare is so that the coverage is actually useful, and doesn't exclude things that are going to drive you into bankruptcy. You can craft cheaper plans by refusing to cover things that get expense for significant number of people. You don't make cheaper plans by taking away things people don't use, because those don't cost much to begin with.

    18. Re: BULLSHIT !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it was his family's name until they changed it to sound more American. But you're right, we should respect people's chosen identities.

    19. Re:BULLSHIT !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're spending all your income to pay back loans that's money that's not going into the economy.

    20. Re: BULLSHIT !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The post that says "The debt from Trump's tax cuts" doesn't mention Trump. Right.

      In other news, black is white, up is down, and false is true.

    21. Re: BULLSHIT !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the ones we're taking the children from and putting in torture camps

      How do you know Trump is a good president? They have to outright lie in order to smear him. Thanks for letting us know your opinion is shit, squiggleslash.

    22. Re: BULLSHIT !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know all those pictures of "the children" in "torture camps" guess what, those were taken while Obummer was the fucking president.

    23. Re:BULLSHIT !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those evil richers, forcing us to take drugs and college loans for crap degrees. Curse them! *do jazzhands so no one gets triggered.*

    24. Re: BULLSHIT !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the fuck is gonna stop the corporations importing h1b slaves?

    25. Re: BULLSHIT !! by Dunbal · · Score: 1
      Mexico offered them asylum and they refused. You may want to look up the laws on asylum.

      the ones we're taking the children from and putting in torture camps

      You watch too much fake news.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    26. Re:BULLSHIT !! by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      You make money in insurance by selling to people who don't use it. So to get insurance companies to cover pre-exisiting conditions and other bad risks Obamacare forced healthy young people, who wouldn't typically buy insurance beyond catastrophic coverage, to buy full policies that cover stuff they would never use. Insurance companies make a huge amount over what they were making before and take a part of that to cover bad risks and pocket the rest.

      Obamacare was written by the insurance industry for the insurance industry. Since many of those required under Obamacare to buy insurance couldn't afford it that meant the government, primarily the states, most of whom are required by law to maintain a balance budget, would be required to pony up the money. So win for insurance companies, loss for taxpayers.

      And when it all shook out just as many people or more than before were uninsured, so it did not even fix that problem.

    27. Re: BULLSHIT !! by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      You watch too much fake news.

      Sounds like you put your blockquotes in the wrong place, but I can't find the post you're replying to that makes those claims.

      Or you could be an apologist for evil, because you voted for it so you feel obliged to pretend it isn't doing what everyone reports its doing. I don't know. Which is it?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    28. Re: BULLSHIT !! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      but I can't find the post you're replying to that makes those claims.

      Then you didn't look very hard at all now, did you? Here, I linked a screenshot I posted on imgur where I outlined the relative comment with a nice big red box. I consider it a public service. I like helping the mentally handicapped. It's your own post but of course you can't be expected to remember everything you write.

      By the way

      but I can't find the post you're replying to that makes those claims.

      is also something you just said.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    29. Re: BULLSHIT !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice logic. By that logic Hitler was a good president. Stalin was a good president. And whatever. They were all good because someone random person on the internet told outright lies in order to smear them at some point.

    30. Re: BULLSHIT !! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Don't respect their bullshit. But don't make yourself sound like some case of deranged TDS.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  6. Re:Things that suck by Tsolias · · Score: 0

    5. Your mom

    no u

  7. Re:Things that suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    0. Anonymous Coward's shitposting

  8. Materialism isn't the issue by cyberchondriac · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When did being a millennial get equated to materialism per se? I thought the trope had more do with growing up as latch-key kids, and being taught hard to feel special, entitled, and enabled by over-compensating or guilt-ridden parents, teachers, and the participation trophy mindset.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    1. Re:Materialism isn't the issue by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 1

      Its not. People do not want to say that materialism is one of the major things (along with the Fed Gov, Democrats, Republican, and cable news [They want veiw to sell ads. They appear to care less about reporting accurately]) fucking this country over.
      Not buying stuff. That is unamerican.

      (Says the guy that cannot stop buying stupid shit on Amazon.)

      --
      http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
    2. Re:Materialism isn't the issue by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Huh ?!? It's a latin phrase, so it's been in use for 2000 years, it's nothing recent to say the least. And I don't see what's effeminate about it.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    3. Re:Materialism isn't the issue by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      When did being a millennial get equated to materialism per se?

      If I recall, it began with car manufacturers complaining that millennials don't buy cars. Then realtors complained about the same thing. Millennials don't buy homes.

      Turns out they were just poor. Now that the economy has picked up, the trends have returned to normal.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    4. Re:Materialism isn't the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He doesn't understand it, so it's bad. It can't possibly be his own shortcoming.

    5. Re: Materialism isn't the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. When a generation of kids are saddled with soul crushing student loan debt it reduces big ticket buying power.

    6. Re:Materialism isn't the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trope isn't quite appropriate. It's more of a cliche that comes from the all so popular generalization of individual behaviour.

      Yes, millennials have been the generation that got participant badges and trophies. But contrary to popular belief, which is that they were taught that everyone is a winner, a good portion of the children wasn't that stupid and saw those badges and trophies for what they are -- loser trophies. At best they were worth nothing. And at worst, quite ironically, they served as a constant reminder that you sucked at something.

      Millennials are also the gulf war generation. With the older Millennials being old enough to understand what was going on due to media coverage in the first gulf war and old enough to probably have served in the 2nd gulf war after 9/11/2001. Parents and teachers may have tried to shield them from the truth. But in their failure to do so they probably only made it worse.

    7. Re: Materialism isn't the issue by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0

      That comment perfectly exemplifies your knowledge of the feminine.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    8. Re:Materialism isn't the issue by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      "He talks like a fag and his shit's all retarded!" - the modern right

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    9. Re:Materialism isn't the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reaction of a truly special snowflake. Immediately offended and goes ballistic when someone points out their lack of knowledge about something.

    10. Re:Materialism isn't the issue by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      South Park goths suck!

      But at least they're not emos. At least the emos arent furries, etc etc all the way down to antifa LARPers.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    11. Re:Materialism isn't the issue by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      To an extent it's always been the case, due to inflation making stuff look expensive to older people and of course all the new stuff not existing when they were kids. But now we also have credit based consumerism, the high cost of living and of property distorting everything too.

      That's why you get nonsense about how if they only stopped eating avocados and buying phones they could afford a house.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Materialism isn't the issue by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 0

      The reaction of a truly special snowflake. Immediately offended and goes ballistic when someone points out their lack of knowledge about something.

      Try again, I actually know Latin.

    13. Re: Materialism isn't the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... or is it then a latina phrase? ;-)

    14. Re:Materialism isn't the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever notice how it's either DA BOOMERZ or duh millenials who are RUINING THE COUNTRY?!

      Yeah, because it's not. Boomers are already well into their endgame. Millenials haven't yet seized power - even the earliest haven't yet hit forty.

      You know who's fucking things up?

      The slackers of Generation X.

    15. Re:Materialism isn't the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In all fairness, the amount some of the younger people spend on going out to eat per month really was roughly what my monthly mortgage was. Granted I did buy during the housing crash, so I got a great deal, but that's still a lot per month to spend on avocado toast and lattes. I heard one guy justifying his $5 coffee he drank every morning along with a croissant, don't know how much that was, was "an affordable luxury". You do the math on just how much that is...and wow. And he does that every day.

    16. Re: Materialism isn't the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. When a generation of kids are saddled with soul crushing student loan debt it reduces big ticket buying power.

      It's not much better for many of those who didn't go to college. I'm one of the few of my age group who owns a house, everyone else is still renting and complaining about how hard it is to even save up for a downpayment much less even affording real estate now that house prices have recovered so much.

    17. Re:Materialism isn't the issue by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      There aren't many of us and we've never quite taken power from the Boomers. In terms of high profile examples of each:

      Eddie Lampert - Boomer. The guy destroying Sears
      Bill Gates - Boomer. Mixed legacy, he's left us with some terrible software infrastructure due to a monopolistic maximum power mindset over quality
      Jeff Bezos - Borderline Boomer/Gen X. Successful, but with a mixed legacy
      Sergey Brin & Larry Page - Gen X. Successful, and their company is mostly considered decent, with most abusive practices taking place after they let others take control.
      Marissa Mayer - Gen X, she'll be blamed for Yahoo! failure but to be honest, it was failing anyway. At least she tried.
      Jack Dorsey - Gen X. Urgh.
      Mark Zuckerberg - Millennial. Absolute disaster for humanity. Worse than Dorsey
      Jessica Alba - Millennial. Honestly, on this list because I'm having problems thinking of high profile Millennial business heads, which is kinda fine because you wouldn't expect there to be many. Still, successful, but her business is centered around organic diapers, so there's that. Still, at least she's not Zuckerberg or Dorsey.

      Of this bunch, I'd say the boomers are the worst, Gen X has some successes, and it's too early to judge the Millennials.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    18. Re: Materialism isn't the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not too early. Millennials have been judged and found guilty. The sentence is death by starvation.

    19. Re: Materialism isn't the issue by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Buying your first house has always been hard.

      Don't kid yourself, when houses cost $20k, average income was $5k.

      Real estate values have always cycled up and down, buying at the peak isn't really good.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    20. Re:Materialism isn't the issue by citylivin · · Score: 1

      "Sergey Brin & Larry Page - Gen X. Successful, and their company is mostly considered decent"

      You mean the people who founded an advertising company that now has tentacles and power over pretty much the entire internet?

      Google is the exact opposite of "decent". They make microsoft look like the good guys.

      Face it, anyone who makes it rich is tainted by that success. The only people who i can think of that have not sold out is craig from craigslist and steve wozniak.

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    21. Re:Materialism isn't the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you're going to disagree with the latter half of the description you should probably at least quote it.

    22. Re:Materialism isn't the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let it all out. You feeling better about yourself now?

    23. Re: Materialism isn't the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It did help that you used to be able to get that job based on your highschool education, either because a factory job only required the higshcoll diploma as proof you had been adequately trained to work in shifts and follow directions, or because the thriving trade programs (shop class, etc.) meant you likly had a marketable skill.

      Contrast with hogschools increasingly gutting any non-collede prep tracks, and college degrees being expected for anything that isn't explicitly a student internship and it's still a very different environment.

    24. Re: Materialism isn't the issue by jrumney · · Score: 1

      When houses cost $20k, average income was $5k. When houses cost $200k, average income was $20k. See the problem yet?

    25. Re:Materialism isn't the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your ignorance of popular culture shall be forgiven. After all it's pop culture and mostly garbage.

      In the cartoon South Park there are fictional goth children who are depicted as being extremely pretentious in their own right while also being condescending towards other groups of people like Emos. Their 'leader' has the annoying habit of ending all his sentences with the phrase "per se".

      It's a TV show that pokes fun at everyone and they use a lot of hyperbole with their caricatures. And who hasn't seen the odd person on internet forums ending every one of their sentences with ellipses or exclamation marks for whatever reason to a degree that makes their posts hard to read.

      Now if you're a nitwit who doesn't understand basic logic, you may tend to generalize and get the impression that people who use the phrase "per se" must all be such obnoxious and pretentious individuals. Even if those people used it appropriately and only once.

    26. Re: Materialism isn't the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FFS, it takes a Boomer to see an article saying that they're the same as Millennials and immediately write a comment about "latch-keys" and "trophies".

    27. Re: Materialism isn't the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FFS, take a butthurt whiner to ignore the well established fact that many millennials, unlike boomers, had parents who both worked, earning them the latch key kid moniker. It's not an insult, it's an observation.
      Participation trophies were a real thing too. Go cry in mommy's basement, punk.

    28. Re: Materialism isn't the issue by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I do see the problem, you're making up stats.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  9. Sorry, I didn't know this wasn't common knowledge by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Informative

    Else I'd have said something. Yes, the only reason millennials don't participate in the good ol' "shop 'til you drop" game is that they can't afford the fee. And this is the only reason they don't buy your crap and don't drive the economy. If you want people to buy your stuff, you need people who have the money to buy your stuff.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Not suprising by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 1

    Especially when Jeff Bezos has $150,000,000,000 of worth.

    --
    http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
    1. Re:Not suprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wealth generation through stocks is not stealing anything from anyone. The only people suffering from Bezo's wealth are the Sears and Walmart executives.

      Really, I don't get the constant hate over the billionaires. If they gave everything away, which they can't, it'd be all of ~$5 to you.

  11. Two misconceptions by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

    First, I think, most people have no idea what the definition of millennial even is.
    and second, they think the extreme loudmouths the media likes to amuse us with constitute a representative sample.

    Once you're beyond that, I think nothing about millennials remains outside tbw norm and what we've seen in everey other generation.

    1. Re:Two misconceptions by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Pretty much. The millennial stereotype would have you believe that they're entitled brats with an outsized sense of self-worth and an unwillingness to work hard. As it turns out, most of these sorts of traits are measurable and have been tracked by researchers across a representative sample of the American population for decades, allowing researchers to see whether or not those claims have any merit.

      By all accounts, they don't.

      Since about the 1940s, most of those sorts of traits have only shifted by, at most, a single digit percent in terms of their prevalence in the American population. The millennials actually scored better in most of those traits than the boomers and gen Xers did at the same point in their lives, but the differences were so slight as to not matter. The millennials trying to push boomer stereotypes are just as wrong as the boomers are about the millennials.

      It may be the case that the bad ones in the millennial generation are more extreme than the bad ones in prior generations (i.e. I haven't seen any studies on the topic), but there's no statistical basis that I'm aware of to suggest that millennials, taken as a cohort, are meaningfully better or worse than previous generations. Despite that, they got a bad rap early on, and now whenever we see a millennial who fits the stereotype, our confirmation bias convinces us that our preconceived view of them is correct, in the same way that we might not think twice about the bad male drivers we interact with all day, but a bad woman driver? Clearly indicative of the fact that women are bad drivers, right?

    2. Re:Two misconceptions by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      'They' say: 'There are no wrong answers to personality tests'.

      That's true, unless you want the job, then there are definite 'right answers': High on conscientiousness, openness to experience, agreeableness, low on neuroticism, middle on extroversion (unless marketer).

      Cynics that lie on personality tests are now identified as 'role models' by social 'scientists'.

      I'd expect the percentage of 'role models' in each generation to be higher than the previous (at the same age).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Two misconceptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, I think, most people have no idea what the definition of millennial even is.

      Of course not, given that's it's constantly being changed and expanded to include ever more people.

      Age discrimination is the cheapest form.

  12. Who is Fed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never heard of him, do you mean Fred? That f*cker will say anything, don't trust him,

  13. This is exactly what I thought when this broke. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    About 6 months ago I recall hearing about the wave of "Millenials don't buy XYZ!" stories!" The items were things like napkins and fabric softener or cars. Then went on to explain how they were this weird different generation.

    What made a lot more sense was simply they had less money, and didn't buy extraneous stuff you didn't really need, like napkins, or fabric softener. I've never bought fabric softener. Maybe because I don't wear lots of clothes that require it. But it always seemed weird to me that people need fabric softener.

    Napkins are similar. We actually DO my napkins now, and it's useful, but you can easily get away with paper towels.

    Cars are obviously very expensive, so you don't buy a new one if you can't afford it.

    Now... if it was about an item that you really HAVE to buy, and is cheap, like deodorant or toothpaste, that might be something. But the list is/was these things you didn't really need, can easily live without, but you might buy if you had a little extra money. So yeah, not too surprising here.

    1. Re:This is exactly what I thought when this broke. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Fabric softener saves money. It makes clothes last longer, which lowers your clothing budget. Of course, that doesn't apply if you buy those tissue paper shirts that only last three washes, so it does require a certain amount of money to save money. It also doesn't apply if you have to keep up with the new fashions.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:This is exactly what I thought when this broke. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hanging your clothing up to dry makes them last even longer.

    3. Re:This is exactly what I thought when this broke. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was not aware of this benefit of fabric softener. I'm going to verify this cuz I don't trust anyone, especially on the internet. But you intrigue me.

  14. Re:Sorry, I didn't know this wasn't common knowled by Thelasko · · Score: 3

    While this may seem like an obvious conclusion. Many studies and news articles have reached different conclusions.

    Personally, I think most of the complaining about millennials to just be old people becoming out of touch, as they always do.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  15. Re:Things that suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    badly

  16. We aren't poor by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The group born between 1981 and 1997 has fallen behind because many of them came of age during the financial crisis.

    We aren't poor. We've just seen what happens when the financial markets collapse and don't see the need to be leveraged out the ass with 2 car notes, a second mortgage (for those of us who were even lucky enough to find housing while it was still actually reasonably priced), and paying off 3 credit cards. We're spending less than we have so we aren't completely screwed come the next bust cycle. We'd love to be able to spend money, but we remember being un- or under-employed and how much that sucked while the Boomers with guaranteed pensions and social security (both being paid for by us with us likely to see no benefit or payout ourselves) trying to grab more and more.

    Besides, any extra money we would have to spend on consumer goods that our parents bought with credit card debt is most likely wrapped up in another type of debt: student loans. The bonuses I've gotten from my company the last few years, instead of helping the local economy by being spent on house repairs/upgrades has gone towards paying off student loans. And this years'll be no different.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:We aren't poor by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      All of these studies trying to figure out millennials. No one thought to ask one why they do the things they do?

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    2. Re:We aren't poor by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      All of these studies trying to figure out millennials. No one thought to ask one why they do the things they do?

      Maybe they think we are too busy rolling the points of our old-fashioned mustaches with the grease from our avocado toast to answer a survey?

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:We aren't poor by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      I make better money at my age than I would as a tradesman, and I did my time doing outdoor manual labor already (my experience of being underemployed). I have enough disposable income to pay someone to do it, but I won't because I know I won't always have that disposable income and would rather pay down recurring debt while I can. My debt's not enormous-less than what many people do for a car-but in my house we consider my wife's $150 car payment to be a "big" payment. Live below your means and those means last a lot longer.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re: We aren't poor by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0

      Yeah ... Hawking, Dawson, Oppenheimer and their I'll should have been smart like you ... idiot.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    5. Re:We aren't poor by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      What? That makes no sense. Being "poor" is not "how much you spend". No wonder Millenials are poor if they think like that.

    6. Re:We aren't poor by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      The group born between 1981 and 1997 has fallen behind because many of them came of age during the financial crisis.

      We aren't poor. We've just seen what happens when the financial markets collapse and don't see the need to be leveraged out the ass with 2 car notes, a second mortgage (for those of us who were even lucky enough to find housing while it was still actually reasonably priced), and paying off 3 credit cards. We're spending less than we have so we aren't completely screwed come the next bust cycle. We'd love to be able to spend money, but we remember being un- or under-employed and how much that sucked while the Boomers with guaranteed pensions and social security (both being paid for by us with us likely to see no benefit or payout ourselves) trying to grab more and more.

      Besides, any extra money we would have to spend on consumer goods that our parents bought with credit card debt is most likely wrapped up in another type of debt: student loans. The bonuses I've gotten from my company the last few years, instead of helping the local economy by being spent on house repairs/upgrades has gone towards paying off student loans. And this years'll be no different.

      You do know that college costs have soared because of subsidies and guaranteed student loans, right? So it's the "we have to help people go to college" crowd who are responsible for the soaring costs.

      Meanwhile, anybody who even suggests doing something actually useful economically, like say limiting competition from cheap foreign workers, gets shouted down.

    7. Re:We aren't poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd tend to agree, partially. Wages for younger people are lower than for their parents, and tuition costs are higher. So there some more restrictions on spending. But parent is definitely right about the certainty factor.

      In my early and mid-20s I lived through two financial drops (2001 and 2008), and those sucked. I was either under- or un-employed for a couple years both times. So now, even though I make a pretty high wage for the area in which I live, my life style is pretty low-key. I shop like I make minimum wage, I live in a modest apartment. Any surplus money goes into savings because my future income is uncertain.

      If I get sick, or the market tanks, or I get laid off due to automation, there is no safety net besides what I create. So my money doesn't go into nicer clothes, or a bigger house or a new car - it goes into saving for when the next crises happens. I've almost never carried any debt in my life (credit cards, mortgage or car loans) because I know one slip in the market or one long illness and I'm on my own. So I only buy what I can afford now and save as much as possible.

      My parents worked in the same steady jobs for decades. Almost every company I've ever worked for (around a dozen of them, save two) are gone out of business. There is no security in the market, no steady base on which to make long-term spending plans like buying a home or a new car. I can't assume I can pay off a mortgage, so I rent cheap.

      Businesses want people to spend more, but for that to happen they need to provide long term security, paid leave and a living wage. Otherwise people are going to shore up for a raining day and play it safe.

    8. Re:We aren't poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, as if a millennial browses Slashdot. Nice LARPing.

    9. Re:We aren't poor by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      You do know that college costs have soared because of subsidies and guaranteed student loans, right? So it's the "we have to help people go to college" crowd who are responsible for the soaring costs.

      Yes, I do. That is why I am a big proponent of a more European style educational system. I am fully aware that plenty of people either don't want to or don't need to go to college, yet they have been pushed to do so, often by colleges themselves who want the free federal/bank money. Break it off, don't send everyone to college, and these colleges will have to start cutting back on the ridiculous amenities and massive administrative overhead to cut costs and reduce tuition prices. Makes for more manageable prices for those who go to college, and an economy with more trained plumbers, welders, hvac techs, cnc operators, A&P qualified mechanics, mechanics, electricians, etc. Like I said, fortunately my student loans are less that what many people take out for a car loan, but my wife and I try to stay in as little debt as possible.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    10. Re:We aren't poor by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      What? That makes no sense. Being "poor" is not "how much you spend". No wonder Millenials are poor if they think like that.

      Correct. Being poor is "not having money" not "not spending money". But the only way for other people to know you have money is to spend it. If you don't spend it, people assume you don't have it. American society is built upon conspicuous consumption. My argument is that a lot of people of my generation have decided not to play that game. Take the way I dress or the car my wife used to drive but still owns (a 2001 BMW 330i, we replaced it this year with a used 2011 X3 that cost less than my 14 Ford Focus cost brand new) and you'd assume our combined income is about 1/3 of what it really is, and our house (that we were lucky enough to buy when we did a few years ago, prices rose so fast we couldn't afford to buy it now) is just big enough for us and a kid or 2 that we are hoping to have and affordable on just one of our salaries.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    11. Re:We aren't poor by Seven+Spirals · · Score: 1

      Smart strategy. I'm not convinced the entire generation acts for the same reason, but I'm sure a significant number do if they were old enough to be paying attention in 2008. I just wonder what will happen when the Baby Boomers decide to use their outsized voting habits to say, raid the 401k and IRA accounts of the Millenial generation in their 30's or 40's. After all, grandma shouldn't have to eat cat food right? So, now that you are done paying off that student loan let ol' Uncle Sam have a swing at whatever you've managed to save.

    12. Re:We aren't poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are "paying off 3 credit cards" you have already failed. Only put on credit what you can pay when the bill arrives.

    13. Re:We aren't poor by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      How long have you had those BMWs? Expensive cars are never cheap, especially when old. Enjoy your $1000 brake jobs.

      You are right, it isn't what you make, it's what you keep. But old German cars (but not old enough to be collectable) aren't a good plan outside Germany.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:We aren't poor by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The Club med amenities are sunk costs. It's not over until many fancy schools are broke, then they can start rebuilding.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    15. Re:We aren't poor by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      You are wise, but what 'society' will do to repay you for your forward-looking wisdom, is to continue to chastise you for not making your personal finances a negative-sum game, spending more than you have, because some people in this country want you to be beholden to them. So be prepared for being demonized, with accusations of 'not supporting economic growth', and maybe even 'being selfish'.

    16. Re:We aren't poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know that college costs have soared because of subsidies and guaranteed student loans, right? So it's the "we have to help people go to college" crowd who are responsible for the soaring costs.

      Meanwhile, anybody who even suggests doing something actually useful economically, like say limiting competition from cheap foreign workers, gets shouted down.

      As someone who lived through all of that, the reason the subsidies jacked up the cost of college was because it came with no strings attached or a modicum of oversight.

      What Trump is doing has nothing to do with limiting competition from cheap workers; the only thing trade wars do is make it expense for our workers to compete in other markets. Yes, it means other countries will pay more for the same privilege, but spoiler alert: it's cheaper and more profitable to charge the American consumer more than it is to build factories in the United States.

      Laws do not make life more expensive. BAD laws do - and the current president is making a mountain of bad laws that will affect all of us. Feel free to piss and moan about stuff that happened 25 years ago and offer no solution, though. That'll totally help.

    17. Re:We aren't poor by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      How long have you had those BMWs? Expensive cars are never cheap, especially when old. Enjoy your $1000 brake jobs.

      You are right, it isn't what you make, it's what you keep. But old German cars (but not old enough to be collectable) aren't a good plan outside Germany.

      The 01 was the only car my wife had had up until this summer. At worst we would spend a couple hundred in repairs each year, still cheaper than a car note. The 2011 only had 70k miles on it, should last another decade or so as well.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    18. Re:We aren't poor by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      That's a good general rule. But not universal.

      I lived off CCs for about a year to help put together my first house downpayment. But I started that year with zero debt and bought less house than I was qualified for. Paid off the CCs inside a year.

      I was rushing to catch the bottom of a real estate cycle.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    19. Re:We aren't poor by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      If you are "paying off 3 credit cards" you have already failed. Only put on credit what you can pay when the bill arrives.

      I agree with you. We have no CC debt. The only CC we have has a 2k limit and only for emergencies/foreign travel/places that won't take debit(or Mastercard).

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    20. Re:We aren't poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well put.

    21. Re:We aren't poor by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      But that degree in women's studies is going to be very useful someday!

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    22. Re:We aren't poor by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I just wonder what will happen when the Baby Boomers decide to use their outsized voting habits to say, raid the 401k and IRA accounts of the Millenial generation in their 30's or 40's.

      They will do so successfully because enough of the folks in their 30's and 40's will buy into the idea that grandma should not have to eat cat food despite the 3 summers backing around Europe in her 20s and annual vacation cruise she took while her grandparents minded their parents. All things said Millenials will never have had the opportunity to do.

      Here is the thing though. I don't what advice to give them; I am just prior to that generation myself and I have done okay and I concerned about exactly what you mention. My guess is just like the booms got bailed out - GM stood up so their pensions can get paid, the housing market forcibly held aloft with bank bailouts and HARP, oh and cash for clunkers so they could all afford new cars and keep driving to work. Chances are good if you blow you money today on a McMansion, fancy car, boat, to say nothing of intangibles (like trips that can't be repo) you are very like to be permitted to keep all these things one way or another when the next crisis arrives - but if you assets are your stock/bond portfolio and notes etc you will be made to take the haircut.

      The argument will be that well other people are taking the same haircut on their property values etc; but it isnt really the same because they will continue to enjoy those things; oh and you won't be able to get one yourself because the builders and manufacturers will pull back until those asset values are repaired thru scarcity. At which time the people who behaved poorly are made whole and you and I are as usual stuck with the bill.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    23. Re:We aren't poor by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      Not really. I know a lot of people who have a lot of money but they don't spend it. For example, a lot of people think that midwest farmers are poor, but I know they aren't. And your generation is the biggest conspicuous consumers of them all. Every millenial has an iPhone, most have Macbooks and wear designer clothing. So I am not sure what you are talking about.

    24. Re:We aren't poor by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      You are atypical. Credit card utilization for Millenials is 31 percent with an average credit limit of about $5,700. Higher than any other age group. That means the average millenial carries around a $2000 credit card debt.

    25. Re:We aren't poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while the Boomers with guaranteed pensions and social security (both being paid for by us with us likely to see no benefit or payout ourselves)

      We brought you into this world, fed you, protected you and wiped your shit-stained asses until you were old enough to fend for yourselves. THAT'S your fucking benefit and payout.

      Had we known then what we know now, you would never have seen the light of day and we would have kept all our money to ourselves to enjoy life and live our dreams while growing old and watching the sun set one last time on humanity.

      Entitled, ungratefull little pieces of shit.

    26. Re:We aren't poor by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      $200...so a BMW fuse?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    27. Re:We aren't poor by AnonyMouseCowWard · · Score: 1

      ... 31 percent with an average credit limit of about $5,700. Higher than any other age group. That means the average millenial carries around a $2000 credit card debt.

      Wait wait what. Help me understand. Credit limit of 5.7K just means credit limit, not average carry-over balance, right? And only 31% of Millenials use credit cards? Unless you're telling me 31% of Millenials have a month-to-month balance, and the average balance is for these guys is 5.7K, in which case daaaamn, I want to find the data source because that's screwed up.

    28. Re:We aren't poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but we remember being un- or under-employed and how much that sucked

      Personally, I think I finally understand the Silent Generation.

    29. Re:We aren't poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every millenial has an iPhone, most have Macbooks and wear designer clothing.

      He means the millenials who exist in the physical universe, not the strawmen you populated your imagination with.

    30. Re:We aren't poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a millennial with an '03 BMW that I've owned for a decade - these cars are not expensive if you do the work yourself and actually maintain the vehicle regularly. Several Ford and GM models I've owned fared worse in terms of reliability while being maintained to the same degree.

      The problem with my generation (and the boomers by extension) is that too few parents passed along the skills to repair or maintain anything yourself (or they themselves didn't know) and too few kids cared to learn. Doing "blue collar" repair jobs around the house and/or garage is a dying art.

    31. Re:We aren't poor by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      The SUV and Truck market prove that tariffs do work. Trucks and SUVs are the only area that American car makers are competitive in. Why are they competitive? Anyone who tells you its because Japanese and European companies don't make trucks and SUVs is wrong. They all make trucks and SUVs and to sell them in the U.S. they face a >20% tariff.

      GM is using the excuse that a $200 increase on a $40,000 is why they can't continue to make sedans, when the reason they can't sell sedans is because they make crappy sedans.

      Other countries that put high tariffs on U.S. goods seem to be doing just fine. These economic 'free trade" rules only seem to apply to the U.S.

    32. Re:We aren't poor by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      If you can afford the down payment buying is almost always cheaper than renting, provided you are smart and have discipline.

      To start with you've got to remember the Realtor always works for the seller and they work on commission. That means it is to their benefit to try to get you to spend too much. The same with the bank. The more they lend you the more they make, so they will over qualify you. Be disciplined. I live in a townhome instead of a McMansion, though I could probably afford one. It never went underwater and I would make a modest profit if I sold, but meanwhile I've paid less than what it would have cost me to live in a rental townhouse the same size.

      There are definitely better and worse times to buy. 2008-2009 was a great time to buy and a crappy time to sell, especially if you overpaid. Many properties which were underwater in 2009 have recovered nine years later and those folks who walked away because they were underwater basically threw away a lot of money. (I understand some lost their income and had no choice, but a lot just decided they wouldn't pay for a house that, on paper, was worth less than they borrowed.)

      I do certainly agree that putting money away is a good idea. Experts say you should have at least six month's salary in savings, above what you might have put away for retirement.

    33. Re:We aren't poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never thought to use the avocado toast grease! I bet that will work great!

    34. Re:We aren't poor by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Everything is kosher but one thing:

      while the Boomers with guaranteed pensions and social security (both being paid for by us with us likely to see no benefit or payout ourselves) trying to grab more and more.

      Yes. It is being paid by you and me. The only reason we are paying it is that the Federal Government took all of the money that was paid into Social Security before the 1980s and put that into bonds, which was then used to increase American Hegemony. So the money that was paid in previous to 1980 was essentially stolen from the people who paid into Social Security and we are left holding the bag.

      Have a nice day.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    35. Re:We aren't poor by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Ha! Owning German cars in the US is the epitome of conspicuous consumption. And that's doubly true for used ones, which lack any semblance of reliability or maintenance affordability.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  17. In other words... by fibonacci8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Millenials aren't actually lazy, they're getting paid stagnant rates and the money supply has increased. Inflation happens and spending power has gone down as a result. The same or greater productivity is expected and "kids these days" aren't the ones seeing the benefit of it.

    This isn't even news. Gone are the days when a part time summer job is enough for that year's college tuition. A part time job might barely cover rent any more. And you can forget about having a savings account without at least one full time job and a part time job on the side.

    Employers are offering fewer and fewer long term incentives, which results in lower employee loyalty in return.

    It's not a mystery, it's not a secret. It's the economy, stupid.

    --
    Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    1. Re:In other words... by bigpat · · Score: 1

      Agree with some of that, but inflation is actually pretty low and I don't think the increase in the money supply has been keeping up with our trade deficits. The Fed has been keeping the dollar strong when we would really need a weak dollar and more money in our economy widely distributed. When a lot of that "money" is concentrated or overseas or coming back into the US economy in investments that will eventually return profits back overseas or into the hands of a small elite. Raising some costs like housing, but keeping money out of the pockets of most people.

    2. Re:In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it interesting you mentioned money supply. I did some figures last year and I found since 1980 the M2 money supply (that they admit too) has increased by a factor of 8.5. Real estate in my region price wise went up by a factor of 4-4.25ish in the same period.

    3. Re:In other words... by hdyoung · · Score: 2

      Completely agree. They aren't lazy at all. The numbers I've read show that they're harder working and smarter than previous generations. They use less drugs too.

      And there's other angles to the story as well. With the exception of a few top performers, most millennials won't make it into better paying positions until the older generation gets too decrepit to work and has no choice but to relinquish the wheel. And when they finally do make good pay, they will discover that the entire system has been designed to deny them stable benefits. Screw pensions, invest in the market for your own damn retirement. We oldies don't owe you a thing. But hand's off OUR pensions. Those are sacred.

      The irony is that closing millennials out of the pension systems means that there aren't many young people paying in. In 20 years, those pension systems will be near-bust and will have no choice but to drastically reduce benefits. At that point, a ton of old people will suffer. Funny that the millennials who are being forced to invest for retirement in market-based options will probably be mostly fine. Karma I guess.

    4. Re:In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inflation has been 2% or less since 2000. This year it has sometimes gotten barely above the threshold. Increasing the money supply doesn't automatically increase inflation; what increases inflation is when people try to buy more goods than suppliers can produce. But what we have now is corporations and rich people hording cache, and more goods for sale than people can use.

  18. Thanks Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More government spending and business hostile policies = slower growth = less money in people's pockets.

    A booming economy helps change that, but there remains 8 years of mismanagement to overcome...

    1. Re:Thanks Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A booming economy helps change that, but there remains 8 years of mismanagement to overcome...

      Wow, I wasn't aware that Trump managed to squeeze 8 years of mismanagement into the 2 years he's held office. That's got to be some kind of record.

  19. Re:Sorry, I didn't know this wasn't common knowled by NormalVisual · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you might have a point there - I'm not sure where all the disparagement towards millenials is coming from. I'm in my 50s, and I work with plenty of interns and new grads in an engineering setting. My experience has been that most of them actually make an effort and bust their ass to get the job done, and are much more aware of needing to plan for the future than my generation was. Yeah, culturally there are differences and sometimes generational gaps in experiences, but I can't see any real reason to dogpile on them just for that.

    --
    Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  20. The federal reserve opinion is asinine. by nimbius · · Score: 1

    if we are truly just like our parents but poorer, then we can be expected to hold differing priorities and spending habits that are dictated by that poverty. The Federal Reserve is either pushing this idea to calm markets heading into a recession, or its manufacturing excuses for upcoming market instability.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  21. Re:Sorry, I didn't know this wasn't common knowled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Else I'd have said something. Yes, the only reason millennials don't participate in the good ol' "shop 'til you drop" game is that they can't afford the fee. And this is the only reason they don't buy your crap and don't drive the economy. If you want people to buy your stuff, you need people who have the money to buy your stuff.

    I am a homeowner in what is mostly an upper middle class community... For years I have told people I don't like to spend money because I am cheap and when I do home projects they are always DIY ("because I like too do it myself")... but truth is I don't spend money because most of my paycheck goes towards mortgage, student loans (still), heating, electricity, groceries and just treading water living mostly pay check to pay check with a bit set aside for retirement which is faster and faster approaching. I am the top 20% or better of income brackets. And sometimes, occasionally every couple years, I can save up enough or feel I can afford to borrow enough to go on a vacation with my kids or hire someone for a project at my house or do something.

    But telling people that you can't afford to spend money indicates weakness. It isn't a good idea to be honest about that. If people know you are financially weak then they can take advantage of you at every level. That is one reason people keep it to themselves (or should keep it to themselves) that they simply don't have enough money to do or buy whatever it is they want to do... and thus get excluded from the very social circles that would gain them opportunities for better income over the long run.

    They just really enjoy having a roommate... or really enjoy living together... aren't ready for marriage, prefer to rent rather than buy, want to live a simpler life, don't need a car, just really like the same shirt they have been wearing for 3 years.

    And I am in a measurable verifiable top 20% income bracket in a major metropolitan area with affordable debt and some retirement savings. I have no misconceptions about what the other 80% are doing to stay afloat. Whatever they can.

  22. Ah, statistics by holophrastic · · Score: 1

    We've "taken into account" and "controlled for" these dozens of factors. After we make everything the same, lo and behold, the new generation is the same as the old.

    Shock of a lifetime!

    "Average age, average income, and a wide range of demographics" -- are drastically different.

    So answer the question the way it's asked. If I walk up to a random twenty-year old this afternoon, will he buy things like I did when I was twenty, or not?

    Of course if he's impoverished, he won't. Of course if he's dead he won't. Of course if he's chosen to live as a hermit he won't. But isn't that the point?

    The question wasn't "why". The question is "whether".

    1. Re:Ah, statistics by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      The average person in my city is a millionaire. Probably because we have about 14 billionaires here.

      Doesn't mean the median person (half above, half below) is a millionaire. They're just poor working slobs making $46,000 a year.

      (caveat: technically I'm a millionaire, but that's on paper)

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  23. OK by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2, Interesting

    OK, so what do you propose doing about it?

    Well, for one thing, pretty sure that bringing in countless foreigners to compete for jobs isn't going to help, but what do I know.

    It's unpopular to say that, so not enough of us do say it. But popularity doesn't seem to be taking care of the problem.

    1. Re:OK by stinerman · · Score: 1

      Immigration is good at the macro level but not so much at certain micro levels. The way to fix that is income redistribution, but that's not something we generally want in this country for any number of reasons. So we have the continuous tension between "immigration benefits the country" and "immigration makes it hard for me to get a better job".

    2. Re:OK by DigiShaman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "The way to fix that is income redistribution" ~ AKA COMMUNISM

      We can discuss sound public policy that shouldn't involve THEFT. You want a war??! Theft is how you get wars. Just look at what's going on in France. And yes, taxation is theft!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The way to fix that is income redistribution" ~ AKA COMMUNISM

      We can discuss sound public policy that shouldn't involve THEFT. You want a war??! Theft is how you get wars. Just look at what's going on in France. And yes, taxation is theft!

      A progressive tax system which does to an extent redistribute income works. It has a long history of working and keeping things somewhat in balance. In fact one of the big issues with the united states is taxes are flatter so money pools at the top and does nothing, or helps no one. Can you go too far and make it so people don't want to work? Sure, but we are no where near that. Now you can complain that it isn't fair, but you can't complain it doesn't work, since facts show otherwise. You can also threaten war if you want. I rather suspect the few would lose badly if it was a war with them against the majority.

    4. Re:OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Immigration is good at the macro level but not so much at certain micro levels

      ~ AKA WAGE SUPPRESSION

      We can discuss sound public policy that shouldn't involve CLASS WARFARE. You want a revolution??! Class warfare is how you get revolutions. Just look at what went on in France. And yes, importing workers suppresses wages!

      In a sane world though, a progressive tax structure and gradual inflation seems to work pretty well.

    5. Re:OK by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Just look at what's going on in France.

      Huh? What on earth is going on in France? If you're talking about some Frenchmen rioting and setting fire to cars, you do realise it's Thursday right?

      And yes, taxation is theft!

      This is arguably the stupidest meme to surface here on a regular basis.

      If you hate tax so much go live in the Libertarian Paradise of the Congo and see how a country with no taxes operates.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The way to fix that is income redistribution

      Yes, redistributing income from rich countries to poor ones WOULD indeed help reduce the immigration progress.

    7. Re:OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think you're gonna get the naggers back in your fields, picking your 'maters, you're one dumb joo.

  24. Fuck consumerism. Fuck capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Money can only buy commodities, but it's all trash. All of it.
    Our supermarkets are just as impoverished as Cuba or the soviet union, just with more brightly colored labels.
    When you look, when you really take an effort to see past the ads, and the brands, and the bullshit, it's all the fucking same.
    Just piles and piles of trash that you don't need.

    RESIST
    Buy only what you actually need to live.
    Signalling to your fellow human is a waste of time anyway, as they're buried in the false world inside their phone, as reality decays around us.

  25. Here's why - in a way you are able to understand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know your just derping. But how is Trump's debt different from FDR's (and every other scumbag in between)?

    FDR: Debt for government spending to get us out of the Depression and then to pay for WWII.
    Clinton actually balanced the budget....then...
    W.Bush sstarting spending like a mad man for unecessary wars that created ISIS.
    Obama, had to bail us out of a Republican causes financial mess.
    Trump's debt is for the tax cuts for the Republican and his donors because that's what they paid for.

    Some reasons why Trump sucks and his supporters are all morons:
            1. N. Korea is back at their old shenanigans. More nukes! (So much for the "master deal maker")
            2. After all that Reality TV Drama horseshit and pissing off Canada and Mexico, the new NAFTA is basically what was originally signed into law by Clinton.
            3. The whole Caravan and border shit is nothing but a distraction and an overblown problem.
            4. The tax cut did jack shit for me. And in the meantime, the national debt will increase another trillion or so and because of it, interests rates will rise, our standard of living will decrease, and our economy will slow - all to give his and the Republican donors their tax break at our expense
            5. He undid Obama's environmental protections.
            6. The wildfires in California were his fault: he didn't appoint an under secretary of Natural Resources and Environment until September of this year.
            7. He hasn't been appointing people to important government positions - but playing golf
            8. A useless tradewar that’s costing too much and hurting our economy.
            9. Neutered the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
            10. We still don’t have a better healthcare system than Obamacare. He did promise one!!
            11. The wall hasn’t been built. (Good thing, but still a broken promise)
            12. Still no trillion dollars in infrastructure spending. (Another broken promise.)
            13. Firing people who are doing their job and not doing Trump's unethical and illegal bidding.

  26. Re:Sorry, I didn't know this wasn't common knowled by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Funny

    Indeed, it's pretty simple. It's just too bad that we'll have to keep trying supply-side economics until it either shows some signs of working for the first time ever, or the economy sucks itself in like the house at the end of Poltergeist.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  27. And Deader. Once Drafted!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better get ready to do pushups and die in global war you zoomie fucks!

  28. Pride is your Sin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you didnt suffer from the sin of false Pride you could have open discussions with ouths and discover youre not alone in getting raped, but your silence only enboldens your banker rapists. SAD.

  29. Re:Sorry, I didn't know this wasn't common knowled by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    If you _need_ your next paycheck you are a 'wage slave'.

    Is projecting financial success (e.g. buying all the house you were qualified for, new cars etc) worth making yourself a wage slave? The most important thing in financial negotiations is being able to say 'no'. If you employer/clients figure out you can't, you are really fucked, that's financially 'weak'.

    I'm more or less at the same stage of life and income, but house and car(s) are paid for. No HOA, horse properties, acerage, kind of neighborhood.

    There are many people who get a raise and gleefully think they can now afford a higher car payment, morons all.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  30. almost a millennial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought I was old, being born in the mid 70's, but according to this article, I'm almost a millennial

    1. Re:almost a millennial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give it another year at the most, I'm sure someone will have expanded the definition by then to include you (SMH).

  31. More like Europe families by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    The US is becoming more like Europe where generations tend to live together instead of each new generation setting out on their own. It's from a combination of 3 things:

    1) Running out of land due to population growth. The remaining areas are either desert or mountainous. The rest competes with farming.

    2) Jobs are less stable these days, making it harder to purchase a house. Lack of career stability also means you select "nimble" dwellings over big dwellings because you may have to move quickly for work change.

    3) The wealth is log-jamming at the top. Most GDP growth is not trickling down to the middle class. The Great Recession merely accelerated the trend.

    1. Re:More like Europe families by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      The US is becoming more like Europe where generations tend to live together instead of each new generation setting out on their own

      The US was dominated by multi-generation households until after WWII. Each new generation did not set out on their own until we created massive suburbias.

    2. Re:More like Europe families by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Before WW2, you headed out west and built your own house.

    3. Re:More like Europe families by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      No, a small fraction of people did. The vast majority stayed where they grew up. And grandma lived with them.

  32. Re:Sorry, I didn't know this wasn't common knowled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My take on millennials is that just have a realistic perspective. They already know that corporations are amoral beasts with no humanity or loyalty, so they tend to view their relationship with corporate employers in a reciprocal fashion. They just ask themselves ... "If I were a corporation, how would I behave in this situation?" It's not surprising that some people don't view this enlightened attitude favorably.

  33. Re:Here's why - in a way you are able to understan by HornWumpus · · Score: 2, Informative

    FDR's spending extended the depression, it was ended by WWII.

    Clinton had one _projected_ balanced budget (if you included SS accounting tricks), but it never happened. Dotcom imploded and the Clinton recession ended the hope, no balanced actual year.

    The rest of your post is just idiotic.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  34. No, you are dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Government bundled student loans as part of Obamacare in order to pay for it.
    Why do you hate poor people so much that you are complaining about helping them pay for insurance with deductibles so high they can't use it. Think about Obama's buddies in the insurance companies won't you.

    You all are a bunch of idiots that keep voting politicians to take your money and give it to their friends, and then come and complain when they didn't win in 2016.

  35. isn't it obvious by eaglesrule · · Score: 3, Insightful
    2000 dot com bubble

    2008 great recession
    crushing student debt
    'gig' economy and decades of union busting
    Future insolvency of social security
    High rent and housing costs
    Medical costs primary cause of bankruptcy

    I wonder why millennials and gen-x have less money to spend, and those who do have some aren't spending as much.

    Perhaps more are concerned about survival, than frivolously wasting money on consumer products that are engineered to be disposable and non serviceable. Perhaps seeing our parents struggle with credit card debt also had an effect.

    1. Re:isn't it obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 'gig' economy and decades of union busting

      Don't forget the mass importation of foreign labor, whether via visas or illegally. There are businesses that don't employee a single American because of this. And they all work cheaper than an American would.

  36. College, no work ethic by p51d007 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    From what I have witnessed, having been "in business" since 1981, is a LOT of the millennials, have NO work ethic. No just me, but I have talked to many people who have hired someone, that failed to show up on their start date, then when WE finally get in contact with them after they accepted a job, they say "oh, I changed my mind, or oh, I got a different job". Didn't even have the COURTESY of calling back. And, they want with NO EXPERIENCE, paid time off, sick days bla bla bla. Plus, you have to watch them or they will just sit around and do nothing. Add to that, with NO experience, they want a high salary because they have "massive debt" they are trying to pay off. NOT everyone needs to go to an expensive 4 year university. Trade schools offer a good way to make a living and are IN DEMAND, but a lot of the millennials don't want to work hard, just sit on their butts and play video games. Now, GET OFF MY LAWN!

    1. Re:College, no work ethic by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Do you call back when people are eliminated from consideration? No? There's your explanation.

      They got a better offer, then _deliberately_ fucked you. No doubt it was payback for how you treated them during the interview process.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:College, no work ethic by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Holy fuck, they want PTO and sick days with NO EXPERIENCE? How dare they. Oh wait, every job I've ever worked has offered PTO and sick days to every employee (absent temps) no matter the experience. Maybe don't have a shit benefit policy?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:College, no work ethic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I have witnessed, having been "in business" since 1981, is a LOT of the millennials, have NO work
      ethic. No just me, but I have talked to many people who have hired someone, that failed to show up on their
      start date, then when WE finally get in contact with them after they accepted a job, they say "oh, I changed my
      mind, or oh, I got a different job". Didn't even have the COURTESY of calling back.
      And, they want with NO EXPERIENCE, paid time off, sick days bla bla bla. Plus, you have to watch them or they
      will just sit around and do nothing.
      Add to that, with NO experience, they want a high salary because they have "massive debt" they are trying to pay
      off. NOT everyone needs to go to an expensive 4 year university. Trade schools offer a good way to make a living
      and are IN DEMAND, but a lot of the millennials don't want to work hard, just sit on their butts and play video games.
      Now, GET OFF MY LAWN!

      Basically what this translates to:

      "Kids these day! They want the same pay I made when I was there age 30 years ago, even though they are only 2x as productive!. I mean come on, they want PAID SICK leave! I mean come on, they should be happy we don't charge them money for sick days before firing them."

    4. Re:College, no work ethic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no, no courtesy of calling back! It's almost as if they're doing exactly what their companies do to them! Who would've thunk.
      And "no experience", ah, yes, experience. I remember when that used to mean something. Nowadays we throw those requirements around for entry level positions and most of the time the exp required is higher than is even possible - like five years on equipment that's existed for less than two.

      People want benefits because they know how much their bosses are making off of them. When the entire country's aware that Bezos could pay ever person in those warehouses twice as much and provide real actual breaks and systems that don't skirt the very conceptual edges of workplace regulations and still be swimming in more profit than amazon knows what to do with, being told "you kids need to learn to tighten your belts" by those same old creeps now in government who used to violently protest their work conditions is hypocritical to say the least.

      Working 60 hour weeks for as much purchasing power as when your grandpa worked 30, but with lower side benefits like boots/glasses/dental atop it all, and then get told by those who'll fire 15 000 people to move to china because it's a "more efficient" use of their workers own taxed income, it's no wonder people are starting to think BBQing their bosses would be a reasonable way to spend the afternoon.

    5. Re:College, no work ethic by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      And, they want with NO EXPERIENCE, paid time off, sick days bla bla bla.

      My god the horror! They want an employer who's not a total asshat. In Europe those rights are enshrined in law. Everyone gets them inexperienced or not.

      that failed to show up on their start date, then when WE finally get in contact with them after they accepted a job, they say "oh, I changed my mind, or oh, I got a different job". Didn't even have the COURTESY of calling back.

      Well, you sound like a total asshat. That certainly came across in the interview and the job offer with no vacation days. Try not being an asshat to your employees, potential or actual.

      Add to that, with NO experience, they want a high salary because they have "massive debt" they are trying to pay off. NOT everyone needs to go to an expensive 4 year university. Trade schools offer a good way to make a living and are IN DEMAND

      So why are you interviewing people with expensive 4 year degrees then rather than trade school qualifications?

      but a lot of the millennials don't want to work hard,

      I cannot imagine why people won't work hard for a low wage for an asshole employer who clearly hates them. It's a total mystery.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:College, no work ethic by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Calling eliminated candidates back to tell them you're not choosing them is an invitation to a lawsuit. If they're in a protected class they can sue for discrimination. Instead, the correct move is to cut off all contact with no explanation. It sucks, but it's better than being driven out of business by lawsuits.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    7. Re:College, no work ethic by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      No, telling them _why_ you haven't selected them is an invitation to a lawsuit. Just like saying why you're firing someone, unless documented well enough to avoid paying unemployment.

      Anybody can sue for anything, protected classes can likely get a shyster on contingency to sue for anything. That's true, but just dropping contact doesn't change that.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:College, no work ethic by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      HOLY SHIT you just used an anti-Semitic slur. Slashdot is turning into a racist alt-right website everyday and it's terrifying. This sort of vile hate is being normalized more and more. I can't sleep at night because I'm being reminded that anti-Jewish sentiment is being accepted and normalized every day.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  37. Weddings only cost $300 by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Nobody ever said you need to own a house to get married.

    Nobody ever said you need $20,000 to get married.

    A basic wedding can be done for around $300. Today.

    Stop believing the marketroids. Even the ring is optional. Have a park picnic wedding, it's fun!

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  38. Don't dare blame the WW2/Baby boomers by p51d007 · · Score: 0

    For the mess with SS. THAT mess, was started by the darling of the left, "progressive" FDR. Then, both democrat & republican representatives in the house, along with their allies in the senate (all SPENDING bills have to start in the house), changed the rules about SS and started moving money around, allowing NON CITIZENS to be "entitled" to it even though they never put into it. Plus, at the time SS was "created" the average lifespan of a U.S. citizen was 65, meaning that most would never either see that money, or not live very long to take all they had contributed. Now, the average lifespan of a U.S. citizen is 79 years old, which means they draw SS for 14 years longer than originally intended. Couple that with all the "borrowing" from SS and you see why it is in the mess it is in! Not to mention it never would have worked in the first place, because you would of had a better return, investing somewhere else.

  39. Re:Sorry, I didn't know this wasn't common knowled by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    "Loyalty is a paycheck away"

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  40. what else do they do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    From what I can tell, they are more likely to want to suppress free speech of those they don't agree with, claim victim hood when their feelings get hurt, boycott any company that doesn't completely surrender to their beliefs, and are getting closer every day to wanting to put those with alternate ideologies into gulags or mass graves.

    1. Re:what else do they do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >are getting closer every day to wanting to put those with alternate ideologies into gulags or mass graves
      Er no shit retard. The bourgeois belong in a mass grave.

  41. It's Boomer vs everyone else by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    I think you might have a point there - I'm not sure where all the disparagement towards millenials is coming from.

    Mainly the Boomers. No matter the personal politics, it is practically an article of faith that the Boomers are the sexiest, coolest, hardest working generation America has ever had. I don't think there is any generation in American history that has, collectively, disparaged its predecessors and successors to the extent they have.

    1/3 of all Boomers intend to leave no inheritance. Think about that for a min. Something is truly rotten with them as a generation**

    **yes, yes individuals notwithstanding

    1. Re:It's Boomer vs everyone else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1/3 of all Boomers intend to leave no inheritance. Think about that for a min. Something is truly rotten with them as a generation

      I don't get it. Why is it "rotten" to not leave money behind when you die?

      BTW, I'm a millenial, just in case you were thinking of proclaiming "of course a boomer would think that" and not actually answering the question.

    2. Re:It's Boomer vs everyone else by doubledown00 · · Score: 1

      1/3 of all Boomers intend to leave no inheritance. Think about that for a min. Something is truly rotten with them as a generation**

      **yes, yes individuals notwithstanding

      So? If one has sacrificed and accumulated savings for their later years, why is it so bad if one wants to spend it?
      "No luxuries or fun for you mom and dad. You have to suffer in retirement so there's more money for me!"
      To quote Glengarry Glen Ross, "How fucked *up* you are!"

      /Gen Xer.
      //Not counting on my parents to fund my retirement plan.

    3. Re:It's Boomer vs everyone else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because their beneficiaries end up with their debt.

  42. Re:Sorry, I didn't know this wasn't common knowled by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

    I think you might have a point there - I'm not sure where all the disparagement towards millenials is coming from. I'm in my 50s, and I work with plenty of interns and new grads in an engineering setting. My experience has been that most of them actually make an effort and bust their ass to get the job done, and are much more aware of needing to plan for the future than my generation was. Yeah, culturally there are differences and sometimes generational gaps in experiences, but I can't see any real reason to dogpile on them just for that.

    I think it comes from the early days - when millennials started entering the workforce - you know around high school or so when their first job is a minimum wage retail job.

    The reason I believe this is well, if you talk to small business owners (the kind of people who generally hire them for the first job) they still maintain they're all the same.

    Sure the job sucks, and perhaps they're putting into it what they're getting out, hence the "lazy" and other terms used for it, when maybe in previous generations they basically put effort into it even though it was a minimum wage McJob.

    Of course, it seems after that the Real World(tm) hits and they get some life lessons into how the world works and shake off the image, because once they get a Real Job they actually are competent and hard working.

    Now, if someone will explain to me how these "Digital Natives" can require so much IT support. They're supposed to be able to run rings around us "Digital Immigrants" in online activities...

  43. The true difference with Millennials. by geekmux · · Score: 0, Troll

    Yes, Millennials likely have the exact same materialistic cravings as the previous generations. The concept keeping up with the Jonses is so old most Millennials probably wouldn't understand what it means even if it does describe exactly what everyone is doing.

    The difference with Millennials vs. previous generations is they've been groomed to expect a lot of shit in life for free. They're electing socialists to Congress based on this very premise.

    20 years ago if you wanted a website, you had to buy a domain, pay someone to host it, and design and create your own content. And that was completely acceptable because people understood and accepted the basic premise of capitalism. Generations before recognized there's no such thing as a free lunch, a concept that is almost a century old now.

    Today's generation would be appalled if you asked them to pay for a website. That's called "Facebook" now. Same goes for email, image hosting, and even internet access, as not offering free WiFi in your business is now considered some kind of grave attack on basic human rights.

    And yes, the younger generation DOES favor "experiences". I've met more people under the age of 30 that I'm completely jealous of because somehow they've managed to travel the world and go on more vacations that I could dream of. I say "somehow", but that's rather obvious too when you look at how absolutely broke they are all the time. This is the FOMO generation that YOLOs worries away. Saving for a rainy day? Budget and spend what you can afford? Fuck that. That's not "fun", no matter how sensible it may be.

    And yes, I am generalizing. The sad part is my generalizations for the majority of the demographic I'm targeting, are accurate.

    1. Re:The true difference with Millennials. by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      That is very accurate.

    2. Re:The true difference with Millennials. by aaronb1138 · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget that when they talk about Millenials having less money -- it's only because of 3-4 things (not this horseshit line about the financial crisis):
      1) Houses are under hyperinflation (relative to income) for 2+ decades. -- As far as I can tell mostly because Millenials will pay whatever a house is selling for.
      2) College has been under hyperinflation for just under 2 decades. -- As far as I can tell because we were scared into college as a requirement and (most) our parents would pay whatever it was selling for.
      3) Cars have gone under significant but not unmanageable inflation for just under 2 decades. -- They're safer and last longer. Financially a draw
      4) Short lifespan PC / smartphone / electronics / appliance proliferation (and the need to own more different / specialty electronics). Sure a quality VHS VCR costs $1k in current dollars, but it was meant to last 6+ years, not 6-18 months like the average DVD or Blu-ray player. -- Because keeping up with the Joneses is now about how many different things you have doing pointless tasks in your home rather than general purpose computer + AV receiver + TV that did everything (Echo/Dot/Chromecast/Roomba/Soundbar/Nest/tablet/laptop/gamingPC/smartphone/etc.)

    3. Re:The true difference with Millennials. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      4) Short lifespan PC / smartphone / electronics / appliance proliferation (and the need to own more different / specialty electronics)

      short lifespan PC? I think you're a decade out. I remember buying my first proper PC in about 1997. A P133 and I invested in a whopping 72M of RAM which was worth it because it greatly extended the life of it relative to its contemporaries. I kept it for what was bloody ages by the standards of the day. People definitely thought I was very odd for using such a horrendously obsolete machine. I think I stopped using it really in around 2002.

      I remember that PC's never lasted 10 years (what a ridiculous notion!) until suddenly they did and it came a bit of a shock. I'm writing this from an 8.5 year old laptop. It's not like my old P133 was at a mere 5 years. It's perfectly servicable and will likely remain so for a while yet.

      I still haven't really got used to the idea of PCs wearing out and breaking rather than being chucked in the bin due to rapid obsolescence. I don't know anyone on the PC upgrade treadmill any more.

      Smartphones, sure, yes. They're like what PCs were in the 90s. It'll even out for them like it did for PCs as the market matures.

      Sure a quality VHS VCR costs $1k in current dollars, but it was meant to last 6+ years, not 6-18 months like the average DVD or Blu-ray player.

      $1k for 6 years versus $30 every year or two? The modern way sounds like a massive bargain.

      Because keeping up with the Joneses is now about how many different things you have doing pointless tasks in your home rather than general purpose computer + AV receiver + TV that did everything

      Outside of a nerd home that sort of thing never existed because it took too much time and knowledge to set up and maintain. It's still how I do things, but that's because I already use my computer a lot, already have the knowledge and have very particular tastes. Though I will note that almost everyone has finally cause up with mplayer after a scant 15 years or so and has a 10 second skip back/forward button on their video players.

      Except I do have an e-reader since my general purpose computer doesn't have an e-ink screen and neithre does its battery last for several weeks.

      Roomba/

      If your general purpose computer can double as a roomba, well, you're doing some serious shit.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  44. Re:Sorry, I didn't know this wasn't common knowled by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    You make it sound like that's something new. Loyalty to an employer is, at best, quaint. Nobody working today is unaware of that.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  45. Divorce remains expensive, but worth it! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    You need to present value the total cost of the wedding. It's never only $300, unless you're the woman, then it's still likely a negative number.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  46. Reality 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Money does not represent wealth. Money represents how much influence you have over other people.

    We can always create more consumer goods, so that is not a zero sum game. But there is a finite amount of influence over others available (the maximum amount being total control of everyone).

    So, influence over others IS a zero-sum game. The more I have, the less you have, and vice versa.

    The less money the lower classes have, the more influence the top has over them. It's that simple.

  47. Re:Here's why - in a way you are able to understan by dj245 · · Score: 1

    Clinton had one _projected_ balanced budget (if you included SS accounting tricks), but it never happened. Dotcom imploded and the Clinton recession ended the hope, no balanced actual year.

    The rest of your post is just idiotic.

    What's up with this this graph and this graph, both from The United States federal budget wikipedia article then? Cooked books? Accounting shenanigans? Flat out lying? They fairly clearly show surpluses.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  48. Re:Here's why - in a way you are able to understan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't drop truth bombs on W and Trump but give Barry a complete pass, it completely negates everything you say after.

  49. Re: Sorry, I didn't know this wasn't common knowle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They require a lot of support because in some organisations a lot of automation simply hardly works

  50. h-1b, h-2b and illegal aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is demoralizing to see foreigners just pop up in colleges, and never leave. Illegal aliens have hurt wages in construction, landscaping, fast food, and more. YES, Americans used to do those jobs. A lot of those jobs were unionized. The physically exhausted man, coming home after physically demanding work, used to make about in the high teens of dollars per hour (2018 dollars). Black Americans did housekeeping and landscaping in the South prior to the 60s.

    I'm a Republican, but I hate Bush more than Obama, with his promotion of foreign labor.

  51. Re:Things that suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed. Liberals are the absolute worst. Hopefully they'll all move to Canada like they said they would.

  52. Re:Here's why - in a way you are able to understan by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

    FDR's spending extended the depression, it was ended by WWII.

    Only because he wouldn't commit. WWII was where he and the government were forced to commit, hence the Depression ended. Before that there was a cycle of "Spend, OK, we don't like spending so let's stop even though the problem hasn't been fixed, OH FUCK, let's try again"

    ...which is more or less the same bullshit we had to put up with under Obama. Economists said "We need to spend X", Obama shat his pants and said "Oh, we can't do that, it's fiscally irresponsible to spend more than X/4, a number I just made up based upon the number of digits it has, Tom Friedman says so", and so the post-2008 Recession was needlessly extended when we could have fixed the economy AND fixed the US infrastructure problems at a time when interest rates were at historic lows.

    (No, just because Trump and Bush are terrible doesn't mean Obama is good, he looks good compared to those two, but he's one of the most mediocre Presidents in history. There, I said it.)

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  53. Virtual consumption for the Millenial Falcon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always thought, since I heard of the term and its derivatives, that Millenialism means increased consumption of virtual goods. So instead of buying stuff, M's prefer to buy the appearance of stuff, virtual money and jobs and yes, guns, in online games, virtual books (ebooks), and even virtual ownership of real things like cars and homes (Uber, AirBnB). And don't forget the virtual food;)

  54. Re:Here's why - in a way you are able to understan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't check your graphs, but I've seen similar.
    The only way Clinton had a "surplus" is by putting SS surplus in the general fund and spending it that year and replacing it in the SS fund with an IOU to pay back SS later.

    If you want to call that a surplus, fine. HornWumpus isn't calling that SS money a surplus (he even mentioned it). Accounting laws wouldn't allow a public company to call it a surplus either, so the only way you can is through what would be illegal accounting practices.

    Just wanted to point out you two are both right depending on assumptions made.

  55. Re:Here's why - in a way you are able to understan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The charts show the budget - in other words, what was planned. It does not show unplanned expenses, it doesn't include interest payments on the debt, it doesn't show intra-governmental loans...

    Instead of Wikipedia, why don't you go to the Treasury's own website? Go there, and look at the outstanding debt directly from the official source. The easiest way to see that there was no surplus is to simply look at the total outstanding debt - publicly held debt + intergovernmental debt + etc. It went up every year. It almost went down in 2000 - the deficit was only $17 billion that year. But the total debt still went up $17 billion that year.

  56. You're not poor by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    you're just temporarily inconvenienced millionaires, right?

    The boomers didn't have Credit Cards coming out their ears either. They didn't need them.

    Next, You're probably going to trot out statistics on bigger homes. Fair enough, but we live in America. Land is cheap. Building homes is cheap. The only thing that isn't cheap is infrastructure (roads, water lines, sewer lines, electric lines, etc, etc). The boomers got that for free. GenX (my Gen) got the tail end of that. Millenials got shafted. If you can afford a home you can afford a big one because that's not where most of the cost is. Home prices are sky rocketing because without the government subsidizing building by doing the hard/expensive part that's what happens.

    It's pretty well documented that Millenials make 20% less than boomers. I keep seeing again and again these articles of folks deep in debt and they can't understand why. It comes down to trying to live like their parents did even when their parents shafted them by voting for Trickle down economics just to get some short term tax cuts and maybe "stiggit" to the libs a bit. TFA is just more fuel on that fire.

    For me the the question is will the Millenials stop voting for these chumps? Not sure. They tried with Trump, but, well, we can see how that worked out. They're still voting on their gut instead of on policy. Their parents and grandparents got away with that for a variety of external reasons (post WWII boom followed by .com and housing bubbles). They will not.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:You're not poor by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      It comes down to trying to live like their parents did even when their parents shafted them by voting for Trickle down economics just to get some short term tax cuts and maybe "stiggit" to the libs a bit. TFA is just more fuel on that fire.

      No it comes down to them trying to live like their parents did after a lifetime of success. They want the McMansion, New car and fancy $1000 cell phone at an age when their parents were in a crappy starter home, drove a beater and had a line phone in the kitchen.

      So are you maintaining that a Millenial is making 20% less than a Boomer who has the same skills and experience or are you saying a Boomer with years experience against a Millenial with relatively minor experience I think that's justified.

  57. Capital = stolen labor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Billionaires don't make anything. Only human labor makes anything.
    Capitalists are rich because they systematically steal the labor of the working classes. They're literally vampires.
    We should slaughter the rich. They won't need their wealth once they're dead.

  58. Re:Here's why - in a way you are able to understan by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

    Clinton had one _projected_ balanced budget (if you included SS accounting tricks), but it never happened.

    Nope
    But please, keep lying. I'm sure someone will not bother doing a simple google search and believe you.

  59. Re:Sorry, I didn't know this wasn't common knowled by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

    If you want people to buy your stuff, you need people who have the money to buy your stuff.

    But...but....then I couldn't buy by 8th mansion!!! You don't expect me to get by on only 7, do you? That is so selfish of you!!

  60. Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've personally manufactured over 100 unlicensed guns. When the tipping point is reached, it will swallow the world in fire.

  61. Re:Sorry, I didn't know this wasn't common knowled by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure where all the disparagement towards millenials is coming from.

    IMO, it's a combination of older people always having "these kids today" complaints, and the Boomers losing power for the first time in their lives.

  62. Re:Here's why - in a way you are able to understan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "but he's one of the most mediocre Presidents in history. There, I said it."

    So edgy!

    "No, just because Trump and Bush are terrible doesn't mean Obama is good, he looks good compared to those two"

    How many more crappy presidential terms do we need before someone in the Obama ballpark doesn't look good in comparison, but just looks good? Three Reagan terms? One and half Nixon terms? Wait, are you saying Carter was any good?

  63. I knew it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For all their insolent talk, teenagers are just like their parents, just less experienced.

  64. Re:Here's why - in a way you are able to understan by HornWumpus · · Score: 0
    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  65. Re:Here's why - in a way you are able to understan by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

    Did you really think the web page to buy treasury products would somehow demonstrate the lack of a budget surplus?

    Or are you under the delusion that you can't run a budget surplus if a deficit exists?

    Basically, I'm trying to figure out which flavor of wrong you are.

  66. Nope. It's not oppressive, SJW, entitlements, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, most people don't have the 'Scrooge McDuck" view of rich people (vault room where they swim in the money). They know that most rich folks have their money tied up in real estate and stocks/bonds, etc. What most poor people realize is that the system has been slowly rigged against them. Legal matters ... rich have lawyers, poor can't even afford to miss work for a court date, let alone afford a lawyer. Taxes... shift things off shore, tax shelters, setup 'estates'... heck they don't even have to do anything special: investment income is taxed less than income from physical work. The rich don't even have to get their hands dirty and they end up with less taxes. They know why they are poor, it's the system... not Econ 101. When you work two 40-hour jobs to have your family barely get by (basic food, rent, utilities, etc.) and the rich call you lazy and thinks you are asking for handouts... that's some messed up shit.

  67. Yes, when fleeing for your life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...please do it in an orderly fashion.

    1. Re:Yes, when fleeing for your life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are in fucking mexico, what they were fleeing from is at least a whole fucking country away

    2. Re:Yes, when fleeing for your life... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I live in central america. Funny I must have missed this horrible crisis everyone seems to be running from.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  68. Re:Here's why - in a way you are able to understan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So instead of simply handing out blame how about we all agree to demand lower taxes and a balanced budget? That way we can all have nice things, right?

  69. It's coming from the right wing, pro-corp press by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    who are trying to keep the working class divided per instructions by their owners; aka the 1%; aka the ruling class.

    A ruling class always needs to keep the working class fighting among themselves because if they stop they'll notice the ruling class laughing all the way to the bank. This is also why we have racism.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  70. It actually is by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    at least you get an interview. Nowadays thanks to H1-Bs you won't even get the time of day w/o a degree of some sort. Not everybody's got the chops for a STEM degree. You make due with what you've got when it comes to brains.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  71. If it makes you feel better by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    a lot of the Trump faithful decreased withholding following the tax cut. But they don't earn enough for the tax cut to matter. They're in for a rude awakening in April....

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  72. Re:Here's why - in a way you are able to understan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I too blame Trump for passing legislation in 1992 that requires HUD to give out 30% of its loan to the poor. This was such a great program that the percentage was increased to 56%. In order to achieve this Freddy and Fannie had to issue sub-prime mortgages. As a result of these sub-prime mortgages, many people were able to get mortgages they were unable to afford. This caused a bubble which lead to the financial crises of 2008.

    Oh wait, Trump wasn't President in 1992 nor was W Bush, and the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 passed with bipartisan support.
    Maybe, just maybe, our financial problems were caused decades ago and not one party is responsible.
    The problem with this conclusion is that it requires nuance and understanding, it is too smart for current days 24/7 hysteria based news cycle.

  73. too many bills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if the fact that our parents didn't have the internet, cell phones, Netflix has anything to do with this? Who would have thought that increasing the number of bills, services, and luxuries would be hard on our wallets?

  74. Americans, sir. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The nation that believes that you're what you buy.

    One born every minute.

  75. Re:Nope. It's not oppressive, SJW, entitlements, e by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    their money tied up in real estate

    That's the whole point. The money isn't "tied up" at all. If I buy real estate someone else gets the money and does things with it.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  76. Funny I must have missed the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...part where you represent everyone in Central America.

    1. Re:Funny I must have missed the... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      You don't need to represent everyone to know what's going on around you.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  77. My point was that restricting asylum seekers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...too heavily defeats some of the purpose of seeking asylum. Example: should someone defecting from North Korea wait for the proper time and location to seek asylum... in doing so that he or she would probably never get out of the country successfully without being recaptured or killed. Let alone that this person probably wouldn't know where and when to go etc. etc. I'm saying take them in wherever they come in and process them. If we accept their asylum request... great, if not, deport them. But this... must be the 3rd Tuesday of the month between 12-2:30p at the border building 15b... oops, sorry you came in at 2:31p or didn't apply at building 15b... back to North Korea for you... I think is bullshit.

  78. Re:Here's why - in a way you are able to understan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did not vote for Trump. When I am headed to the bathroom, I tell all my co-workers i'm going to go take a Trump. So ... not a fan.

    But there's some important things to consider in what you just said.

    1. If I, as a stranger, call you a moron, do you have any interest in seriously considering what I have to say?
    2. He was voted in by about half the country. Either half of the voting population is morons or they have interests that literally trump the issues you listed above.
    What are they?
    a. They completely mistrust "insiders" because all of the insiders that came before "got us into this mess". They may not know which news is the actual fake news, but they know that most of the bullshit they've been fed is fake.
    b. They live in (economically) shitty places, work shitty jobs, have shitty prospects for any of that getting better. Rural = red = left behind by the "new" economy.
    c. I'm tired of making this list. Just try to understand the other side a bit so maybe we can work together to get rid of that giant orange-faced cunt.

  79. Re:Nope. It's not oppressive, SJW, entitlements, e by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But that 'someone else' is also very likely not poor, or else they wouldn't qualify for that kind of loan. The poor get their (smaller and worse-rate) loans from money exchanges and credit cards and under-the-table dealings, not banks per se. There are both good and bad reasons for that, but that's how it is.

  80. Re:Sorry, I didn't know this wasn't common knowled by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    If you at least bought that 8th mansion. But instead you're bunkering that money in some bank, hoping that finally you find something worthwhile to "invest" in. Not realizing that a worthwhile investment requires that that investment finds someone to sell to, which requires that this someone not only wants/needs what is offered but also can afford it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  81. Re:Here's why - in a way you are able to understan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, reality hurts your precious little feelings, doesn't it? When literally every fact is against your narrative, all you can do is whine and cry and rail against reality with all your impunity. Luckily your kind are dying out, as there isn't much productive use for someone that believes math, logic, and science are all liberal conspiracies.

  82. Re:Sorry, I didn't know this wasn't common knowled by strikethree · · Score: 1

    The dogpiling is to shift attention and blame. The USA is being hollowed out from the inside. There is still a crunchy outer shell, but all of the tasty stuff on the inside is gone. Someone is Bain'ing the United States as a whole. :(

    --
    "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen