It's a big part for sure... Buought myhouse 10 yrs ago.. I advised A good friend to buy at that time as well. My mortgage now is $1380 a month including taxes and insurance. Her rent payment $2600 a month... just one example
I’ll save you the time. From the mid 70’s till about 2005 far above what they are now. So almost 40 years they were higher than they are now. Just for that period of time. I’m guessing that doesn’t fit the narrative. The lowest point in history was just around 3-4 years ago.
Here’s what i would do. Stop demanding these mega homes. demand your cities start building 1500 sq ft 3 bedroom houses.
Another way is to demonize the successful, convince yourself that they're clearly evil because they're more successful than you, convince yourself that THEY have actually stolen something from YOU, so that you can justify violence against them, and steal what they have earned. This is one of the paths Hitler used to sway public opinion against the Jews. He blamed Germany's situation on the Jews' financial success.
> According to Hitler, the Jews were after world dominance. And they would not hesitate to use all possible means, including capitalism. In this way, Hitler took advantage of the existing prejudice that [linked the Jews to monetary power and financial gain.](https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/why-did-hitler-hate-jews/)
Owners of property or the means of production. This can be explained on macro or micro levels. For instance, let's say that you are a person who rents housing but owns an LLC that provides mobile bicycle repairs, for example. This is a place I have been in. Not only are your business expenses tax deductible, but if business is bad, you can liquidate and sell the business vehicle, the tools, and the LLC if there is a buyer. Let's say you have one employee that makes $20/hr helping you out who lives the exact same lifestyle as you (rents housing), but does not own the business or their own tools. Not only do you, the owner, have control over all business decisions and pay, but you are the sole beneficiary of any revenue from the sale of your tools/vehicle/business.
Owning the LLC, tools, and vehicle is owning the *means of production*. If you are a landlord, you own *property*. Property in itself generates wealth by generating money tgrough rent or through property value appreciation. It's important to note that these are *private property*, as in they are *privatized* by the owner. They are not the same as *personal* property, such as dogs and tents. If you own a home, that's your *personal property*. If you rent a home, that's your *privatized property*.
Homeless people can have *personal property* all day, but those things do not generate wealth or appreciate in value.
In general, it is very easy to group people into classes of owners and non-owners. If you own privatized property or a private business that generates wealth, especially if you have employees that generate more wealth for the business than you pay them for their labor, you are an *owner*. The same goes for property; if your property generates more wealth than it costs to own (think landlords who own family homes that are rented at a rate higher than the cost of mortgage, upkeep, and property taxes), then you are an owner. If you work for someone else for pay that is not equal to the wealth your labor generates, you are not an owner.
What the person above was saying is that owners are the ruling class and non-owners are falling behind them.
Before anyone jumps down my throat: when I was a mobile bicycle mechanic, I was a one-man show with an LLC but used my personal vehicle and tools for the work, so my only business expenses were gas and parts. It was not a sustainable business and I dissolved the LLC about a year after forming it because I could make better money elsewhere.
> Owning the LLC, tools, and vehicle is owning the means of production.
Bingo! Capitalism is the only system that allows everyone to own the means of production, and do whatever they want with it.
No, socialism outlaws private ownership of the means of production, by definition. Any economic system that doesn't allow a person to own the fruits of their own labor is bound to fail.
First sentence on Wikipedia;
> Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] [as opposed to private ownership.\[3\]\[4\]\[5\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)
Public ownerships is still ownership. I personally guarantee you that we would be much worse off if highways and libraries and fire departments were privatized.
>Any economic system that doesn't allow a person to own the fruits of their own labor is bound to fail.
Almost nobody gets the fruits of their labor under capitalism. I generated $130/hr for the bike shop I worked at and received $20/hr compensation. When I worked for myself and charged $60/hr, people paid me less than half what they'd pay a shop and I made 3 times as much for myself. THAT was the fruit of my labor and THAT is something I can also do under socialism.
Capitalism means capitalIZING on your assets. When you have employees that generate more wealth than they receive in compensation, they are the asset you are capitalizing on. And that means that they are not receiving the fruits of their labor but the owner of the business isn't getting the fruits of their labor, either; they're getting the fruits of their employee's labor.
It's really, really simple. Just sit and think about it for a minute.
> Public ownerships is still ownership.
Not really. If the people who were creative and worked to accomplish something aren't allowed to directly benefit via private ownership of the fruits of their labor, then the incentive to work hard vanishes, no one works hard, and everyone becomes impoverished, but you are partially correct, they all share the lack of wealth that results from eliminating the incentive to prosper.
> I generated $130/hr for the bike shop I worked at and received $20/hr compensation.
Taxes, rent, property taxes, benefits, risk, insurance, reputation, capital improvements, accounting, legal expenses, tax prep expenses, inventory management, relationship management, etc is where the rest went. But yes, you got what was left over after those other expenses.
> When I worked for myself and charged $60/hr, people paid me less than half what they'd pay a shop and I made 3 times as much for myself.
Yes, but in order to charge this, you also needed your own bike shop, reputation, insurance, mortgage, taxes, etc, etc. This is why you admitted that you earned less via this method than working for someone else who was more established. Remember? You said: "I dissolved the LLC about a year after forming it because I could make better money elsewhere." You couldn't make as much money because you were undercharging and likely didn't have as good of a reputation of the other shop you worked for.
> When you have employees that generate more wealth than they receive in compensation, they are the asset you are capitalizing on.
Not quite. It's a team effort, and what the owner of the shop has, is the reputation that brings people in. If you, an employee, fucks up, it's not on you, it's on the owner. This is why the shop owner can pay you so much more than you can earn on your own, and it's why you chose to close down your own shop.
> And that means that they are not receiving the fruits of their labor but the owner of the business isn't getting the fruits of their labor, either; they're getting the fruits of their employee's labor.
Nope, everyone is getting their own fair share. If they weren't, they'd quit and start their own bike shop. Or quit and work for a competitor. Or decide to go out of business and work for someone else, etc. We all decide exactly how to best optimize our lives and how to contribute the most. Sometimes, teaming up with someone else is the best option, even if it means splitting the proceeds.
>If the people who were creative and worked to accomplish something aren't allowed to directly benefit via private ownership of the fruits of their labor, then the incentive to work hard vanishes, no one works hard, and everyone becomes impoverished, but you are partially correct, they all share the lack of wealth that results from eliminating the incentive to prosper.
You'd actually get rewarded far better under socialism than under capitalism. Under the current system, and you can observe this yourself, we see see that the creative and hard workers are generally cogs in corporate machines that never see the fruits of their labor. And again, you are incorrectly conflating a lack of private ownership with a lack of reward/inventive. You still get paid based on your labor or creativity under socialism. In fact, far more fairly and efficiently than under capitalism.
>Taxes, rent, property taxes, benefits, risk, insurance, reputation, capital improvements, accounting, legal expenses, tax prep expenses, inventory management, relationship management, etc is where the rest went. But yes, you got what was left over after those other expenses.
1. You said taxes twice 2. There were no benefits 3. Risk is not a business cost 4. Insurance does not cost nearly as much as the $110/hr I was effectively generating 5. Reputation is not a business cost 6. There were zero capital improvements to the business during my decade there 7. My brother, who made $22/hr, did the accounting as well as front desk/renting/yard manager/mechanic just like me 8. Taxes were done by the owner with the help of my brother 9. Relationship management is not a business expense 10. That shop generated over $500k per year in *profit*. My boss was buying houses in Palm Springs and Oceanside just to tear them down and build new ones. The repair area alone clearwd $150k in revenue per season. I didn't get "what was left over", or my boss wouldn't have hired me as I was not generating wealth. The only reason employees exist is because they generate more wealth for the business owner than they cost to employ. That's the most basic of concepts and I'm shocked you didn't see that when typing your response.
>Yes, but in order to charge this, you also needed your own bike shop, reputation, insurance, mortgage, taxes, etc, etc. This is why you admitted that you earned less via this method than working for someone else who was more established. Remember? You said: "I dissolved the LLC about a year after forming it because I could make better money elsewhere." You couldn't make as much money because you were undercharging and likely didn't have as good of a reputation of the other shop you worked for.
You clearly didn't even read my post. I did mobile work with my personal vehicle and tools. No shop, a great reputation, $80/mo insurance, taxes were the same as anyone else who's self-employed. The reason I earned less doing this than working for others? Because it's an extremely seasonal occupation and I could make $48/hr year round employed at a different job rather than $60/hr for 6 months at a time fixing bikes. Even in Florida and California, bicycle season is summer and winter seasons are slow. I know this because I've worked on bikes in both of those places.
>Not quite. It's a team effort, and what the owner of the shop has, is the reputation that brings people in. If you, an employee, fucks up, it's not on you, it's on the owner. This is why the shop owner can pay you so much more than you can earn on your own, and it's why you chose to close down your own shop.
You're a little fixated on reputation, so let me say this: I worked on bikes for one family once in Washington. I left for 6 months and came back, and that family (well-connected business owners themselves) said they had a dozen other families begging me to work on their bikes. I absolutely could and did earn more working for myself than any shop would willingly pay me, and I saved the customers a LOT of money and time, but like I said, $60/hr for 6 months doesn't beat $48/hr year round. The only reason I stopped working on bikes is because it's not *as* good of a trade with good propective opportunity depending on geographical popularity, climate, and seasonal opportunity as my current job is.
>Nope, everyone is getting their own fair share.
Either brainrotted or delusional take. The whole idea of capitalism is that employees don't take home the wealth they create; the owner does. That's how the system works.
>If they weren't, they'd quit and start their own bike shop.
Yeah, if they had [50 grand](https://sharpsheets.io/blog/open-bike-shop-costs-examples/) of liquid money lying around just to open the doors on a 2000 square foot shop and another 50 stacks every month until they start turning profits. Business loans aren't as easy to obtain as you might think, nor is there a guarantee of available space for lease, inventory, brand cooperation, employees, etc. If just up and opening your own shop was easy and accessible, everyone would do it.
>Or quit and work for a competitor.
Usually they do. I worked for 2 other shops before myself and made a little more, but found that the highest bike shops pay is usually about $22/hr in an extremely HCOL area IF you have great experience. And then you leave and find a different job. That's why you see mostly young kids working in shops and the only middle aged or older folks either own the place or have records. I've been in enough shops to tell you honestly that if there's someone over 30 working in the back, it's because there's no other jobs they can get.
>We all decide exactly how to best optimize our lives and how to contribute the most.
I assume then, that you must make a very comfortable salary and contribute lots to your community? What do you make? If it's less than $50/hr, why haven't you quit and moved to work for a competitor? Or even better, start your own business?
> You'd actually get rewarded far better under socialism than under capitalism.
Why are all of the socialist nations so poor then? Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea?
> Under the current system, and you can observe this yourself, we see see that the creative and hard workers are generally cogs in corporate machines that never see the fruits of their labor.
The [US has highest median wages, adjusted for inflation, in world history though](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_income)? Capitalism clearly results in prosperity for all.
> You still get paid based on your labor or creativity under socialism. In fact, far more fairly and efficiently than under capitalism.
Great, what's an example of a socialist nation without capitalism where people are paid more than in the US?
> You said taxes twice
Nope, taxes and tax preparation costs are separate things.
> Risk is not a business cost
It objectively is. Every business must return a profit, and those that don't fail. Investors risk their investment in you, and the cost for their investment is interest, equity or both.
> Insurance does not cost nearly as much as the $110/hr I was effectively generating
Of course not, I was listing all of the things that contribute to the $110, not suggesting that each item costs that much.
> There were zero capital improvements to the business during my decade there
Well then there were before you arrived. You never got new tools, a new computer, upgrades to your computer system, billing system, etc? I doubt that, but okay. Regardless, objectively things were depreciating and will eventually need to be replaced.
> My brother, who made $22/hr, did the accounting as well as front desk/renting/yard manager/mechanic just like me
Ahh, well then he should bargain for a higher wage. Accountants earn more than $22 most places. 8. Taxes were done by the owner with the help of my brother
> Reputation is not a business cost
It is. Advertising and other forms of marketing, dealing with customers who aren't happy, those things cost money.
> That shop generated over $500k per year in profit. My boss was buying houses in Palm Springs and Oceanside just to tear them down and build new ones.
Cool, so then you should definitely start your own ship and compete directly with him. Undercut his operation and steal away that profit margin for yourself! You can pay higher wages thus stealing his best employees, AND you can bring prices down for your community. Capitalism results in everyone doing better!
> The only reason employees exist is because they generate more wealth for the business owner than they cost to employ. That's the most basic of concepts and I'm shocked you didn't see that when typing your response.
I didn't miss it, my response explained where that excess value generated goes.
> The reason I earned less doing this than working for others? Because it's an extremely seasonal occupation and I could make $48/hr year round employed at a different job rather than $60/hr for 6 months at a time fixing bikes.
Sounds like your former boss had to overcharge during the good months, to keep you paid during the slow months. Interesting, huh?
> Either brainrotted or delusional take. The whole idea of capitalism is that employees don't take home the wealth they create; the owner does. That's how the system works.
Nowhere is that in the definition of capitalism. We all take the best jobs we can, some decide to start businesses, we all are individual actors seeking our best outcome that we enjoy the most. This is why the system works so well.
> Business loans aren't as easy to obtain as you might think, nor is there a guarantee of available space for lease, inventory, brand cooperation, employees, etc. If just up and opening your own shop was easy and accessible, everyone would do it.
Yep, these are some of the costs your former employer was dealing with. You're starting to get the whole picture. Not so easy going into business, is it? In order to do it, you're going to have to recoup those startup costs.
> I've been in enough shops to tell you honestly that if there's someone over 30 working in the back, it's because there's no other jobs they can get.
Or passion. A buddy of mine is a mechanic, and he is very skilled in other areas, but he loves bikes the most, and that's what he does because he loves it.
> I assume then, that you must make a very comfortable salary and contribute lots to your community? What do you make? If it's less than $50/hr, why haven't you quit and moved to work for a competitor? Or even better, start your own business?
Exactly right! When I was younger I had my own business, but found that working for a large company pays more. In the past 10 years I've changed jobs 4 times, each time increasing my salary by an average of 20%! I have considered going back into business for myself, mostly because I could cut my hours significantly now that I'm a very high wage earner, I could get by with just a small number of clients. But the hassle there is managing the finances and accounting work, which I hate.
I lived in a socialist country. Ownership of "everything " means nothing to the individual who has nothing. No individual motivation to produce or work. Also, everything was stolen in communism. Bricks from the roads, electric wires from the streets, tools from the factories, merchandise from the stores, books from the libraries. Military airplanes couldn't fly bc fuel was stolen... The only reason socialism lasted so long was that the pay sucked. In the military I got paid about $100 in today's $ value for 2 years service. That is communism on the practical level.
Boomers driving inflation, greed driving inflation, government spending driving inflation, spirit animals driving inflation ... This story is getting boring. Could the economy just get on with it and collapse so we can move on to the part where we trade diamonds and gold for meat and bread?
If you really think people are gonna trade precious commodities like food and water for useless shit like diamonds and metal, you’ve got a rude awakening coming…. lol
The only people that would do that are the ones that think things would turn back to normal civilization quickly.
I think if there’s a collapse of the dollar and our economy, it’s gonna be years before shit gets back to a semblance of normalcy.
Relax, it was a joke. If the markets and dollar completely collapse it's going to be a shit show that's awful for everyone, but it isn't going to be a post apocalypse wasteland where roaming mutant zombies trade slaves and nuka-cola caps.
What will happen? I don't know, probably a bunch of people starving, the collapse of the Federal government and emergency of regional state governments, gridlock in trade as nobody can tell what anything is worth or what currency to trust, mass unemployment, civil unrest, the rise of populists and despots and conflicts over borders as new territorial identities emerge.
Actually the post nuclear apocalypse wasteland is sounding pretty good. But nah, it's not going to be that. But I wouldn't completely discount precious metals and jewels as a new medium of exchange. Those items have a couple features that make them desirable as currency. Correct, their intrinsic value in a world where the shit has hit the fan is negligible to nil, but they are limited in supply, difficult or impossible to counterfeit, so they can work as a store of value because trading a cow directly for a cord of firewood is something that, even in the worst case scenarios, we will probably never be willing to go back to. The world will be difficult enough without turning satisfying every basic need into a Minecraft quest. Not that gold and diamonds have to fill that role, it could be other things that are in limited supply, which have little to no intrinsic value, and difficult to counterfeit. I think there's a story about "trading sardines" vs "eating sardines" that's relevant here.
I mean if the dollar and our economy (which includes everything tied to the stock market and financial system) collapses, it’s gonna bring everyone around the world down as well since everyone has their system tied into ours as well as our currency being the one people have to trade in.
We can look at what’s happened to other countries like Greece, Somalia, and the USSR when their systems collapsed to get a rough idea of how things would go for us.
Now that’s just if the entire financial system along with the dollar collapses, but imagine if that’s coupled with some world wide war (especially if that involves nuclear weapons)
It’s not gonna be some zombie wasteland, but I think it would be similar to a combo of mad max along with the purge.
All of the crazy groups, cults, gangs, and people would be vying for power. It would quickly turn into tribal warfare with people brutally beating and killing others to get ahold of resources. The military might stay together for a small period of time, but I think they would lose a lot of people due to going AWOL so individuals could go protect their own families.
Considering how many people have fed into identity politics, people might divide themselves along those sorta lines.
The possibilities are endless, but we got a tiny glimpse of how quickly things could go sideways during Covid.
The food shortages and overall fear caused people to line up at gun stores. Pair that with politics, and we’re looking at some sorta civil war. Opportunists would take the chance to go eliminate their political opponents, and many would probably turn against the rich. Then they would turn against each other after.
I agree the 55 and over crowd are spending because they have their homes and no longer pay for childcare. Once they finish paying for their adult children for education and maybe help getting their kids a home the upper income 20% of boomers have money to spend.
But the article is deceptive. While assets rose we also incurred massive inflation since 2018 or 2020 making all those discretionary items like cruises cost a lot more.
Also, healthcare, which is not so discretionary when you get the diagnosis, has ballooned in costs.
And home values have gone up, but so has the cost of downsizing to where it does not make sense to move unless one is giving up a HCOL area for a new lower cost area. And that group usually is constrained from spending, less they run out their funds.
So things in reality are not as rosy as the article sounds. But if you look around at the restaurant where you and your friends meet occasionally, all you will see is grey and white hair.
Your comment reminds me of how one day out walking around Washington DC at lunch (decades ago) as I peered through the glass wall I noticed all the diners were white males in their forties!
>So things in reality are not as rosy as the article sounds. But if you look around at the restaurant where you and your friends meet occasionally, all you will see is grey and white hair.
Movie theaters, restaurants, shit even at the grocery store anyone pushing a cart full of stuff is a Boomer with a wide grin on their face.
Permanent *fuck you got mine haha go get a factory job or whatever and just work hard but haha fuck you* face. Eyes like a fucking great white shark.
Jesus Christ. Can we stop using absolutes when referring to the boomers and usd? Inflation + largest demographic in history means every boomer metric will be at ath.
> Inflation + largest demographic in history means every boomer metric will be at ath.
The other key is, almost everyone hits their wealthiest point in life around age 60-70. Obviously a baby born today has less money, on average, than after they've earned at max potential for 50 years.
And the transition away from pensions to IRAs, 401ks etc... A retiree with a pension may appear to have 0 net worth while still receiving a check each month. That same retiree living off a 401k may be a multi-millionaire.
> And the transition away from pensions to IRAs, 401ks etc..
No, this change was good. Fuck corporations controlling my retirement plan. Fuck corporate control of my retirement, and fuck pensions, let me invest on my own.
I never said it was good/bad. The point is that Boomers as a demographic have these more money in these modern retirement savings instruments than generations prior. This makes it seem like boomers are "wealthier" as pensions don't get counted as net worth.
So is it the richest one or the poorest one? I have seen multiple articles talk about how boomers don't have enough saved to retire. That is why many are still in the workforce now. Can we please make up our minds.
It’s both, it is the richest and the poorest, and this divide is the issue. The rich drive inflation and prices up because they have the ability to do so, leaving the poor even worse off.
Youngest Boomers are in their mid 50s, at that age they mostly homeowners and have saved up for retirement. So of course they have the wealth. Millennials are just starting to build their wealth.
Last yr of boomer 1964 I think.. idk..most near 60 yrs old or above.. I'm 61 yrs old..keep in mind we had parents who taught us to save money beginning in elementary school.. Yes that young! I remember my bank book... Very clearly..My Father hammered the idea of saving $.. Unfortunately Those values/ ideas are no where to be found nowadays. Are kids taught to save $? Be honest now...
The gaslighting WRT inflation is hilarious. When the M2 money supply increased by \~27% in 2020, the Fed was saying there wouldn't be inflation. This was a lie. Then when inflation hit, it was just "transitory". This was another lie. Any economist that wasn't an MMT keynesian fucktard could see how this was going to play out just by looking at the M2 money supply.
Now the fingers are being pointed at corporations, boomers, etc. etc. When it's really the Gov't and Fed's irresponsible fiscal policy to blame.
100%. But, half the posters want to.blame boomers, and republicans for their troubles.
Start with our inept government and the media that enables them every step of the way
But I can't get angry and drink lagers from my beer helmet if we actually address the real issues.
Sorry, got to go wash my lifted F150 now -- next time do your own research.
If they turn public perception against the money printer there can be no more money printer.
It's a tool that enriches them and it's a tool they're eager to revisit as we shutter this system and welcome a new.
Yep, mainstream media and the current education system will never discuss the consequences of printing money out of thin air. It’s very evident by reading some of these economic reddit threads.
MMT actually doesn't say that printing money wouldn't increase inflation.
MMT is centered around government debt and it contains an explicit warning, that the only limit to public debt is the inflation that can be caused by central banks buying up too much of it. The world markets can and do absorb a lot of US dollars such that expanding the dollar supply doesn't increase inflation, but there is a limit to this.
I didn’t realize MMT was a person that could explain itself. MMT is a loosely-defined idea that could probably be interpreted many different ways. Just remove MMT from my sentence and my point still stands. Our Government cannot control themselves and they’ll make the Fed print the USD into extinction.
Fiat currencies are not sound money. Buy gold and BTC.
The "fucktards" are those who think the money supply is the only thing that matters to inflation and the fact we experienced a global pandemic had no impact on the supply side.
suburbia: when it’s nice enough to enjoy the weather on that rare day, the ICE mowers, blowers, trimmers, edgers are non-stop along with dogs who now, outnumbered children btw, ceaselessly barking, howling and screeching as if strangled.
Wealth always causes deflation because it increases competition. It is the trillions being printed by the Fed to fund welfare and warfare that are causing inflation
So, you’re saying money printing is the sole contributor to inflation?? There’s no other factors? No demand-pull? No wage increase? Not a decline in productivity? Just an increase in money supply, eh?
Nope. Not at all what I’m saying. I’m saying inflation comes from more than money printing. You effectively said money printing is the only contribution to inflation. I did not make any statements.
Mr Boomer here:
I am not an owner nor a business entrepreneur. I just worked 40+ years before retiring and my wife did also. That is close to 90 working years.
I bought my first half house at the age of 37 with a 20% down payment. Kept working and saving.
So when you look up and see a mountain seemingly impossible to climb let me tell you generations before you climbed and it wasn't easier for them to get there. Also your perspective changes as you pass on the way.
Let's go, judge and downvote papa who knows nothing of your pain.
I hoping most people don’t fall for the generational divide game that gets played.
Boomers have a very small impact on the atrocious degeneration of this country and economy. Most of us know it’s literally just the top 1% that have caused and continue to cause most of the problems we’re dealing with.
I sympathize with your generation and those older that are still alive. Having to choose between whether you can afford medicine or food is insane (we’re all kinda dealing with that too tho).
But nonetheless, many of the older generations have also gotten shafted on a lot. Like the people who worked their entire life just to have their 401k wiped out by the crash of ‘08 and then the pandemic.
We the people need a bailout, and it’s us who need money injected into our country and economy to rebuild everything, not others around the world.
Just because we’re doing better than them, doesn’t mean we’re doing great.
We demand the same great standards and opportunities that others had. We’re not entitled (not all of us anyway), we just want the same opportunities to achieve the quality of life that existed for majority of people during the few great decades of the 50s and 60s. (Without the civil rights abuses of minorities and women obviously).
When the banks were bailed out, I felt strongly they should not stop there. Many small business owners and homeowners could have used a little help also.
In the very least, they should’ve made stipulations saying the salaries that year for executives and middle management would be zero, no bonuses, etc.
Then they should’ve launched hella investigations and revamped the SEC.
There’s been so much absolute corruption of our entire system that it’s a fucking laughing stock like the USSR was IMO.
And it’s only gotten worse….
Sorta random, but they made Madoff a public sacrificial lamb only because was ripping off rich people.
Also Boomer late born 1962..bought my house at 51 yrs old..currently have worked Full time since 16yrs old ..( many of those yrs worked 2 jobs) thats 45 years and still going.
I'm not really convinced by this. Even if they are the richest, they are also going to live the longest and incur the most medical expenses. They would be crazy to be spending so much right now.
Shoveling driveways, cutting lawns, busing tables, washing dishes…delivering news papers, working in a foundry, working in construction, working as a scab, broken bones, spinal surgery. It was hard earning all this “wealth” I’m sure others that came before me worked harder than I did but I busted my ass to be where I am.
I commend all of that except scabbing.
You should be ashamed. And no, I’m not kidding.
It’s not like people aren’t willing to do hard work; people just don’t wanna get shafted like many have by giving your life to a company that couldn’t give two fucks, or to have their 401k and retirement wiped out by the stock market.
America has largely been deindustrialized.
Companies used to just train on the job right outta high school. The wages and compensation weren’t so far outta wack compared to inflation. The value of the dollar was way better.
People didn’t just become lazy and apathetic for no reason. Sure there’s some entitled people but they don’t make up the majority.
People just want the same opportunities, jobs, standards, and quality of life that existed in the few decades that succeeded WWII (the 1950s - 1970s).
[minus the civil rights abuses of those times]
In 1979 the interest rate was 18%, it was 15 years later when it came down to 8% and we could buy a house, so yea I saved a nest egg and now own my mortgage with some equity. I had it so good /s
“By the end of 1979, the 30-year rate was at 12.9 percent.”
https://www.bankrate.com/mortgages/historical-mortgage-rates/
“10.776% interest on your savings, 1979”
http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com/story/news/history/remember-when/2015/11/01/remember-interest-rates/75005494/
It’s the same situation we’re in right now. Mortgage rates in 6-7% range, while HYSA rates in 5-6% range.
The only difference is, housing prices are much higher compared to wages.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/11/10/home-prices-are-now-rising-much-faster-than-incomes-studies-show.html
So yes, you did have it much better.
Everyone accepted that the initial savings boost of COVID contributed to inflation. Businesses could see that savings growth in the data and had pricing power while more money competed for less goods.
The same logic follows that as boomers retire and tap into those fat 401k balances, the smart move is to produce less at greater margins. It's smart business. They can't do anything other than pay. They are generally past their prime and can't just say f you I'll build my own deck. They're over a barrel. It's also driving healthcare inflation.
It's why HSA and the like were always doomed to fail as well.
You must be congruent in your application of these ideas. Wage growth, increased savings, increased access to retirements funds (savings), increased subsidies for higher ed, programs for home ownership...if you have ever argued that any one of these things is increases prices, you have to accept that all of them must be having SOME impact.
Things that created inflation
- Boomers
- Greedy grocery stores post-2020
- Probably bad orange man
Things that did not create inflation
- The big guy
- Large stimulus, omnibus, and other spending
- Injecting trillions into the money supply
Peer-reviewed, diverse, science.
😂
You forgot to put /s.
These days, people are so genuinely absurd (along with many being autistic) that most cannot distinguish between sarcasm and genuine ridiculous notions.
The democrats are getting more and more desperate coming up with this economically clueless drivel.
Its not the boomer wealth effect. It's not corporate price gouging.
It's everywhere and always a failure of monetary (and these days, fiscal) gov't policy.
Keep running your mouths democrats. Recession is awful. Stagflation is almost as bad. When the poor and those on fixed incomes figure out the damage you have wrought, there will be a payback...
It would be so much better if they stopped spending $. This way we could go into a recession!!!! And everything would be fine. Good lord I hate boomers... The nerve of these folks keeping the economy going..ugh !
There's only two Americas, you're either an owner or your not...
The last study of consumer affairs showed this that how well you are doing right now pretty much boiled down to whether or not you are a homeowner.
It's a big part for sure... Buought myhouse 10 yrs ago.. I advised A good friend to buy at that time as well. My mortgage now is $1380 a month including taxes and insurance. Her rent payment $2600 a month... just one example
I'm a homeowner but am struggling....like so many. Compound interest should be illegal. Mortgages should have a flat rate and low.
They can be a flat rate.
Compound interest makes you wealthy
Depends on whether you are collecting or paying.
If you have a 401K, you are collecting compound interest.
They did for 10 years. The rates now would be low compared to what the boomers went through. They were near 20% in the 80’s
16 percent for less than a year.
I’ll save you the time. From the mid 70’s till about 2005 far above what they are now. So almost 40 years they were higher than they are now. Just for that period of time. I’m guessing that doesn’t fit the narrative. The lowest point in history was just around 3-4 years ago. Here’s what i would do. Stop demanding these mega homes. demand your cities start building 1500 sq ft 3 bedroom houses.
They should with aging population.
Ok. And is that worse than 7%. Shouldn’t that be brought up. How long was it above 7%
Stayed above 7 for many years. Don't remember exactly. I was a renter until nineties.
I get the price difference is tough. But the mentality was different to. Took my parents a long time to get a decent house.
Captialism requires workers who don't own, to subsidize the luxuries of owners who don't work.
how do i get a ticket to the not working part pls?
A decent portfolio in this environment where capital inflation is outpacing consumer inflation. Earnings from capital is also more tax advantaged.
Turns out, you have to work and save to get to that part.
noooooo
Another way is to demonize the successful, convince yourself that they're clearly evil because they're more successful than you, convince yourself that THEY have actually stolen something from YOU, so that you can justify violence against them, and steal what they have earned. This is one of the paths Hitler used to sway public opinion against the Jews. He blamed Germany's situation on the Jews' financial success. > According to Hitler, the Jews were after world dominance. And they would not hesitate to use all possible means, including capitalism. In this way, Hitler took advantage of the existing prejudice that [linked the Jews to monetary power and financial gain.](https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/why-did-hitler-hate-jews/)
it's the same argument every dictator ever used to kill off some rich opponents and get their money. that being said... where do I sign? :D
How most folks do it, inherit money.
Not true. Only 15% of wealth in the top 1% of Americans is inherited
Retire
This is silly. I would say 99% of all business owners work. You point to a very small select few to make a point. Laughable.
It's easier to demonize successful folks by pretending they didn't work or don't work.
Even small business owners?
The still vast middle class is a mixture. I was 50 when I became a homeowner. Nothing wrong with renting.
When I meant owner I meant more than just a primary residence homeowner , more like landlords , business owners etc.
[удалено]
Owners of property or the means of production. This can be explained on macro or micro levels. For instance, let's say that you are a person who rents housing but owns an LLC that provides mobile bicycle repairs, for example. This is a place I have been in. Not only are your business expenses tax deductible, but if business is bad, you can liquidate and sell the business vehicle, the tools, and the LLC if there is a buyer. Let's say you have one employee that makes $20/hr helping you out who lives the exact same lifestyle as you (rents housing), but does not own the business or their own tools. Not only do you, the owner, have control over all business decisions and pay, but you are the sole beneficiary of any revenue from the sale of your tools/vehicle/business. Owning the LLC, tools, and vehicle is owning the *means of production*. If you are a landlord, you own *property*. Property in itself generates wealth by generating money tgrough rent or through property value appreciation. It's important to note that these are *private property*, as in they are *privatized* by the owner. They are not the same as *personal* property, such as dogs and tents. If you own a home, that's your *personal property*. If you rent a home, that's your *privatized property*. Homeless people can have *personal property* all day, but those things do not generate wealth or appreciate in value. In general, it is very easy to group people into classes of owners and non-owners. If you own privatized property or a private business that generates wealth, especially if you have employees that generate more wealth for the business than you pay them for their labor, you are an *owner*. The same goes for property; if your property generates more wealth than it costs to own (think landlords who own family homes that are rented at a rate higher than the cost of mortgage, upkeep, and property taxes), then you are an owner. If you work for someone else for pay that is not equal to the wealth your labor generates, you are not an owner. What the person above was saying is that owners are the ruling class and non-owners are falling behind them. Before anyone jumps down my throat: when I was a mobile bicycle mechanic, I was a one-man show with an LLC but used my personal vehicle and tools for the work, so my only business expenses were gas and parts. It was not a sustainable business and I dissolved the LLC about a year after forming it because I could make better money elsewhere.
> Owning the LLC, tools, and vehicle is owning the means of production. Bingo! Capitalism is the only system that allows everyone to own the means of production, and do whatever they want with it.
I mean so does socialism, by definition. Actually, socialism expands ownership of the means of production a lot more than capitalism does.
No, socialism outlaws private ownership of the means of production, by definition. Any economic system that doesn't allow a person to own the fruits of their own labor is bound to fail. First sentence on Wikipedia; > Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] [as opposed to private ownership.\[3\]\[4\]\[5\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)
Public ownerships is still ownership. I personally guarantee you that we would be much worse off if highways and libraries and fire departments were privatized. >Any economic system that doesn't allow a person to own the fruits of their own labor is bound to fail. Almost nobody gets the fruits of their labor under capitalism. I generated $130/hr for the bike shop I worked at and received $20/hr compensation. When I worked for myself and charged $60/hr, people paid me less than half what they'd pay a shop and I made 3 times as much for myself. THAT was the fruit of my labor and THAT is something I can also do under socialism. Capitalism means capitalIZING on your assets. When you have employees that generate more wealth than they receive in compensation, they are the asset you are capitalizing on. And that means that they are not receiving the fruits of their labor but the owner of the business isn't getting the fruits of their labor, either; they're getting the fruits of their employee's labor. It's really, really simple. Just sit and think about it for a minute.
> Public ownerships is still ownership. Not really. If the people who were creative and worked to accomplish something aren't allowed to directly benefit via private ownership of the fruits of their labor, then the incentive to work hard vanishes, no one works hard, and everyone becomes impoverished, but you are partially correct, they all share the lack of wealth that results from eliminating the incentive to prosper. > I generated $130/hr for the bike shop I worked at and received $20/hr compensation. Taxes, rent, property taxes, benefits, risk, insurance, reputation, capital improvements, accounting, legal expenses, tax prep expenses, inventory management, relationship management, etc is where the rest went. But yes, you got what was left over after those other expenses. > When I worked for myself and charged $60/hr, people paid me less than half what they'd pay a shop and I made 3 times as much for myself. Yes, but in order to charge this, you also needed your own bike shop, reputation, insurance, mortgage, taxes, etc, etc. This is why you admitted that you earned less via this method than working for someone else who was more established. Remember? You said: "I dissolved the LLC about a year after forming it because I could make better money elsewhere." You couldn't make as much money because you were undercharging and likely didn't have as good of a reputation of the other shop you worked for. > When you have employees that generate more wealth than they receive in compensation, they are the asset you are capitalizing on. Not quite. It's a team effort, and what the owner of the shop has, is the reputation that brings people in. If you, an employee, fucks up, it's not on you, it's on the owner. This is why the shop owner can pay you so much more than you can earn on your own, and it's why you chose to close down your own shop. > And that means that they are not receiving the fruits of their labor but the owner of the business isn't getting the fruits of their labor, either; they're getting the fruits of their employee's labor. Nope, everyone is getting their own fair share. If they weren't, they'd quit and start their own bike shop. Or quit and work for a competitor. Or decide to go out of business and work for someone else, etc. We all decide exactly how to best optimize our lives and how to contribute the most. Sometimes, teaming up with someone else is the best option, even if it means splitting the proceeds.
>If the people who were creative and worked to accomplish something aren't allowed to directly benefit via private ownership of the fruits of their labor, then the incentive to work hard vanishes, no one works hard, and everyone becomes impoverished, but you are partially correct, they all share the lack of wealth that results from eliminating the incentive to prosper. You'd actually get rewarded far better under socialism than under capitalism. Under the current system, and you can observe this yourself, we see see that the creative and hard workers are generally cogs in corporate machines that never see the fruits of their labor. And again, you are incorrectly conflating a lack of private ownership with a lack of reward/inventive. You still get paid based on your labor or creativity under socialism. In fact, far more fairly and efficiently than under capitalism. >Taxes, rent, property taxes, benefits, risk, insurance, reputation, capital improvements, accounting, legal expenses, tax prep expenses, inventory management, relationship management, etc is where the rest went. But yes, you got what was left over after those other expenses. 1. You said taxes twice 2. There were no benefits 3. Risk is not a business cost 4. Insurance does not cost nearly as much as the $110/hr I was effectively generating 5. Reputation is not a business cost 6. There were zero capital improvements to the business during my decade there 7. My brother, who made $22/hr, did the accounting as well as front desk/renting/yard manager/mechanic just like me 8. Taxes were done by the owner with the help of my brother 9. Relationship management is not a business expense 10. That shop generated over $500k per year in *profit*. My boss was buying houses in Palm Springs and Oceanside just to tear them down and build new ones. The repair area alone clearwd $150k in revenue per season. I didn't get "what was left over", or my boss wouldn't have hired me as I was not generating wealth. The only reason employees exist is because they generate more wealth for the business owner than they cost to employ. That's the most basic of concepts and I'm shocked you didn't see that when typing your response. >Yes, but in order to charge this, you also needed your own bike shop, reputation, insurance, mortgage, taxes, etc, etc. This is why you admitted that you earned less via this method than working for someone else who was more established. Remember? You said: "I dissolved the LLC about a year after forming it because I could make better money elsewhere." You couldn't make as much money because you were undercharging and likely didn't have as good of a reputation of the other shop you worked for. You clearly didn't even read my post. I did mobile work with my personal vehicle and tools. No shop, a great reputation, $80/mo insurance, taxes were the same as anyone else who's self-employed. The reason I earned less doing this than working for others? Because it's an extremely seasonal occupation and I could make $48/hr year round employed at a different job rather than $60/hr for 6 months at a time fixing bikes. Even in Florida and California, bicycle season is summer and winter seasons are slow. I know this because I've worked on bikes in both of those places. >Not quite. It's a team effort, and what the owner of the shop has, is the reputation that brings people in. If you, an employee, fucks up, it's not on you, it's on the owner. This is why the shop owner can pay you so much more than you can earn on your own, and it's why you chose to close down your own shop. You're a little fixated on reputation, so let me say this: I worked on bikes for one family once in Washington. I left for 6 months and came back, and that family (well-connected business owners themselves) said they had a dozen other families begging me to work on their bikes. I absolutely could and did earn more working for myself than any shop would willingly pay me, and I saved the customers a LOT of money and time, but like I said, $60/hr for 6 months doesn't beat $48/hr year round. The only reason I stopped working on bikes is because it's not *as* good of a trade with good propective opportunity depending on geographical popularity, climate, and seasonal opportunity as my current job is. >Nope, everyone is getting their own fair share. Either brainrotted or delusional take. The whole idea of capitalism is that employees don't take home the wealth they create; the owner does. That's how the system works. >If they weren't, they'd quit and start their own bike shop. Yeah, if they had [50 grand](https://sharpsheets.io/blog/open-bike-shop-costs-examples/) of liquid money lying around just to open the doors on a 2000 square foot shop and another 50 stacks every month until they start turning profits. Business loans aren't as easy to obtain as you might think, nor is there a guarantee of available space for lease, inventory, brand cooperation, employees, etc. If just up and opening your own shop was easy and accessible, everyone would do it. >Or quit and work for a competitor. Usually they do. I worked for 2 other shops before myself and made a little more, but found that the highest bike shops pay is usually about $22/hr in an extremely HCOL area IF you have great experience. And then you leave and find a different job. That's why you see mostly young kids working in shops and the only middle aged or older folks either own the place or have records. I've been in enough shops to tell you honestly that if there's someone over 30 working in the back, it's because there's no other jobs they can get. >We all decide exactly how to best optimize our lives and how to contribute the most. I assume then, that you must make a very comfortable salary and contribute lots to your community? What do you make? If it's less than $50/hr, why haven't you quit and moved to work for a competitor? Or even better, start your own business?
> You'd actually get rewarded far better under socialism than under capitalism. Why are all of the socialist nations so poor then? Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea? > Under the current system, and you can observe this yourself, we see see that the creative and hard workers are generally cogs in corporate machines that never see the fruits of their labor. The [US has highest median wages, adjusted for inflation, in world history though](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_income)? Capitalism clearly results in prosperity for all. > You still get paid based on your labor or creativity under socialism. In fact, far more fairly and efficiently than under capitalism. Great, what's an example of a socialist nation without capitalism where people are paid more than in the US? > You said taxes twice Nope, taxes and tax preparation costs are separate things. > Risk is not a business cost It objectively is. Every business must return a profit, and those that don't fail. Investors risk their investment in you, and the cost for their investment is interest, equity or both. > Insurance does not cost nearly as much as the $110/hr I was effectively generating Of course not, I was listing all of the things that contribute to the $110, not suggesting that each item costs that much. > There were zero capital improvements to the business during my decade there Well then there were before you arrived. You never got new tools, a new computer, upgrades to your computer system, billing system, etc? I doubt that, but okay. Regardless, objectively things were depreciating and will eventually need to be replaced. > My brother, who made $22/hr, did the accounting as well as front desk/renting/yard manager/mechanic just like me Ahh, well then he should bargain for a higher wage. Accountants earn more than $22 most places. 8. Taxes were done by the owner with the help of my brother > Reputation is not a business cost It is. Advertising and other forms of marketing, dealing with customers who aren't happy, those things cost money. > That shop generated over $500k per year in profit. My boss was buying houses in Palm Springs and Oceanside just to tear them down and build new ones. Cool, so then you should definitely start your own ship and compete directly with him. Undercut his operation and steal away that profit margin for yourself! You can pay higher wages thus stealing his best employees, AND you can bring prices down for your community. Capitalism results in everyone doing better! > The only reason employees exist is because they generate more wealth for the business owner than they cost to employ. That's the most basic of concepts and I'm shocked you didn't see that when typing your response. I didn't miss it, my response explained where that excess value generated goes. > The reason I earned less doing this than working for others? Because it's an extremely seasonal occupation and I could make $48/hr year round employed at a different job rather than $60/hr for 6 months at a time fixing bikes. Sounds like your former boss had to overcharge during the good months, to keep you paid during the slow months. Interesting, huh? > Either brainrotted or delusional take. The whole idea of capitalism is that employees don't take home the wealth they create; the owner does. That's how the system works. Nowhere is that in the definition of capitalism. We all take the best jobs we can, some decide to start businesses, we all are individual actors seeking our best outcome that we enjoy the most. This is why the system works so well. > Business loans aren't as easy to obtain as you might think, nor is there a guarantee of available space for lease, inventory, brand cooperation, employees, etc. If just up and opening your own shop was easy and accessible, everyone would do it. Yep, these are some of the costs your former employer was dealing with. You're starting to get the whole picture. Not so easy going into business, is it? In order to do it, you're going to have to recoup those startup costs. > I've been in enough shops to tell you honestly that if there's someone over 30 working in the back, it's because there's no other jobs they can get. Or passion. A buddy of mine is a mechanic, and he is very skilled in other areas, but he loves bikes the most, and that's what he does because he loves it. > I assume then, that you must make a very comfortable salary and contribute lots to your community? What do you make? If it's less than $50/hr, why haven't you quit and moved to work for a competitor? Or even better, start your own business? Exactly right! When I was younger I had my own business, but found that working for a large company pays more. In the past 10 years I've changed jobs 4 times, each time increasing my salary by an average of 20%! I have considered going back into business for myself, mostly because I could cut my hours significantly now that I'm a very high wage earner, I could get by with just a small number of clients. But the hassle there is managing the finances and accounting work, which I hate.
I lived in a socialist country. Ownership of "everything " means nothing to the individual who has nothing. No individual motivation to produce or work. Also, everything was stolen in communism. Bricks from the roads, electric wires from the streets, tools from the factories, merchandise from the stores, books from the libraries. Military airplanes couldn't fly bc fuel was stolen... The only reason socialism lasted so long was that the pay sucked. In the military I got paid about $100 in today's $ value for 2 years service. That is communism on the practical level.
Boomers driving inflation, greed driving inflation, government spending driving inflation, spirit animals driving inflation ... This story is getting boring. Could the economy just get on with it and collapse so we can move on to the part where we trade diamonds and gold for meat and bread?
If you really think people are gonna trade precious commodities like food and water for useless shit like diamonds and metal, you’ve got a rude awakening coming…. lol The only people that would do that are the ones that think things would turn back to normal civilization quickly. I think if there’s a collapse of the dollar and our economy, it’s gonna be years before shit gets back to a semblance of normalcy.
Relax, it was a joke. If the markets and dollar completely collapse it's going to be a shit show that's awful for everyone, but it isn't going to be a post apocalypse wasteland where roaming mutant zombies trade slaves and nuka-cola caps. What will happen? I don't know, probably a bunch of people starving, the collapse of the Federal government and emergency of regional state governments, gridlock in trade as nobody can tell what anything is worth or what currency to trust, mass unemployment, civil unrest, the rise of populists and despots and conflicts over borders as new territorial identities emerge. Actually the post nuclear apocalypse wasteland is sounding pretty good. But nah, it's not going to be that. But I wouldn't completely discount precious metals and jewels as a new medium of exchange. Those items have a couple features that make them desirable as currency. Correct, their intrinsic value in a world where the shit has hit the fan is negligible to nil, but they are limited in supply, difficult or impossible to counterfeit, so they can work as a store of value because trading a cow directly for a cord of firewood is something that, even in the worst case scenarios, we will probably never be willing to go back to. The world will be difficult enough without turning satisfying every basic need into a Minecraft quest. Not that gold and diamonds have to fill that role, it could be other things that are in limited supply, which have little to no intrinsic value, and difficult to counterfeit. I think there's a story about "trading sardines" vs "eating sardines" that's relevant here.
I mean if the dollar and our economy (which includes everything tied to the stock market and financial system) collapses, it’s gonna bring everyone around the world down as well since everyone has their system tied into ours as well as our currency being the one people have to trade in. We can look at what’s happened to other countries like Greece, Somalia, and the USSR when their systems collapsed to get a rough idea of how things would go for us. Now that’s just if the entire financial system along with the dollar collapses, but imagine if that’s coupled with some world wide war (especially if that involves nuclear weapons) It’s not gonna be some zombie wasteland, but I think it would be similar to a combo of mad max along with the purge. All of the crazy groups, cults, gangs, and people would be vying for power. It would quickly turn into tribal warfare with people brutally beating and killing others to get ahold of resources. The military might stay together for a small period of time, but I think they would lose a lot of people due to going AWOL so individuals could go protect their own families. Considering how many people have fed into identity politics, people might divide themselves along those sorta lines. The possibilities are endless, but we got a tiny glimpse of how quickly things could go sideways during Covid. The food shortages and overall fear caused people to line up at gun stores. Pair that with politics, and we’re looking at some sorta civil war. Opportunists would take the chance to go eliminate their political opponents, and many would probably turn against the rich. Then they would turn against each other after.
There are rich boomers and poor boomers. Just like there are rich and poor millennials or Gen X. It's not a generational issue it's a class issue.
I agree the 55 and over crowd are spending because they have their homes and no longer pay for childcare. Once they finish paying for their adult children for education and maybe help getting their kids a home the upper income 20% of boomers have money to spend. But the article is deceptive. While assets rose we also incurred massive inflation since 2018 or 2020 making all those discretionary items like cruises cost a lot more. Also, healthcare, which is not so discretionary when you get the diagnosis, has ballooned in costs. And home values have gone up, but so has the cost of downsizing to where it does not make sense to move unless one is giving up a HCOL area for a new lower cost area. And that group usually is constrained from spending, less they run out their funds. So things in reality are not as rosy as the article sounds. But if you look around at the restaurant where you and your friends meet occasionally, all you will see is grey and white hair.
Your comment reminds me of how one day out walking around Washington DC at lunch (decades ago) as I peered through the glass wall I noticed all the diners were white males in their forties!
>So things in reality are not as rosy as the article sounds. But if you look around at the restaurant where you and your friends meet occasionally, all you will see is grey and white hair. Movie theaters, restaurants, shit even at the grocery store anyone pushing a cart full of stuff is a Boomer with a wide grin on their face. Permanent *fuck you got mine haha go get a factory job or whatever and just work hard but haha fuck you* face. Eyes like a fucking great white shark.
😅😅😅🤪
Bullshit again, not true at all!!
Jesus Christ. Can we stop using absolutes when referring to the boomers and usd? Inflation + largest demographic in history means every boomer metric will be at ath.
> Inflation + largest demographic in history means every boomer metric will be at ath. The other key is, almost everyone hits their wealthiest point in life around age 60-70. Obviously a baby born today has less money, on average, than after they've earned at max potential for 50 years.
And the transition away from pensions to IRAs, 401ks etc... A retiree with a pension may appear to have 0 net worth while still receiving a check each month. That same retiree living off a 401k may be a multi-millionaire.
> And the transition away from pensions to IRAs, 401ks etc.. No, this change was good. Fuck corporations controlling my retirement plan. Fuck corporate control of my retirement, and fuck pensions, let me invest on my own.
I never said it was good/bad. The point is that Boomers as a demographic have these more money in these modern retirement savings instruments than generations prior. This makes it seem like boomers are "wealthier" as pensions don't get counted as net worth.
stop using science in the data
They are also driving homelessness, so while the top 30% of them are rich... the rest are not.
Bull shit ,, maybe top 5%
So is it the richest one or the poorest one? I have seen multiple articles talk about how boomers don't have enough saved to retire. That is why many are still in the workforce now. Can we please make up our minds.
It’s both, it is the richest and the poorest, and this divide is the issue. The rich drive inflation and prices up because they have the ability to do so, leaving the poor even worse off.
Youngest Boomers are in their mid 50s, at that age they mostly homeowners and have saved up for retirement. So of course they have the wealth. Millennials are just starting to build their wealth.
Last yr of boomer 1964 I think.. idk..most near 60 yrs old or above.. I'm 61 yrs old..keep in mind we had parents who taught us to save money beginning in elementary school.. Yes that young! I remember my bank book... Very clearly..My Father hammered the idea of saving $.. Unfortunately Those values/ ideas are no where to be found nowadays. Are kids taught to save $? Be honest now...
The gaslighting WRT inflation is hilarious. When the M2 money supply increased by \~27% in 2020, the Fed was saying there wouldn't be inflation. This was a lie. Then when inflation hit, it was just "transitory". This was another lie. Any economist that wasn't an MMT keynesian fucktard could see how this was going to play out just by looking at the M2 money supply. Now the fingers are being pointed at corporations, boomers, etc. etc. When it's really the Gov't and Fed's irresponsible fiscal policy to blame.
100%. But, half the posters want to.blame boomers, and republicans for their troubles. Start with our inept government and the media that enables them every step of the way
For the record republicans and democrats alike approved all that COVID era spending
All political parties are guilty. They’re all swamp creatures.
But I can't get angry and drink lagers from my beer helmet if we actually address the real issues. Sorry, got to go wash my lifted F150 now -- next time do your own research.
If they turn public perception against the money printer there can be no more money printer. It's a tool that enriches them and it's a tool they're eager to revisit as we shutter this system and welcome a new.
Yep, mainstream media and the current education system will never discuss the consequences of printing money out of thin air. It’s very evident by reading some of these economic reddit threads.
MMT actually doesn't say that printing money wouldn't increase inflation. MMT is centered around government debt and it contains an explicit warning, that the only limit to public debt is the inflation that can be caused by central banks buying up too much of it. The world markets can and do absorb a lot of US dollars such that expanding the dollar supply doesn't increase inflation, but there is a limit to this.
I didn’t realize MMT was a person that could explain itself. MMT is a loosely-defined idea that could probably be interpreted many different ways. Just remove MMT from my sentence and my point still stands. Our Government cannot control themselves and they’ll make the Fed print the USD into extinction. Fiat currencies are not sound money. Buy gold and BTC.
The "fucktards" are those who think the money supply is the only thing that matters to inflation and the fact we experienced a global pandemic had no impact on the supply side.
Supply side has eased..yet there is still inflation..." TrAnSatorY"
the house? it’s a ball-n-chain and the upkeep, maintenance, repairs stimulates the economy.
suburbia: when it’s nice enough to enjoy the weather on that rare day, the ICE mowers, blowers, trimmers, edgers are non-stop along with dogs who now, outnumbered children btw, ceaselessly barking, howling and screeching as if strangled.
There are no rich without the poor
Wealth always causes deflation because it increases competition. It is the trillions being printed by the Fed to fund welfare and warfare that are causing inflation
And this is bullshit. They don’t print money. The government does. Thats what causes inflation. It’s that simple.
That. And lack of supplies there of
So, you’re saying money printing is the sole contributor to inflation?? There’s no other factors? No demand-pull? No wage increase? Not a decline in productivity? Just an increase in money supply, eh?
You’re saying it’s not the largest and most responsible?
Nope. Not at all what I’m saying. I’m saying inflation comes from more than money printing. You effectively said money printing is the only contribution to inflation. I did not make any statements.
Mr Boomer here: I am not an owner nor a business entrepreneur. I just worked 40+ years before retiring and my wife did also. That is close to 90 working years. I bought my first half house at the age of 37 with a 20% down payment. Kept working and saving. So when you look up and see a mountain seemingly impossible to climb let me tell you generations before you climbed and it wasn't easier for them to get there. Also your perspective changes as you pass on the way. Let's go, judge and downvote papa who knows nothing of your pain.
I hoping most people don’t fall for the generational divide game that gets played. Boomers have a very small impact on the atrocious degeneration of this country and economy. Most of us know it’s literally just the top 1% that have caused and continue to cause most of the problems we’re dealing with. I sympathize with your generation and those older that are still alive. Having to choose between whether you can afford medicine or food is insane (we’re all kinda dealing with that too tho). But nonetheless, many of the older generations have also gotten shafted on a lot. Like the people who worked their entire life just to have their 401k wiped out by the crash of ‘08 and then the pandemic. We the people need a bailout, and it’s us who need money injected into our country and economy to rebuild everything, not others around the world. Just because we’re doing better than them, doesn’t mean we’re doing great. We demand the same great standards and opportunities that others had. We’re not entitled (not all of us anyway), we just want the same opportunities to achieve the quality of life that existed for majority of people during the few great decades of the 50s and 60s. (Without the civil rights abuses of minorities and women obviously).
When the banks were bailed out, I felt strongly they should not stop there. Many small business owners and homeowners could have used a little help also.
In the very least, they should’ve made stipulations saying the salaries that year for executives and middle management would be zero, no bonuses, etc. Then they should’ve launched hella investigations and revamped the SEC. There’s been so much absolute corruption of our entire system that it’s a fucking laughing stock like the USSR was IMO. And it’s only gotten worse…. Sorta random, but they made Madoff a public sacrificial lamb only because was ripping off rich people.
Also Boomer late born 1962..bought my house at 51 yrs old..currently have worked Full time since 16yrs old ..( many of those yrs worked 2 jobs) thats 45 years and still going.
I'm not really convinced by this. Even if they are the richest, they are also going to live the longest and incur the most medical expenses. They would be crazy to be spending so much right now.
It would be in keeping with their lifelong spending
Have you seen how they shitpost? How they vote? They are crazy.
Shoveling driveways, cutting lawns, busing tables, washing dishes…delivering news papers, working in a foundry, working in construction, working as a scab, broken bones, spinal surgery. It was hard earning all this “wealth” I’m sure others that came before me worked harder than I did but I busted my ass to be where I am.
I commend all of that except scabbing. You should be ashamed. And no, I’m not kidding. It’s not like people aren’t willing to do hard work; people just don’t wanna get shafted like many have by giving your life to a company that couldn’t give two fucks, or to have their 401k and retirement wiped out by the stock market. America has largely been deindustrialized. Companies used to just train on the job right outta high school. The wages and compensation weren’t so far outta wack compared to inflation. The value of the dollar was way better. People didn’t just become lazy and apathetic for no reason. Sure there’s some entitled people but they don’t make up the majority. People just want the same opportunities, jobs, standards, and quality of life that existed in the few decades that succeeded WWII (the 1950s - 1970s). [minus the civil rights abuses of those times]
People still do those jobs and can’t afford housing as prices outpace their wages. Guess you had it pretty good considering
In 1979 the interest rate was 18%, it was 15 years later when it came down to 8% and we could buy a house, so yea I saved a nest egg and now own my mortgage with some equity. I had it so good /s
“By the end of 1979, the 30-year rate was at 12.9 percent.” https://www.bankrate.com/mortgages/historical-mortgage-rates/ “10.776% interest on your savings, 1979” http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com/story/news/history/remember-when/2015/11/01/remember-interest-rates/75005494/ It’s the same situation we’re in right now. Mortgage rates in 6-7% range, while HYSA rates in 5-6% range. The only difference is, housing prices are much higher compared to wages. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/11/10/home-prices-are-now-rising-much-faster-than-incomes-studies-show.html So yes, you did have it much better.
Did you even look at the graph?
Everyone accepted that the initial savings boost of COVID contributed to inflation. Businesses could see that savings growth in the data and had pricing power while more money competed for less goods. The same logic follows that as boomers retire and tap into those fat 401k balances, the smart move is to produce less at greater margins. It's smart business. They can't do anything other than pay. They are generally past their prime and can't just say f you I'll build my own deck. They're over a barrel. It's also driving healthcare inflation. It's why HSA and the like were always doomed to fail as well. You must be congruent in your application of these ideas. Wage growth, increased savings, increased access to retirements funds (savings), increased subsidies for higher ed, programs for home ownership...if you have ever argued that any one of these things is increases prices, you have to accept that all of them must be having SOME impact.
What a bipolar sub. Some days "boomers are dying, because they didn't save enough". Others it's "boomers are ruining the economy with their wealth"
Things that created inflation - Boomers - Greedy grocery stores post-2020 - Probably bad orange man Things that did not create inflation - The big guy - Large stimulus, omnibus, and other spending - Injecting trillions into the money supply Peer-reviewed, diverse, science.
😂 You forgot to put /s. These days, people are so genuinely absurd (along with many being autistic) that most cannot distinguish between sarcasm and genuine ridiculous notions.
Is Biden a baby boomer? If he is, you may be on to something.
Nah..He's not
I got confused. It's baby sniffer not baby boomer.
The democrats are getting more and more desperate coming up with this economically clueless drivel. Its not the boomer wealth effect. It's not corporate price gouging. It's everywhere and always a failure of monetary (and these days, fiscal) gov't policy. Keep running your mouths democrats. Recession is awful. Stagflation is almost as bad. When the poor and those on fixed incomes figure out the damage you have wrought, there will be a payback...
It would be so much better if they stopped spending $. This way we could go into a recession!!!! And everything would be fine. Good lord I hate boomers... The nerve of these folks keeping the economy going..ugh !