The Cheapest Generation

[Quackers]

Mistercooper is a treasured member of these forums brah.

 

[Borachio]

Ah, Mr Cooper. What a combination of absurdity and provocation! I'm sure he knows it.

 

[classical_hero]

It is just economic reality. As Arwon said, the same thing is not happening here in Australia, so just wait for the economy to pick and things will become a bit better than before.

 

[Disgustipated]

Coddled? Doesn't that ignore the real economic differences between now and in the past? Long gone are the days of my grandpa, who could buy a house and support two children working as a machinist. Where he owned his house I would have a hard time even renting an apartment by myself on that salary, much less supporting a familly.

machinists still pay a very good wage and could still afford to buy a house. The thing is most kids today have no skills, and want to make 50k a year without doing any hard work.

I'm surprised kids today don't like cars. When I was a teenager, getting a car was the most important thing. It seems kids care more about ipods and iphones than cars these days. Weird.

Agreed. I don't think it's coddled. It's just called a hard life. I don't see everyone going bankrupt because they are weak. Because they just don't have the money to pay their bills.

They are weak. They failed to study and improve their intelligence in school, and after they got out, realize they have no skills, and no ability to learn a trade because they are too damn dumb. This is what happens when movies and such portray being dumb as "cool".

 

[galdre]

machinists still pay a very good wage and could still afford to buy a house. The thing is most kids today have no skills, and want to make 50k a year without doing any hard work.

I'm surprised kids today don't like cars. When I was a teenager, getting a car was the most important thing. It seems kids care more about ipods and iphones than cars these days. Weird.



They are weak. They failed to study and improve their intelligence in school, and after they got out, realize they have no skills, and no ability to learn a trade because they are too damn dumb. This is what happens when movies and such portray being dumb as "cool".

I think that's blamming the victim a bit. The biggest problem is the massive wealth disparity. 50-60 years ago a CEO made 50 times the average worker, now it's up to 400 - can't have that kind of discrepency without causing some problems.

 

[GenMarshall]

If the CEOs went like misers and reluctantly hire people (and on the same coin started laying off people) and banks did not gamble other people's money causing the Great Recession that we have now. Things would have been a lot different.

I would not call this the cheapest generations, more like the Neo-Lost Generation.

 

[Angst]

Just putting it out there: I want a small home and no car, I don't see that as a moral problem. It'd be silly if I were to be morally obligated to consume just as when people think I'm morally obligated to produce.

It's an interesting problem, though. I for one do hope that the car market is declining.

 

[galdre]

Just putting it out there: I want a small home and no car, I don't see that as a moral problem. It'd be silly if I were to be morally obligated to consume just as when people think I'm morally obligated to produce.

It's an interesting problem, though. I for one do hope that the car market is declining.

I too would love the car market to decline, but we need public transit (which is pathetic where I'm at).

 

[Zack]

Hopefully this leads to better public transportation. I don't want to own a car, but with the current state of public transportation in the US, that's not really feasible unless you live in a big northeastern city.

 

[ZeletDude]

I don't fit into that group pretty well, I like my car, and I do eventually want to buy a house

 

[Patroklos]

I think that's blamming the victim a bit. The biggest problem is the massive wealth disparity. 50-60 years ago a CEO made 50 times the average worker, now it's up to 400 - can't have that kind of discrepency without causing some problems.

50-60 years ago there were still places without electricity. Wealth disparity has nothing to do with it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Here is today's reading folks. It's a little long (2 pages, I know), but it will make an interesting discussion I think. Here is an snippet.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/the-cheapest-generation/309060/1/

Here is the general thesis: Americans 18-35 are going to be much less likely to buy a new car or a house. Part of this is for economic reasons (high student debt has ruined credit, and poor economic opportunities leave the generation without the funds to buy them), and partly for philosophical ones. They argue that the sheen from home ownership or a new car that our parents felt isn't shared by younger Americans. We'd rather share a car and get a smartphone.

Given that the US economy has relied on home ownership, and the blue-collar manufacturing jobs that come from construction and home and car related consumption, this could have negative impacts on economic development moving forward. It could also have positive impacts (environmentally, and with urban issues)

What do you think?

Yes we are the cheapest generation for living within our means!

 

[Disgustipated]

I think that's blamming the victim a bit. The biggest problem is the massive wealth disparity. 50-60 years ago a CEO made 50 times the average worker, now it's up to 400 - can't have that kind of discrepency without causing some problems.

I agree wealth discrepancies are dangerous and problems for capitalist societies (eventually it will reach a breaking point with lots of rioting and discontent). 400 is pretty bad I'll admit. I'm just not sure the government is the answer to that problem. Why are CEO's so damn greedy? Problem is they are CEO, so you can't force them to take less pay.

The rich will learn when rioting and looting overtakes their neighborhoods. I'd rather the CEO's spread the wealth as they should, not the government. Although a little government push in the right direction isn't a bad thing. Why not a maximum wage? We have a minimum wage, why not a maximum wage?

 

[cav scout]

I agree wealth discrepancies are dangerous and problems for capitalist societies (eventually it will reach a breaking point with lots of rioting and discontent). 400 is pretty bad I'll admit. I'm just not sure the government is the answer to that problem. Why are CEO's so damn greedy? Problem is they are CEO, so you can't force them to take less pay.

The rich will learn when rioting and looting overtakes their neighborhoods. I'd rather the CEO's spread the wealth as they should, not the government. Although a little government push in the right direction isn't a bad thing. Why not a maximum wage? We have a minimum wage, why not a maximum wage?

I don't know of any CEO's who have wages... There are quite a few who have just a nominal salary, sometimes just $1 per year. Does that work for you?

 

[Murky]

Too busy paying off student loans to buy a car.

 

[Zack]

I don't know of any CEO's who have wages... There are quite a few who have just a nominal salary, sometimes just $1 per year. Does that work for you?

He meant income.

 

[cav scout]

He meant income.

Of course. I was just hinting that remuneration can be a nuanced thing. A "maximum wage" wouldn't reduce executive compensation a dime, it would just lead to more creative schemes and loopholes.

 

[innonimatu]

I agree wealth discrepancies are dangerous and problems for capitalist societies (eventually it will reach a breaking point with lots of rioting and discontent). 400 is pretty bad I'll admit. I'm just not sure the government is the answer to that problem. Why are CEO's so damn greedy? Problem is they are CEO, so you can't force them to take less pay.

The rich will learn when rioting and looting overtakes their neighborhoods. I'd rather the CEO's spread the wealth as they should, not the government. Although a little government push in the right direction isn't a bad thing. Why not a maximum wage? We have a minimum wage, why not a maximum wage?

The CEOs would find ways around that. Other ways to get the money, even if you legislated in detail about stock options, deferred compensation and what else is in use now.

Governments can act, but they should act by tweaking the power balance between the administration and workers. CEOs get away with taking so muck because they're out of control. Neither stockholders not workers can easily put them out of a job when they abuse it. Boars and thoroughly corrupt, with people appointing each other (and blackmailing each other) between multiple companies, creating a web of interests immune from outside control.

It's worth noting that in Germany, where workers get to vote some people into the board, CEO compensation hasn't gotten that much out of control, nor have CEOs acted as it they're entitled to keep raising it.
And in France, where people are offended enough by such abuses to take to the streets in protest and scare politicians with the threat of losing votes, the CEOs still fear that by abusing their position too much they'll bring down the government's wrath upon them. Which indeed has happened, for example when Edouard Michelin returned from the US to succeed his father as CEO of Michelin in France he decided in 1999 to announce record profits and at the same time fire 7500 workers. The outcry was so big that the french parliament passed a special law make that an extremely expensive decision to Michelin. The idiot was reasoning as an american, where getting the stock price up is the sole aim of the CEO and for that announcing firings is as good as announcing profits. He forgot that in France a CEO is regarded as having responsibilities towards his company and its people and firing people is bad, especially when you are running a company flush with cash!

 

[TheLastOne36]

Honestly, I would rather buy a nice boat than buy a house.

I am fine living in a decently sized two bedroom apartment or condo.

 

[Ergo Sum]

I agree wealth discrepancies are dangerous and problems for capitalist societies (eventually it will reach a breaking point with lots of rioting and discontent). 400 is pretty bad I'll admit. I'm just not sure the government is the answer to that problem. Why are CEO's so damn greedy? Problem is they are CEO, so you can't force them to take less pay.

It's a culture thing I'd say. CEOS will stop being greedy when we stop thinking that being the best at dickswinging makes you ontologically superior to poor people amirite?