3 ms·

Any time you read words like this: "We’re a generation in which children were empowered by promises that they could grow up to be anything they wanted to be."

Any time you read words like this: "We’re a generation in which children were empowered by promises that they could grow up to be anything they wanted to be." You should remember that, since 1973, wages have been declining for the majority of men in the USA: http://www.smashcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Screen-Shot-2014-03-31-at-12.13.58-PM.png http://www.smashcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Scree... Women have seen some modest improvement in wages, but for the most part, the era since 1973 has been a very bad one for American workers. For young men, the problems started as early as the recession of 1958. That was the year that the ratio of average wage to average rent hit its all time best, making it easy for a young couple to set themselves up with their own place. For that reason, this was also the peak of the Baby Boom.

JonFish85 11y ago
How does your point follow from the quote you supplied? Nobody ever claimed that anyone would be RICH by being "anything they wanted to be". There are probably more career options today that are within reach for people, but that doesn't mean a person can shut off their brain and blindly jump at an idea for fun. Following dreams is great, as long as you keep an eye out for consequences. If you want to work as a museum curator, by all means go for it, as long as you don't expect to be able to buy the same car, same house, and take the same vacations as someone who goes into a higher paying vocation. The problems arise when people realize too late that "hey, I took out $100k in loans to go to college for a job that pays $35k". Unfortunately, in that situation it's going to mean a lifetime of living in smaller apartments, having crappier cars, fewer vacations, etc than someone who chose differently. And that's not necessarily a bad thing! If following a dream means more to this person than these things, that's great! But let's not pretend that "grow up to be anything you want to be" necessarily means "...and you can afford to pay for everything you dream also".
- lkrubner 11y ago
  "anything they wanted to be" might include options such as "be a parent" and, without question, falling wages is a difficulty if you want to be a parent.
  - __z 11y ago
    >falling wages is a difficulty if you want to be a parent. I would agree with that! I would also make the point that parents nowadays feel like they "need" to spend very lavishly on their children. Companies have gotten very good at convincing parents they "need" all this extra stuff for their kids and more space to store more stuff. I grew up in a family of 5 in 1,200 sq/ft apartment. Nowadays my friend (who also has a family of 5) is moving out of her 2,500 sq/ft house because her family "needs more space." Somehow my generation and my parent's generation grew up with a lot less and still made it to adulthood. You can't discount cultural influences. (I also think the need to live in a "good" school district is very overrated and I was in a very, very bad school district my whole childhood.)
yummyfajitas 11y ago
Wages being flat/declining is solely because compensation has shifted from wages to non-wage compensation. https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/COMPRNFB https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/COMPRNFB Things have been fine for workers.
- aidenn0 11y ago
  So workers are fine because they are partially shielded from the soaring cost of health-care?
  - zo1 11y ago
    It has nothing to do with that. It's simple a matter of converting the cost/value of the additional benefits in the form of employer health-care and other things, and adding that on top of the salary as if they are the same. Seems pretty logical to me when I look at my paycheck and make that calculation. Am I happy that my employer has control over my medical expenses? Probably not. Am I happy that they get huge discounts from insurance companies on my behalf(and that of their other employees)? Probably am.
    - aidenn0 11y ago
      Employer health-care coverage has been widespread for most, if not all, of that time. So if my paycheck is slightly down from what it would have been 40 years ago, then 40 years ago I have both health insurance, plus more money (and possibly a defined benefit pension). How am I better off today?
      - yummyfajitas 11y ago
        I'm certainly better off today - 40 years ago a lot of activities would have been off limits to me. For example, walking, sitting, missionary position, sleeping on my side, basically everything besides lying on my back. Health insurance simply would not have paid $infinity for me to have treatments that were not yet invented. As you might expect, these treatments have caused the price of health insurance to go up.

JonFish85 11y ago

How does your point follow from the quote you supplied? Nobody ever claimed that anyone would be RICH by being "anything they wanted to be". There are probably more career options today that are within reach for people, but that doesn't mean a person can shut off their brain and blindly jump at an idea for fun. Following dreams is great, as long as you keep an eye out for consequences. If you want to work as a museum curator, by all means go for it, as long as you don't expect to be able to buy the same car, same house, and take the same vacations as someone who goes into a higher paying vocation. The problems arise when people realize too late that "hey, I took out $100k in loans to go to college for a job that pays $35k". Unfortunately, in that situation it's going to mean a lifetime of living in smaller apartments, having crappier cars, fewer vacations, etc than someone who chose differently. And that's not necessarily a bad thing! If following a dream means more to this person than these things, that's great! But let's not pretend that "grow up to be anything you want to be" necessarily means "...and you can afford to pay for everything you dream also".

lkrubner 11y ago
"anything they wanted to be" might include options such as "be a parent" and, without question, falling wages is a difficulty if you want to be a parent.
- __z 11y ago
  >falling wages is a difficulty if you want to be a parent. I would agree with that! I would also make the point that parents nowadays feel like they "need" to spend very lavishly on their children. Companies have gotten very good at convincing parents they "need" all this extra stuff for their kids and more space to store more stuff. I grew up in a family of 5 in 1,200 sq/ft apartment. Nowadays my friend (who also has a family of 5) is moving out of her 2,500 sq/ft house because her family "needs more space." Somehow my generation and my parent's generation grew up with a lot less and still made it to adulthood. You can't discount cultural influences. (I also think the need to live in a "good" school district is very overrated and I was in a very, very bad school district my whole childhood.)

yummyfajitas 11y ago

Wages being flat/declining is solely because compensation has shifted from wages to non-wage compensation. https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/COMPRNFB https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/COMPRNFB Things have been fine for workers.

aidenn0 11y ago
So workers are fine because they are partially shielded from the soaring cost of health-care?
- zo1 11y ago
  It has nothing to do with that. It's simple a matter of converting the cost/value of the additional benefits in the form of employer health-care and other things, and adding that on top of the salary as if they are the same. Seems pretty logical to me when I look at my paycheck and make that calculation. Am I happy that my employer has control over my medical expenses? Probably not. Am I happy that they get huge discounts from insurance companies on my behalf(and that of their other employees)? Probably am.
  - aidenn0 11y ago
    Employer health-care coverage has been widespread for most, if not all, of that time. So if my paycheck is slightly down from what it would have been 40 years ago, then 40 years ago I have both health insurance, plus more money (and possibly a defined benefit pension). How am I better off today?
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      I'm certainly better off today - 40 years ago a lot of activities would have been off limits to me. For example, walking, sitting, missionary position, sleeping on my side, basically everything besides lying on my back. Health insurance simply would not have paid $infinity for me to have treatments that were not yet invented. As you might expect, these treatments have caused the price of health insurance to go up.