you are about the same as other generations when you take in what's better and what's worse.
people who graduated in the 80s and 90s had very low level jobs that made nothing through their 20s. That's a lot of wasted time trying to get started professionally. Incomes are our biggest assets.
whereas you guys have real jobs paying real money coming straight out of college, and started climbing the ladder right away.
that's an enormous deal and outweighs everything else.
but sure, college is generally more expensive (not always) and housing is more expensive in urban centers.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Housing is more expensive in every safe area in commuting distance of the city center. It’s more expensive in the suburbs. It’s significantly more expensive whether you rent or buy. I’m not entirely sure that the starting jobs are better for everyone. Sure the kids coming out of good schools are absolutely killing it, but I don’t think that most are. I think you can see the impact in the declining birth rates as more and more people are finding it not worth it. We have a Netflix show called Mortgage or Marriage which I find utterly dystopian.
Also I think I grew up in a very middle class family and I did not qualify for aid beyond a $5k Pell grant. I didn’t pay full price because no one did at my private liberal arts school, but it was roughly $30k a year to attend.
No I said, "Obama didn't say a word about NATO until after his coup in Ukraine resulted in Russia seizing Crimea. He completely ignored Russia and then had an "oh sh*t" moment AFTER he screwed up just like Biden did."
And then you posted a link to an article which supported my statement.
Then you felt stupid for being wrong so you invented the strawman that I said Obama "never" talked about NATO.
You're a liar and a fool.
you say 'Obama didn't say a word about Russia'
but I showed you Obama, like Bush2 and Trump, pushed nato nations to spend more on defense. NATO is primarily meant to defend against Russia.
I dunno you are such a terrible writer and you have no morals so it's hard to tell when you are just writing poorly or lying.
Obama didn't care about Russia. He didn't consider them a threat. He made fun of Romney for calling them a threat in 2012.
You showed an article about a speech Obama gave in 2014 AFTER he set Ukraine on fire.
It's impossible to have a reasonable discussion with people like you because you're too stupid/dishonest to understand/admit when you're wrong.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
Also I think I grew up in a very middle class family and I did not qualify for aid beyond a $5k Pell grant. I didn’t pay full price because no one did at my private liberal arts school, but it was roughly $30k a year to attend.
My parents were middle class and I didn't qualify for anything but the tiny pell grants either.
Agip has no idea what he's talking about.
If you're white or asian and your parents aren't poor you're on your own.
bottom line, having seen multiple econ environments over my many decades of life, and working in economics-related industries...I have no doubt that graduating college in this century has been better economically than growing up in the 1970-1999 period. No question.
You younguns really don't know what bad economies are like. Look at movies of NYC or other cities in the 70s and 80s. They looked like Beirut. Now cities are shining and prosperous, mostly.
We had to deal with terrible economies every 5-7 years, regularly. Unemployment under 6% was considered pretty good. You all can't really imagine a time when good jobs could not generally be found and inflation was always 4-5%.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
bottom line, having seen multiple econ environments over my many decades of life, and working in economics-related industries...I have no doubt that graduating college in this century has been better economically than growing up in the 1970-1999 period. No question.
You younguns really don't know what bad economies are like. Look at movies of NYC or other cities in the 70s and 80s. They look like Beirut. Now cities are shining and prosperous, mostly.
We had to deal with terrible economies every 5-7 years, regularly. Unemployment under 6% was considered pretty good. You all can't really imagine a time when good jobs could not generally be found and inflation was always 4-5%.
In 1970 you could get a job out of high school and support a family on a single income.
You are completely and utterly delusional and clearly incompetent if you work in any field even remotely connected to economics.
bottom line, having seen multiple econ environments over my many decades of life, and working in economics-related industries...I have no doubt that graduating college in this century has been better economically than growing up in the 1970-1999 period. No question.
You younguns really don't know what bad economies are like. Look at movies of NYC or other cities in the 70s and 80s. They look like Beirut. Now cities are shining and prosperous, mostly.
We had to deal with terrible economies every 5-7 years, regularly. Unemployment under 6% was considered pretty good. You all can't really imagine a time when good jobs could not generally be found and inflation was always 4-5%.
In 1970 you could get a job out of high school and support a family on a single income.
You are completely and utterly delusional and clearly incompetent if you work in any field even remotely connected to economics.
Winny, anyone who wants to live a 70s lifestyle of no flying, no cable, no cell phone, no computer, no eating out, no $50,000 truck, living in a small home…they can do that on a pretty low salary. Still doable, no problem. feel free!
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
In 1970 you could get a job out of high school and support a family on a single income.
You are completely and utterly delusional and clearly incompetent if you work in any field even remotely connected to economics.
Winny, anyone who wants to live a 70s lifestyle of no flying, no cable, no cell phone, no computer, no eating out, no $50,000 truck, living in a small home…they can do that on a pretty low salary. Still doable, no problem. feel free!
In 1970 you could get a job out of high school and support a family on a single income.
You are completely and utterly delusional and clearly incompetent if you work in any field even remotely connected to economics.
Winny, anyone who wants to live a 70s lifestyle of no flying, no cable, no cell phone, no computer, no eating out, no $50,000 truck, living in a small home…they can do that on a pretty low salary. Still doable, no problem. feel free!
I think technology has probably done more harm to the average person than good. It’s at least close. It’s certainly good for the economy and maybe healthcare and other important things, but at least once a week I feel like chucking my phone off a bridge.
Winny, anyone who wants to live a 70s lifestyle of no flying, no cable, no cell phone, no computer, no eating out, no $50,000 truck, living in a small home…they can do that on a pretty low salary. Still doable, no problem. feel free!
I think technology has probably done more harm to the average person than good. It’s at least close. It’s certainly good for the economy and maybe healthcare and other important things, but at least once a week I feel like chucking my phone off a bridge.
The argument that life was worse in the past because of a lack of modern conveniences is just an idiotic argument.
How many nights do you toss and turn because you're upset about missing out on all the things that haven't been invented yet?
I think technology has probably done more harm to the average person than good. It’s at least close. It’s certainly good for the economy and maybe healthcare and other important things, but at least once a week I feel like chucking my phone off a bridge.
The argument that life was worse in the past because of a lack of modern conveniences is just an idiotic argument.
How many nights do you toss and turn because you're upset about missing out on all the things that haven't been invented yet?
We become reliant on tech and modern processes as they are often necessary to efficiently and effectively operate in our societies. You can somewhat go off the grid but that comes with significant challenges and downsides.
bottom line, having seen multiple econ environments over my many decades of life, and working in economics-related industries...I have no doubt that graduating college in this century has been better economically than growing up in the 1970-1999 period. No question.
You younguns really don't know what bad economies are like. Look at movies of NYC or other cities in the 70s and 80s. They look like Beirut. Now cities are shining and prosperous, mostly.
We had to deal with terrible economies every 5-7 years, regularly. Unemployment under 6% was considered pretty good. You all can't really imagine a time when good jobs could not generally be found and inflation was always 4-5%.
In 1970 you could get a job out of high school and support a family on a single income.
You are completely and utterly delusional and clearly incompetent if you work in any field even remotely connected to economics.
The argument that life was worse in the past because of a lack of modern conveniences is just an idiotic argument.
How many nights do you toss and turn because you're upset about missing out on all the things that haven't been invented yet?
We become reliant on tech and modern processes as they are often necessary to efficiently and effectively operate in our societies. You can somewhat go off the grid but that comes with significant challenges and downsides.
People in 1970 weren't reliant on things that weren't invented yet...
Also I think I grew up in a very middle class family and I did not qualify for aid beyond a $5k Pell grant. I didn’t pay full price because no one did at my private liberal arts school, but it was roughly $30k a year to attend.
My parents were middle class and I didn't qualify for anything but the tiny pell grants either.
Agip has no idea what he's talking about.
If you're white or asian and your parents aren't poor you're on your own.
Awwwwwww, the poor poor forgotten about white folks. This country has been so hard on you. Nevermind the CENTURIES of preferential treatment.
bottom line, having seen multiple econ environments over my many decades of life, and working in economics-related industries...I have no doubt that graduating college in this century has been better economically than growing up in the 1970-1999 period. No question.
You younguns really don't know what bad economies are like. Look at movies of NYC or other cities in the 70s and 80s. They looked like Beirut. Now cities are shining and prosperous, mostly.
We had to deal with terrible economies every 5-7 years, regularly. Unemployment under 6% was considered pretty good. You all can't really imagine a time when good jobs could not generally be found and inflation was always 4-5%.
I see a some dominant drivers: 1) The constant improvements in tech amplify the wealth gap. Those who run companies and control resources can do so with less reliance on human labor which means higher concentrations of wealth. 2) The rich and powerful have molded policies through lobbying over time to give them an even bigger edge (e.g. tax, wealth transfer and protection) over the average Joe, often at a cost to the average Joe. 3) People have access to more opportunities and information now than ever before. This makes them less prone to wanting to devote their lives to a particular job or career path. It is also true that the opportunity set and circumstances changes much more frequently for companies as well. 4) We are ever more reliant on credit. Nobody saves and that has become a norm that worries almost no one.
What does that have to do with politics? Well, if nothing is done to address the growing wealth gap then we will continue turning into a plutocracy. The more concentration of wealth into the hands of few, the more those people will push to change the rules in their favor. I believe Republican policies have worsened this aspect significantly more than those of Democrats. They have generally openly supported the rich getting richer (lower taxes, bailouts, and loopholes) and diminished government involvement (less regulation, reduced capacity, etc.). Ultimately, the average Joe's collective strength is the government, but if people are literally voting for weakening their own powers over these forces then they stand no chance.
This post was edited 12 minutes after it was posted.