Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The era when telephone answering machines were only for the well to do ended in about 1974-5. No rent control in the mid seventies in California. NYC and several other eastern cities, yes.
You are both correct in your observations. What I think is also important for people to ponder is: only for part of the last century was it ever possible to have ownership of homes and cars and material wealth and investments as was the case you refer to now as benchmark.
For thousands and thousands of years, only nobility and the sharpest of the merchant class lived with security and property comforts and leisure. Opportunities to prosper and enter nobility status or be a highly successful merchant were rare as hens' teeth. Along comes the industrial revolution - things slowly start to change. More opportunities. Consumerism as a cultural model was then advanced by some market economists and banker types. Technology fed the machine. Voila - off to the races! Population explodes. Houston, we have a virtually unlimited market for our productivity!
This is recent. Blink of an historical eye. And now, opportunities abound. But the model we sell ourselves is completely unsustainable. Hundreds of millions of Americans ... and 7 billion humans worldwide ... can't live in single family homes with fenced yards, multi-car garages full of gleaming machines and toys, thousands of square feet of climate controlled view rooms full of entertainment and labor saving devices, walk-in closets full of trendy fashions ... all located in pleasurable climates.
Even were the material aspects derived sustainably and waste produced not toxic ... the human body/mind can't process and manage the physical and psychological demands of so much ownership and distraction.
Old nobility had the money and power to have their world cared for by the indentured. The general population has to take care of its own crap individually.
The more we perpetuate these material myths ... the more people will end up on the streets.
You must have read Thomas Piketty?
In the book he explains that middle class prosperity post world war II was not normal but was more of a black swan event occuring because: "we saw a sharp decline in wealth inequality in the wealthy countries from 1910 to 1980 are that there were substantial destructions of capital in the two World Wars, plus high taxes levied on the wealthy to finance the wars, which could not be paid for otherwise. Then, after World War II, there were very rapid growth rates possible as the various countries played catch-up to get back to their pre-war growth trends."
He goes on to explain what happens when R (return on investment) is greater than G (growth rate) Which is what we have right now: "In all probability, developed countries can only expect to see growth, after inflation, of 1% to 1.5% per year. Of course, China and some other developing countries are growing more rapidly, but as they reach the technological frontier, their growth will slow. Meanwhile, the return on investment is more on the order of 4-5% annually. Thus, for industrialized countries, there is considerable danger that the wealth will become significantly more concentrated, and Piketty considers it obvious that high inequality is dangerous to democracy." So it would appear that if the growth rate doesn't substantially increase the Trump tax bill will further exacerbate income inequality. 1
In the book he explains that middle class prosperity post world war II was not normal but was more of a black swan event occuring because: "we saw a sharp decline in wealth inequality in the wealthy countries from 1910 to 1980 are that there were substantial destructions of capital in the two World Wars, plus high taxes levied on the wealthy to finance the wars, which could not be paid for otherwise. Then, after World War II, there were very rapid growth rates possible as the various countries played catch-up to get back to their pre-war growth trends."
He goes on to explain what happens when R (return on investment) is greater than G (growth rate) Which is what we have right now: "In all probability, developed countries can only expect to see growth, after inflation, of 1% to 1.5% per year. Of course, China and some other developing countries are growing more rapidly, but as they reach the technological frontier, their growth will slow. Meanwhile, the return on investment is more on the order of 4-5% annually. Thus, for industrialized countries, there is considerable danger that the wealth will become significantly more concentrated, and Piketty considers it obvious that high inequality is dangerous to democracy." So it would appear that if the growth rate doesn't substantially increase the Trump tax bill will further exacerbate income inequality. 1
Virtually all tax bills in the Fed or State Gov'ts do that. Look at the recent tax increases (and fees) in CA. They hit the poor more than the rich.
In the book he explains that middle class prosperity post world war II was not normal but was more of a black swan event occuring because: "we saw a sharp decline in wealth inequality in the wealthy countries from 1910 to 1980 are that there were substantial destructions of capital in the two World Wars, plus high taxes levied on the wealthy to finance the wars, which could not be paid for otherwise. Then, after World War II, there were very rapid growth rates possible as the various countries played catch-up to get back to their pre-war growth trends."
He goes on to explain what happens when R (return on investment) is greater than G (growth rate) Which is what we have right now: "In all probability, developed countries can only expect to see growth, after inflation, of 1% to 1.5% per year. Of course, China and some other developing countries are growing more rapidly, but as they reach the technological frontier, their growth will slow. Meanwhile, the return on investment is more on the order of 4-5% annually. Thus, for industrialized countries, there is considerable danger that the wealth will become significantly more concentrated, and Piketty considers it obvious that high inequality is dangerous to democracy." So it would appear that if the growth rate doesn't substantially increase the Trump tax bill will further exacerbate income inequality. 1
Am aware of ... but have not read, other than summaries. I am not an economist. But I am a well enough (self) educated person in anthropologic studies and history in general to note that the period of which Piketty references is the most anomalous era for human societal development in all time. We should we very circumspect at using its bounties as benchmarks for our collective future.
Wow. When I was just out of college, back in the Stone Age, the rent for our apartment in West L.A. was $400 for a 2 bedroom apartment, in a new building with security. Health insurance was under $12 deducted from your paycheck. Few people had student loans. We used typewriters; there was no fee for either television or (obviously) the Internet. Telephone answering machines were only for the select few who could afford them.
So, come on. It was nothing like it is now for this generation.
And when was that?
Sorry, this isn't the first generation who struggled. In many ways they have it much easier. We now have tons of information right at our fingertips. I'm old enough to have had to go to the library go to a card catalog(remember those), go find the books, look through the books to get the research to be able to write the term paper, what took hours now takes minutes.
There was City Data to ask for advice on LA or any other place, you either were lucky enough to have people give you advice(people you knew) or you learned the hard way.
My first 5 years in LA were tough, so let's not pretend like it just got complicated in 2010.
Few people had student loans? When did you go to college? 1953? I went in the mid 80s and everyone had student loans. I was paying mine off until I was in my early 30s.
I do realize student loans have gotten outrageous, but I also know two young people who turned up their noses at community college for 2 years and than transfer to a university and live away from home, oh no, they had to do all 4 years at the expensive university.
Sorry, this isn't the first generation who struggled. In many ways they have it much easier. We now have tons of information right at our fingertips. I'm old enough to have had to go to the library go to a card catalog(remember those), go find the books, look through the books to get the research to be able to write the term paper, what took hours now takes minutes.
There was City Data to ask for advice on LA or any other place, you either were lucky enough to have people give you advice(people you knew) or you learned the hard way.
My first 5 years in LA were tough, so let's not pretend like it just got complicated in 2010.
Few people had student loans? When did you go to college? 1953? I went in the mid 80s and everyone had student loans. I was paying mine off until I was in my early 30s.
I do realize student loans have gotten outrageous, but I also know two young people who turned up their noses at community college for 2 years and than transfer to a university and live away from home, oh no, they had to do all 4 years at the expensive university.
True, theres alot of people that arent wise with their money.
But lets not pretend that it isn’t known that this generation will be poorer than the previous.
True, theres alot of people that arent wise with their money.
But lets not pretend that it isn’t known that this generation will be poorer than the previous.
OK, but who's going to the clubs here? Shopping at Whole Foods? Standing in line when the latest device that cost several hundred dollars is released? People under 30.
As an example I mentioned the club "The Abbey" in West Hollywood. I had gone there years ago when it was just a coffee house, now people pay $12 just to park their car, $15 for a drink, maybe a cover charge..getting the picture? I get tired of hearing people cry "poormouth" when they're stupid enough to p**s away all that they earn, or worse use credit cards to run up bar tabs.
There was a rash of cell phone thefts there, people(again young people) that their $600 phone was stolen.
Even if I was younger I would go to places that have street parking(for free) and realistic drink prices.
Not that long ago I met a friend at a trendy DTLA restaurant for lunch, couldn't help but notice the patrons were late 20s maybe early 30s, I had burger for $14( it was tiny and fries were extra), had a margarita($10 tiny rocks glass), the bill for the two of us with one drink each and burgers and fries was over $70..never again...LOL, and had to pay to park....so again if younger people who are making good money but thinking this is how to spend it.....oh well.
Virtually all tax bills in the Fed or State Gov'ts do that. Look at the recent tax increases (and fees) in CA. They hit the poor more than the rich.
RE: "High inequality is dangerous to democracy"
This is in part true if 1) the disparities are vast; and 2) a very large segment of society is not able to escape the lowest rung of society for extended periods of time --yes, even Tocqueville acknowledged some societal danger. However, the broader issue really is class envy which has been used repeatedly effectively and cynically for political gain by Marxist regimes, and is now seen more recently, in Western countries.
The problem is that all people do not have the same attributes and abilities. All people do not have the same IQ. All people do not have the same aptitudes. In addition, not all cultures are equal and some are better suited towards success in our modern age while others, frankly, are failing.
Last, if leftists were really concerned with this terrible boogeyman of inequality, they wouldn't be hell bent on bringing endless waves of poor immigrants -- often unimaginably poor -- ignorant, lacking in skills, and originating from countries with vastly divergent cultures for whom assimilation will be extremely difficult, e..g Somalia.
True, theres alot of people that arent wise with their money.
But lets not pretend that it isn’t known that this generation will be poorer than the previous.
1 in 6 millennials has $100,000 or more saved now .
I was kind of surprised when I read.
“Millennials are pushing back against the stereotype that their money management skills are lacking, as 16% now have savings of $100,000 or more, double the amount of young people who had socked away that much in 2015, according to a new Bank of America survey.
The perception that Millennials — Americans between the ages of 23 and 37 — lack savvy when it comes to saving for retirement, budgeting and setting up and sticking to a financial plan is showing signs of being outdated, noted the survey, made available exclusively to USA TODAY. ”
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
