41–50 of 132 posts
Does anyone know / remember if there were similar pieces written in the late 90s about people in their 20s and 30s then? Ie is this a trend that has always happened or something new?
Federal debt and surface temperature charts are telling because they include 20+ year projections periods--and of course those projections are dire (and bullshit). It's clear the story this "opinion columnist" (bullshit artist) is trying to craft. To me, net worth by age group is the troubling chart. If I read this correctly, median net worth for all age groups under 44 years old is significantly negative. The scale…
That's not what that graph shows. It's the cumulative change in net worth. For example, it's saying that the net worth (infl adj) of 55-64s hasn't changed since 1989. Not that it's zero.
The fleecing affects millennials in that they cannot save and invest their income. Once they've paid their health care and education [1] payments, they have nothing left to save. Per capita, in 2017 dollars, 1970 Americans spent $1,797 on health care. In 2017, $10,739 [0]. In return on that $9,000 annual investment: Life expectancy rose from 74.7 to 78.6, adding 3.9 years. In 1993, the annual cost for tuition & fees…
Does anyone know / remember if there were similar pieces written in the late 90s about people in their 20s and 30s then? Ie is this a trend that has always happened or something new?
The Thatcher/Reagan de-industrialisation through the 80s meant a huge number of children deprived of opportunity as whole regions and cities lost their major employers. In the UK it was effectively the start of our drug problem. Criminalisation had only arrived in the late 60s. Then we got the big recession of the early 90s.
Most of those de-industrialised areas had huge crime and drug problems, lost opportunities and parents who were broke, jobless and without hope. London and the South East was turbo-charging banking so we got Harry Enfield's comedy "Loadsa Money" character on tv, and plenty of market traders becoming stock traders. If you were early into IT you avoided it too.
So London and the South East was mostly OK, the rest, not so much. For those coming onto the job market it was a time of very high youth unemployment and limited chances. By the late 90s it had settled and most were busy spending it.
Some of those hardest hit areas are still not fully recovered. The cities have, mostly.
My father's generation were lost in the Great Depression, then got to go to WW2.
His father's in WW1.
We can learn from history that we don't treat the unlucky at all well, or try and prevent damage to the next generation. Oh, and that we mostly don't learn from history.
We should push for building new cities or upgrading existing small ones. We can create them to fit with lifestyles of the young: walkable, bike- and pedestrian-friendly, well-served by public transportation, etc.
Having good jobs nearby would be important. I believe developing new cities close to major universities (in smaller towns) and possibly adjacent to existing job centers would help garner critical mass to kickstart their momentum relatively quickly.
Does anyone know / remember if there were similar pieces written in the late 90s about people in their 20s and 30s then? Ie is this a trend that has always happened or something new?
Guess they recovered nicely.
> Medicare and Social Security have been spared from cuts. Programs that benefit younger workers and families have not. This is a political incentive problem. Retired people tend to have free time to engage in politics (or at least watch TV all day and get fed "news") and they turn out to votes in droves (as they don't have to e.g. take a day off to vote!), while young people mainly have the power to pull off a shits…
While I agree that older people tend to vote in greater numbers, the excuse that they do so because they have more free time is just that, an excuse. Early voting and absentee ballots render that excuse irrelevant, regardless of the number of jobs worked. EDIT: Thanks for educating me regarding some states not offering those options. Although, in those states, I would think most employers would make it easier for the…
The fleecing affects millennials in that they cannot save and invest their income. Once they've paid their health care and education [1] payments, they have nothing left to save. Per capita, in 2017 dollars, 1970 Americans spent $1,797 on health care. In 2017, $10,739 [0]. In return on that $9,000 annual investment: Life expectancy rose from 74.7 to 78.6, adding 3.9 years. In 1993, the annual cost for tuition & fees…
I think it's worth pointing out here that the terms Gen Y and Millenial both refer to the same generation (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials )
The fleecing affects millennials in that they cannot save and invest their income. Once they've paid their health care and education [1] payments, they have nothing left to save. Per capita, in 2017 dollars, 1970 Americans spent $1,797 on health care. In 2017, $10,739 [0]. In return on that $9,000 annual investment: Life expectancy rose from 74.7 to 78.6, adding 3.9 years. In 1993, the annual cost for tuition & fees…
I made the cutoff for Gen-X by a year, but still benefitted from the generally referenced figures in the comment. It's staggering how much more it costs now. My wife is a mere 5 years younger than I and her tuition cost her 3x my own.
The fleecing affects millennials in that they cannot save and invest their income. Once they've paid their health care and education [1] payments, they have nothing left to save. Per capita, in 2017 dollars, 1970 Americans spent $1,797 on health care. In 2017, $10,739 [0]. In return on that $9,000 annual investment: Life expectancy rose from 74.7 to 78.6, adding 3.9 years. In 1993, the annual cost for tuition & fees…
I think it's worth pointing out here that the terms Gen Y and Millenial both refer to the same generation (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials )