6 ms·

Rebuilding what nation? The U.S. was unscathed and came out roaring. Everybody could get jobs, college was cheap, home ownership was a given. And don't forget,

by muninn_ 10y ago

Rebuilding what nation? The U.S. was unscathed and came out roaring. Everybody could get jobs, college was cheap, home ownership was a given. And don't forget, millennials have been shouldering this global war on terror crap for the last 15 years. While WW2 was horrific, at least they were fighting for something they believed in, and at least it was over after 4 years. Oh and then add in the second worst financial crisis ever putting millions out of work, and crushing student loan debt in order to even participate in the workforce. The greatest generation fought the greatest war, but their kids were the worst American generation we've ever had.

gizmo 10y ago
What nation? Italy, Spain, UK, Germany, Belgium, Greece, Serbia, France, Russia, Japan, you name it. Because of this worldwide rebuilding effort there was an incredible demand for products, construction, and so forth. US industry and exports boomed as a result. The greatest generation in the US had it a lot easier than their peers in Europe, but the economics are intertwined. By focusing exclusively on US prosperity you're missing that. The US prospered in large part _because_ of the miserable rebuilding effort in the rest of the world. WW2 also lasted for 6 years, not 4. As for your claim that boomers are the worst generation in American history, surely you're not suggesting that they're worse than the slave-holding generations? That position is frankly untenable.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  Even so, their war actually ended. The Boomers experimented with extended war in Vietnam from about 1961 to around 1973, as the prototype. Gen X got to grow up with the Cold War, as the test type. Now Millennials get the production-model War on Terror, where the enemy is intentionally faceless, so that they can't spoil anything by surrendering, being defeated, or going bankrupt. The bogeyman is dead; fear now the new bogeyman. I think perhaps the concept of continual war has been advanced to conceal the fact that we as a civilization don't really need all hands on deck any more. Governments have been inventing busy work for people, desperately hoping that no one notices that an increasing fraction of the necessary labor is being done by robots, and unskilled laborers have become increasingly superfluous. But the Puritanical, Calvinist, Bradfordian cultural undercurrents in the US frown deeply and disapprovingly on idleness, even as those doing the majority of the frowning and tsk-tsk-ing are now "retired". In the slave-holding generations, the institution of slavery was largely perpetuated by wealthy plantation-owners, as a political minority. Slaves could escape on foot. Nowadays, the student loan debts may not be discharged in bankruptcy, and will follow you to the far ends of the Earth if you run. You generally cannot inhabit a dwelling without steep rent or mortgage debt. You cannot work without making payments into a system that transfers 15% of your earnings to mostly the retired Boomers, through a system that may not even be solvent at the time Gen X starts retiring. Is that worse than slavery? That's a matter of opinion. I think most would say not, but some might say yes sarcastically or as hyperbole in addition to those with a genuine and vehement disdain of Boomers.
  - gizmo 10y ago
    Having to pay taxes and being burdened by college debt sucks, but it's not comparable to real actual enslavement. Your excuses why people might make that absurd claim (desire to engine in hyperbole and disdain for the Boomer generation) don't change the fact that slavery is worse. Your post is also bad history. Firstly, a full third of households held enslaved people in the south. Not just the rich elites. Secondly, enslaved people couldn't just run away. Of course some tried but the risk of getting caught was very high and the consequences dire: > The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 strengthened provisions for the recapture of slaves, and offered them no protection in the justice system. Bounty hunters and civilians could lawfully capture escaped slaves in the North, or any other place, using little more than an affidavit, and return them to the Slave master. > Many escaped slaves upon return were to face harsh punishments such as amputation of limbs, whippings, branding, and many other horrible acts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_slaves_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_slaves_in_the_United_...) Not exactly comparable to the burden of college debt, wouldn't you say?
    - logfromblammo 10y ago
      Interesting choice of statistics, there. Most of that third of all households kept fewer than 10 slaves, if they even had more than just one. The majority of all slaves were held by a relatively small number of households representing the richest people in the South. The history of the Underground Railroad and Caribbean slave rebellions shows that it was, in fact, possible for slaves to escape slavery. Smuggling yourself to Canada won't get you away from Experian et al. But if you had read my post more carefully, you might have noticed that I did say that most people would share the opinion that slavery is worse, and those who did not were probably just doing it for rhetorical effect. It's the same sort of behavior as saying someone is "literally Hitler"--extreme hyperbole.
- muninn_ 10y ago
  We were discussing the United States in that context, I thought. Hopefully this was clear as I mentioned 4 years duration (1941-1945 versus 1939-1945) and the resulting economic prosperity which was heavily weighted toward the United States.
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  We're not talking about other countries, the context of the discussion here was clearly about the US, as seen in the reference to Millennial economic troubles which is an issue in the US today. For the US, the war lasted 4 years, not 6. No, slave-holding generations weren't worse, because not everyone owned slaves; that was mostly unique to the South. That's like claiming that Millennials suck because they all love 4x4s and mudding and having lots of guns and are big Trump fans. The US fought a nasty war over that issue because most of the population was not part of the slave-holding class, and even the poor white people in the South didn't own slaves either, only the rich ones, though they suckered the poor ones into fighting for their stupid cause.
randomdata 10y ago
> college was cheap To be fair, that's largely because engagement was so low[1]. Under 10% of the population were college graduates. If we returned to those levels, costs would drop dramatically. [1] http://i.imgur.com/1xUOimy.jpg http://i.imgur.com/1xUOimy.jpg > home ownership was a given But so was living in small town/rural areas, something that is completely unfathomable to most people these days. Like college attainment, urbanization is an upward trend. The difficulty of trying to fit more and more people into a relatively fixed area is what is largely responsible for the increased difficulty of affording a home. The real problem here is that we think we can do what they did, with our own unique twist on it. If we actually lived like they did, those would still be true today. But we expect more, and that comes with a cost.
- muninn_ 10y ago
  The "real" problem here is that THEY think we can do what they did. Want to get a job? Have to get a college degree, hence a lot more people in college. Even with home ownership I don't think the issue is as simple as urbanization. I'd say it's more related to something like wage stagnation versus property value increases. Although I'm lucky enough to afford my own place, many of my friends can't because they can't afford to save enough because of rent prices... and it would take them 10 years to save even a down payment. That's just an example though. In U.S., Canada, and Europe (in general) it seems like the best cities and even marginally great cities are filling up with foreign investors looking for an asset to hide their money in so their corrupt governments don't take it from them. Vancouver is the colloquial example here I think. Personally, I'd propose some sort of live-in requirement for all foreign-owned home real estate. If you're not living there or renting it out (which means rent would have to be affordable) then you should lose the property. I don't have an issue with anybody moving to the U.S. or anything, but actually come live here and don't just buy property to drive up housing costs for the people that actually live and work here. (FWIW this isn't something I deal with as I own my own place etc. etc. )
  - randomdata 10y ago
    > Want to get a job? Have to get a college degree, hence a lot more people in college. Respectfully, that's absolutely ridiculous. As you can see, even now those with degrees are only 30% of the population. The unemployment rate is nowhere near 70%, I can assure you. I am willing to agree that the numbers have gone up because people fell for the marketing that told them they wouldn't find work without a degree, but that's entirely on them. We wouldn't give them sympathy if they bought an iPhone, that they couldn't afford, because Apple told them they had to have one. > Even with home ownership I don't think the issue is as simple as urbanization. It still comes down to supply and demand, and cities tend to be land-locked, leaving up the only way to expand. But as most people still desire detached homes, up is not an option to help with that market. Not to mention zoning issues, financial issues, etc. that can add considerable time to making upward growth available to those who are interested. Outside of that, the only thing that can give is on the demand side, but these cities continue to grow by leaps and bounds regardless. Outside the cities, where supply is effectively unlimited and demand has waned in favour of urban living, we can find markets where houses have gone down in price. > I'd say it's more related to something like wage stagnation Which clearly dispels any myths that more education leads to higher incomes, so that isn't a justification for being there either, in case you were thinking it (many do, sadly). > Vancouver is the colloquial example here I think. I don't know why Vancouver gets all the attention. I think it is because Canada typically reports using mean, while most of the rest of the world use median. The mean average will tend to skew higher given the nature of the market, so it sounds scary to those not paying attention. The median home price in San Francisco is about $1.1M USD[1]. The median home price in Vancouver is about $540,000 USD[2]. [1] http://www.zillow.com/san-francisco-ca/home-values/ http://www.zillow.com/san-francisco-ca/home-values/ [2] http://www.timescolonist.com/news/b-c/real-time-sales-numbers-show-decline-in-average-vancouver-home-prices-1.2327591 http://www.timescolonist.com/news/b-c/real-time-sales-number... Now, the median income in Vancouver is about $20,000 USD per year lower than in SF, but $20K isn't anywhere near enough to cover an additional $560,000 on a mortgage. Not even close. So, in reality, the issue is far more apparent in SF than it is in Vancouver.

by muninn_ 10y ago

gizmo 10y ago

What nation? Italy, Spain, UK, Germany, Belgium, Greece, Serbia, France, Russia, Japan, you name it. Because of this worldwide rebuilding effort there was an incredible demand for products, construction, and so forth. US industry and exports boomed as a result. The greatest generation in the US had it a lot easier than their peers in Europe, but the economics are intertwined. By focusing exclusively on US prosperity you're missing that. The US prospered in large part _because_ of the miserable rebuilding effort in the rest of the world. WW2 also lasted for 6 years, not 4. As for your claim that boomers are the worst generation in American history, surely you're not suggesting that they're worse than the slave-holding generations? That position is frankly untenable.

logfromblammo 10y ago
Even so, their war actually ended. The Boomers experimented with extended war in Vietnam from about 1961 to around 1973, as the prototype. Gen X got to grow up with the Cold War, as the test type. Now Millennials get the production-model War on Terror, where the enemy is intentionally faceless, so that they can't spoil anything by surrendering, being defeated, or going bankrupt. The bogeyman is dead; fear now the new bogeyman. I think perhaps the concept of continual war has been advanced to conceal the fact that we as a civilization don't really need all hands on deck any more. Governments have been inventing busy work for people, desperately hoping that no one notices that an increasing fraction of the necessary labor is being done by robots, and unskilled laborers have become increasingly superfluous. But the Puritanical, Calvinist, Bradfordian cultural undercurrents in the US frown deeply and disapprovingly on idleness, even as those doing the majority of the frowning and tsk-tsk-ing are now "retired". In the slave-holding generations, the institution of slavery was largely perpetuated by wealthy plantation-owners, as a political minority. Slaves could escape on foot. Nowadays, the student loan debts may not be discharged in bankruptcy, and will follow you to the far ends of the Earth if you run. You generally cannot inhabit a dwelling without steep rent or mortgage debt. You cannot work without making payments into a system that transfers 15% of your earnings to mostly the retired Boomers, through a system that may not even be solvent at the time Gen X starts retiring. Is that worse than slavery? That's a matter of opinion. I think most would say not, but some might say yes sarcastically or as hyperbole in addition to those with a genuine and vehement disdain of Boomers.
- gizmo 10y ago
  Having to pay taxes and being burdened by college debt sucks, but it's not comparable to real actual enslavement. Your excuses why people might make that absurd claim (desire to engine in hyperbole and disdain for the Boomer generation) don't change the fact that slavery is worse. Your post is also bad history. Firstly, a full third of households held enslaved people in the south. Not just the rich elites. Secondly, enslaved people couldn't just run away. Of course some tried but the risk of getting caught was very high and the consequences dire: > The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 strengthened provisions for the recapture of slaves, and offered them no protection in the justice system. Bounty hunters and civilians could lawfully capture escaped slaves in the North, or any other place, using little more than an affidavit, and return them to the Slave master. > Many escaped slaves upon return were to face harsh punishments such as amputation of limbs, whippings, branding, and many other horrible acts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_slaves_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_slaves_in_the_United_...) Not exactly comparable to the burden of college debt, wouldn't you say?
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    Interesting choice of statistics, there. Most of that third of all households kept fewer than 10 slaves, if they even had more than just one. The majority of all slaves were held by a relatively small number of households representing the richest people in the South. The history of the Underground Railroad and Caribbean slave rebellions shows that it was, in fact, possible for slaves to escape slavery. Smuggling yourself to Canada won't get you away from Experian et al. But if you had read my post more carefully, you might have noticed that I did say that most people would share the opinion that slavery is worse, and those who did not were probably just doing it for rhetorical effect. It's the same sort of behavior as saying someone is "literally Hitler"--extreme hyperbole.
muninn_ 10y ago
We were discussing the United States in that context, I thought. Hopefully this was clear as I mentioned 4 years duration (1941-1945 versus 1939-1945) and the resulting economic prosperity which was heavily weighted toward the United States.
Grishnakh 10y ago
We're not talking about other countries, the context of the discussion here was clearly about the US, as seen in the reference to Millennial economic troubles which is an issue in the US today. For the US, the war lasted 4 years, not 6. No, slave-holding generations weren't worse, because not everyone owned slaves; that was mostly unique to the South. That's like claiming that Millennials suck because they all love 4x4s and mudding and having lots of guns and are big Trump fans. The US fought a nasty war over that issue because most of the population was not part of the slave-holding class, and even the poor white people in the South didn't own slaves either, only the rich ones, though they suckered the poor ones into fighting for their stupid cause.

randomdata 10y ago

> college was cheap To be fair, that's largely because engagement was so low[1]. Under 10% of the population were college graduates. If we returned to those levels, costs would drop dramatically. [1] http://i.imgur.com/1xUOimy.jpg http://i.imgur.com/1xUOimy.jpg > home ownership was a given But so was living in small town/rural areas, something that is completely unfathomable to most people these days. Like college attainment, urbanization is an upward trend. The difficulty of trying to fit more and more people into a relatively fixed area is what is largely responsible for the increased difficulty of affording a home. The real problem here is that we think we can do what they did, with our own unique twist on it. If we actually lived like they did, those would still be true today. But we expect more, and that comes with a cost.

muninn_ 10y ago
The "real" problem here is that THEY think we can do what they did. Want to get a job? Have to get a college degree, hence a lot more people in college. Even with home ownership I don't think the issue is as simple as urbanization. I'd say it's more related to something like wage stagnation versus property value increases. Although I'm lucky enough to afford my own place, many of my friends can't because they can't afford to save enough because of rent prices... and it would take them 10 years to save even a down payment. That's just an example though. In U.S., Canada, and Europe (in general) it seems like the best cities and even marginally great cities are filling up with foreign investors looking for an asset to hide their money in so their corrupt governments don't take it from them. Vancouver is the colloquial example here I think. Personally, I'd propose some sort of live-in requirement for all foreign-owned home real estate. If you're not living there or renting it out (which means rent would have to be affordable) then you should lose the property. I don't have an issue with anybody moving to the U.S. or anything, but actually come live here and don't just buy property to drive up housing costs for the people that actually live and work here. (FWIW this isn't something I deal with as I own my own place etc. etc. )
- randomdata 10y ago
  > Want to get a job? Have to get a college degree, hence a lot more people in college. Respectfully, that's absolutely ridiculous. As you can see, even now those with degrees are only 30% of the population. The unemployment rate is nowhere near 70%, I can assure you. I am willing to agree that the numbers have gone up because people fell for the marketing that told them they wouldn't find work without a degree, but that's entirely on them. We wouldn't give them sympathy if they bought an iPhone, that they couldn't afford, because Apple told them they had to have one. > Even with home ownership I don't think the issue is as simple as urbanization. It still comes down to supply and demand, and cities tend to be land-locked, leaving up the only way to expand. But as most people still desire detached homes, up is not an option to help with that market. Not to mention zoning issues, financial issues, etc. that can add considerable time to making upward growth available to those who are interested. Outside of that, the only thing that can give is on the demand side, but these cities continue to grow by leaps and bounds regardless. Outside the cities, where supply is effectively unlimited and demand has waned in favour of urban living, we can find markets where houses have gone down in price. > I'd say it's more related to something like wage stagnation Which clearly dispels any myths that more education leads to higher incomes, so that isn't a justification for being there either, in case you were thinking it (many do, sadly). > Vancouver is the colloquial example here I think. I don't know why Vancouver gets all the attention. I think it is because Canada typically reports using mean, while most of the rest of the world use median. The mean average will tend to skew higher given the nature of the market, so it sounds scary to those not paying attention. The median home price in San Francisco is about $1.1M USD[1]. The median home price in Vancouver is about $540,000 USD[2]. [1] http://www.zillow.com/san-francisco-ca/home-values/ http://www.zillow.com/san-francisco-ca/home-values/ [2] http://www.timescolonist.com/news/b-c/real-time-sales-numbers-show-decline-in-average-vancouver-home-prices-1.2327591 http://www.timescolonist.com/news/b-c/real-time-sales-number... Now, the median income in Vancouver is about $20,000 USD per year lower than in SF, but $20K isn't anywhere near enough to cover an additional $560,000 on a mortgage. Not even close. So, in reality, the issue is far more apparent in SF than it is in Vancouver.