Archive

LOL @ Boomers

  • believer
    vball10set;1475471 wrote:Just because yours didn't, don't assume everyone else's doesn't. As far as wages are concerned, it's all relative, and today's instant gratification spoiled brat the world owes me a 6 figure income for doing nothing kid's have more expensive things at their disposal to spend their earnings on now as well.
    fify ;)
  • Con_Alma
    I don't want the best for my children as much as I want them to have the drive and ambition to go after the best.
  • vball10set
    believer;1475482 wrote:fify ;)
    lol, thanks :thumbup:
  • sleeper
    vball10set;1475471 wrote:Just because yours didn't, don't assume everyone else's doesn't. As far as wages are concerned, it's all relevant, and kid's have more expensive things at their disposal to spend their earnings on now as well.
    By expensive things you mean cars and houses? Because I can assure you my generation can't afford any of that with $50k student loans on a minimum wage income job.

    I won't even touch believers delusional comment below. I don't know any of my generation who except a 6 figure income; all would be happy with anything above minimum wage that can allow them to get out of their parents house and buy a beer every once in a while. If any of my generation are spoiled brats its not with their own money that's for sure so we know where to point the fingers.
  • sleeper
    Con_Alma;1475483 wrote:I don't want the best for my children as much as I want them to have the drive and ambition to go after the best.
    /Con_Alma'd
  • Con_Alma
    Why do so many kids take loans out for living expenses?
  • sleeper
    Con_Alma;1475551 wrote:Why do so many kids take loans out for living expenses?
    Perhaps because they cannot afford to live with a minimum wage job while going to school? I don't know Con_Alma, I'm not a mind reader; I just use common sense, logic, and reason to derive a conclusion.
  • Con_Alma
    Con_Alma;1475483 wrote:I don't want the best for my children as much as I want them to have the drive and ambition to go after the best.
    sleeper;1475550 wrote:/Con_Alma'd
    "Give a man a fish; and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you will not have to listen to his incessant whining about how hungry he is." - Author Unknownhow hungry he is.”—Author unknown
  • sleeper
    Con_Alma;1475556 wrote:"Give a man a fish; and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you will not have to listen to his incessant whining about how hungry he is." -LJ
    Fixed.
  • Con_Alma
    "Teach a man to sell fish; and he will eat steak".
  • Con_Alma
    sleeper;1475553 wrote:Perhaps because they cannot afford to live with a minimum wage job while going to school? I don't know Con_Alma, I'm not a mind reader; I just use common sense, logic, and reason to derive a conclusion.
    Where are they living when not is school? Are they taking out loans to cover those living expenses?

    Going into debt for daily living expenses is foolish.
  • sleeper
    Con_Alma;1475563 wrote:Where are they living when not is school? Are they taking out loans to cover those living expenses?

    Going into debt for daily living expenses is foolish.
    They are probably living at home? I don't know Con_Alma because unlike you I don't give a shit.
  • Con_Alma
    sleeper;1475566 wrote:They are probably living at home? I don't know Con_Alma because unlike you I don't give a ****.
    Then there'll be no reason for you to answer such a question. The question was posed for someone, if there is such a person who does give a ****.
  • sleeper
    Con_Alma;1475570 wrote:Then there'll be no reason for you to answer such a question. The question was posed for someone, if there is such a person who does give a ****.
    I find it unlikely but I wish you the best in finding the answer to your question.
  • Con_Alma
    sleeper;1475572 wrote:I find it unlikely but I wish you the best in finding the answer to your question.
    It may indeed be unlikely but I find people to be very misguided that are willing to take on long-term debt to cover basic living expenses and then complain about the ability to service the debt.
  • sleeper
    Con_Alma;1475573 wrote:It may indeed be unlikely but I find people to be very misguided that are willing to take on long-term debt to cover basic living expenses and then complain about the ability to service the debt.
    You mean like what the boomers are doing for Social Security and Medicare?
  • Con_Alma
    sleeper;1475589 wrote:You mean like what the boomers are doing for Social Security and Medicare?
    No, I don't think it's like that at all.
  • O-Trap
    vball10set;1475471 wrote:Just because yours didn't, don't assume everyone else's doesn't. As far as wages are concerned, it's all relevant, and kid's have more expensive things at their disposal to spend their earnings on now as well.

    "Expensive things at their disposal" translates to disproportionately high cost of living when compared to the prior generation. Thus, those "expsnsive things" are not preferable, and include things like necessities.

    College education is often used as an example of this. If we were to say that a state college cost about $2,500 per year back in the mid '80s (so, $10,000 for a four-year degree), and we were to take inflation into account, the same degree (four years, mind you) should cost roughly $21,000. Instead, the same college education today costs approximately $60,000 over those four years.[SUP](1)[/SUP]

    So, theoretically, the kids attending college today would have to earn three times as much as their "roll-up-your-sleeves" predecessor generation to pay for that same degree. That's a 300% increase in cost AFTER taking inflation into account.

    And much of this is thanks to what those in office have done over those last 25-ish years ... none of whom are/were of this Y generation.

    During that same period of time, the average new car cost about $9,000[SUP](2)[/SUP]. Today, inflation would make that equal to about $19,500. However, the average cost of a new car in mid-2012 was approximately $30,000.[SUP](3)[/SUP] That's a 150% increase in cost AFTER taking inflation into account.

    I am assuming that comparable used cars would follow the same pattern, but I couldn't find anything on that, likely because it's difficult to typecast what the "average" used car is like.

    The average price of a house in 1985 was about $87,900. With inflation, that's about $190,700 today. However, the average price of a house hasn't been under 200,000 since December of 2003, and prior to the housing bubble popping, it hit a peak of over $262,600 in March of 2007.[SUP](4)[/SUP] If we were to use the inflation numbers, that means that an average house in 1985 should've cost approximately $169,400.[SUP](5)[/SUP] Instead, it was $262,600. That's a 155% increase in cost AFTER taking inflation into account.

    Oh, and a fun fact: Even after the drop in housing prices, inflation would have made the price of a home about $187,500 in 2011. Yet, the average price in October of 2011 was STILL over $200,000 ... about $212,300 to be more accurate. That's a 113% increase in cost AFTER taking inflation into account AND AFTER a bubble burst.[SUP](Ibid)[/SUP]

    Even the small things are higher than inflation should have gotten them. A pound of bacon in 1985 cost an average of $1.65.[SUP](6)[/SUP] Today, with inflation, it should be around $3.52. Instead, it's $4.54.[SUP](7)[/SUP] That's a 129% increase in cost AFTER taking inflation into account.

    So yes, we have more expensive things at our disposal. EVERYTHING at our disposal, including necessities, is disproportionately expensive.
    believer;1475482 wrote:fify ;)

    Nope. In fact, most people my age that I know don't have a problem with living within their means. However, they do get insulted when someone from a generation where cost of living was easier, even taking inflation into account, asks them why they can't afford things or insults them for daring to suggest that things are more difficult today (despite the fact that the evidence supports that notion).
    Con_Alma;1475483 wrote:I don't want the best for my children as much as I want them to have the drive and ambition to go after the best.

    I'm assuming, however, you'd object to the deck being increasingly stacked against them. Or am I wrong?
    Con_Alma;1475551 wrote:Why do so many kids take loans out for living expenses?

    I don't, personally, but if you were faced with the option of (a) taking out a loan to cover your basic needs, or (b) losing your home/car/not eating, which would you choose?

    Particularly if a person has a wife and/or children, I can see them sacrificing their credit in order to make sure their family is provided for in the meantime.
    Con_Alma;1475561 wrote:"Teach a man to sell fish; and he will eat steak".

    I'm stealing this.
    Con_Alma;1475563 wrote:Where are they living when not is school? Are they taking out loans to cover those living expenses?

    Going into debt for daily living expenses is foolish.

    Going without those "living" expenses is preferable if it's possible. I dare say that going without gas, electric, food, or housing is probably not an option, though.
    Con_Alma;1475573 wrote:It may indeed be unlikely but I find people to be very misguided that are willing to take on long-term debt to cover basic living expenses and then complain about the ability to service the debt.
    If we're including the last part, I agree. I've heard of people taking out debt to pay for things, but it would be dumb to then complain about being unable to service the debt.
  • O-Trap
    Con_Alma;1475606 wrote:No, I don't think it's like that at all.
    They are receiving benefits out of what isn't there ("there" being where THEY put the SS portion of their pay), and it is a debt that the taxpayers, as a whole, are having to cover.
  • Con_Alma
    O-Trap;1475628 wrote: I'm assuming, however, you'd object to the deck being increasingly stacked against them. Or am I wrong?...
    Life is not fair. It never will be. I would rather the be empowered and equipped to live a productive, happy life despite staked decks against them.


    O-Trap;1475628 wrote: I don't, personally, but if you were faced with the option of (a) taking out a loan to cover your basic needs, or (b) losing your home/car/not eating, which would you choose?

    Particularly if a person has a wife and/or children, I can see them sacrificing their credit in order to make sure their family is provided for in the meantime.
    The correlation of injecting my question was that many f these individuals taking out loans for food and basic living needs in college would expect to do so in any other phase of life and think it's an acceptable means of functioning financially. If it's a life or death emergency....I get it. As a normal practice between the ages of 18-22....it's foolish.


    O-Trap;1475628 wrote: ... Going without those "living" expenses is preferable if it's possible. I dare say that going without gas, electric, food, or housing is probably not an option, though.
    Then don't go without them. Taking a loan out for such expenses while in college is just silly.


    O-Trap;1475628 wrote: ...If we're including the last part, I agree. I've heard of people taking out debt to pay for things, but it would be dumb to then complain about being unable to service the debt.
    Agreed.
  • Con_Alma
    O-Trap;1475630 wrote:They are receiving benefits out of what isn't there ("there" being where THEY put the SS portion of their pay), and it is a debt that the taxpayers, as a whole, are having to cover.
    I don't see that as the same thing as taking a loan out...agreeing to pay it back and then not being able to.
  • O-Trap
    Con_Alma;1475633 wrote:I don't see that as the same thing as taking a loan out...agreeing to pay it back and then not being able to.
    That's the entire fleshing out of the Social Security program, though. We're continuing to give interest-free loans to the Federal government with their promise to pay it back, knowing that they can't unless they steal it from somewhere/someone else.

    That's, of course, excusing the fact that it operates like a ponzi scheme, as well.
  • Con_Alma
    O-Trap;1475635 wrote:That's the entire fleshing out of the Social Security program, though. We're continuing to give interest-free loans to the Federal government with their promise to pay it back, knowing that they can't unless they steal it from somewhere/someone else.

    That's, of course, excusing the fact that it operates like a ponzi scheme, as well.
    ...so it's not the same then. Giving someone else money for a loan because you are forced to do so based on legislation isn't quite the same thing as having a choice to take a loan out or not and choosing to do so.
  • O-Trap
    Con_Alma;1475632 wrote:Life is not fair. It never will be. I would rather the be empowered and equipped to live a productive, happy life despite staked decks against them.
    I didn't suggest it was fair. That wasn't the intent of the deck-stacking comment. My comment was to suggest that you might by disheartened to see your children MORE empowered and equipped than you ever were, and still not able to live happily because of the disproportionate difficulty in affording life today, particularly for starting out.
    Con_Alma;1475632 wrote:The correlation of injecting my question was that many f these individuals taking out loans for food and basic living needs in college would expect to do so in any other phase of life and think it's an acceptable means of functioning financially. If it's a life or death emergency....I get it. As a normal practice between the ages of 18-22....it's foolish.
    The problem is, there are those who, on a month-to-month basis, are not able to afford the basic necessities because of how expensive they are in proportion to the person's take-home pay. It's not as simple as "get a better paying job," because they're often already to the point where they would do so if such a job existed for someone of their education and experience level. Essentially, every month is an "emergency" in regard to feeding everyone enough to live.
    Con_Alma;1475632 wrote:Then don't go without them. Taking a loan out for such expenses while in college is just silly.
    They couldn't go without them even if they wanted to. I'm talking about the basics: eating, housing, driving, heat, etc. They won't likely be able to go without these things, and yet how might you encourage someone to not go without them and still encourage them not to take out a loan for them if the person does not have the funds to do so.

    I don't disagree that unnecessary loans are foolish. I'm suggesting that the loans we're talking about here are not always unnecessary, at least not for everybody.
    Con_Alma;1475636 wrote:...so it's not the same then. Giving someone else money for a loan because you are forced to do so based on legislation isn't quite the same thing as having a choice to take a loan out or not and choosing to do so.
    Not in motivation, you're right. In function, however, it's quite similar.

    As such, based on the logic you've articulated about necessities and their relationship to loans, Social Security is a bad idea. As such, would you, then, agree that it should be done away with?
  • sleeper
    O-trap writing some good novels in this thread. The post dealing with inflation adjusted numbers is spot on and should be required reading for the ignorant delusional selfish boomer generation that has ruined this country. I cannot wait until the time when Boomers are financial ruined and have no one to blame but the people at fault, themselves.