No, but tell me what the numbers should be for three roughly equal-sized groups with median ages of 31, 47, and 64.
At the very least, each generation should be gaining a bit more wealth. If that same graph showed every generation since the inception of the US, you would see Gen X is the first generation to be poorer than their parents.
First, poorer in absolute terms or poorer in terms of their portion of national wealth? Second, Gen X and especially Millennials have a ways to go yet. Third, as the Boomers die off their wealth is going to largely fall to their kids.
Both. Gen X is already 40+ years old!! Hell, I'm 57, so the oldest Gen X er is 56. how much of a "ways" have they got to fucking go??? Especially, when, at 18, Boomers could pay for college with a summer job? So, even at 18 Boomers had a larger share of national wealth than GenXers or Millennials. So, they starve the entire time their children are growing and by the time they're old enough to enjoy it, they can't because they've never been able to afford medical care for preventative measures resulting in younger deaths. You're version of society sucks.
Trump have heart of a ginger. Paladin is greatest heart of tiger pler off all time? https://wingcommander.fandom.com/wiki/James_Taggart
No to the former even if yes to the latter. Yes, some things were cheaper in the Boomers' prime, particularly things that are now more heavily interwoven with the government. But young people today still have those things and much, much more. I'm 52, Gen X, and at the peak of my lifetime earnings, and I have 10-15 years to go until retirement. At this age, people reach senior levels or move into management. When I was 32 (median age of Millennials now), I didn't own a home, didn't have significant savings, didn't have a retirement account, didn't have investments, and had a substantial amount of debt. But 20 years of working has reversed all of that. Between 30 and 50, things improve A LOT. But for someone who's 32 now, they probably are fairly recent entrants into their careers, probably still have college debt, may not have a home yet, and may have other priorities than investing and saving for retirement. If that someone compares themselves to someone who's 64, OF COURSE, they're going to have less. A 64 year old probably has a house (and may either have paid it off or is close to paying it off), has probably attained the peak of their career, has retirement money set aside, has investments, etc., etc. You don't get all that stuff automatically when you show up. The Boomers had it easier than you did? Tough shit. They lived in a different time. Focus on doing what's best for you. College costs have increased by 1200% in the last 40 years, way above the rate of inflation. That's what changed. You might wonder why. Well, no. Just because college was more affordable then, doesn't mean a typical 18-year-old Boomer had more than today's typical Millennial. Even the chart shows that (project the Boomer line back to age 18). "Your." And I see no evidence Millennials (or GenX) is a deprived generation. They've apparently got it so easy that they can spend vast amounts of time bellyachin' about how bad they've got it. No, kid. Your great grandfather who worked on a farm had it bad. Your grandfather who went through the Depression. Your father who got drafted into the Vietnam War. You're doing just fine.
So ..., you're a GenXer. How do you know what Boomers had at what age? And if all you're going to do is attempt to justify the disparity, then you are accepting the fact that there is a discrepancy and admitting that you are ok with it.
I have three siblings who are Boomers (I'm the youngest in the family by 10 years and very definitely of a different generation from the others). There is a disparity (at least in some sense) and I am okay with it. As I said, the Boomers lived in a different time. They were coming into their own during the 80s and 90s, when the economy was very strong but housing hadn't yet exploded. I find that complaining about some disparity is often the prelude to proposing some policy to alleviate it. Well, the Boomers have already lived their lives; they have what they have and that's all there is to it. So what's it to be? Some relief courtesy of Mother State? Who's going to pay for that? Us GenXers? We were "worse off" (in the same sense Millennials are), too; why should we get the bill? Pass it off to Gen Z so they can be even worse off?
Well, tell me your fix. Don't bring a problem without bringing a solution, as they say. If my society sucks, give me policy--not platitudes--to fix it. How are you going to rectify the "one generation doesn't have as big a proportion of the wealth at this stage in their life as a prior generation did" problem? Please make sure your answer is politically palatable, Constitutional, workable, effective, doesn't adversely impact other generations, and will be long-lasting. And...go!
Well …, I’m flattered you think I would be able to solve a problem here on word forge that so many more qualified and highly placed economists have not. However, I am not an economist. Fortunately, though, that doesn’t prohibit me from being able to read and process data, nor does it prevent me from accepting facts that differ from my own personal experience. Anyway, my financial prowess aside, I’m still unclear as to your point about pumping up the numbers. If you agree that there is a disparity and not in a good way, then please explain what you mean about pumping up the numbers.
Saying it sucks without a plan to address it is ultimately just bitching about reality, which is an unproductive activity. And this society is as much yours as mine. I don't own it, I don't control it. I do accept that any institution within it will fall short of ideal; in other words, I accept reality. I agree there's a disparity, I'm indifferent to it because I believe it's inevitable, a consequence of a past that cannot be changed and a present that probably disallows any meaningful redress. In short: life sucks and then you die, so get on with your life already. I'm trolling the Millennials to suggest that they should stop obsessing about some cosmic unfairness they've been handed and go to work on improving their own situation. The victim mentality--and that's at the heart of this generational discontent--is a poisonous philosophy that becomes a self-fulfilling and self-reinforcing prophecy for those who embrace it.
In other words accept life is getting worse because the Constitution is more important than the people it serves.
You didn’t give a plan. Your statement basically was “this is the way it is and I like it that way and we’re not changing it.” To which I responded “That sucks”. So, there is no “plan”. Not one to dispute, nor to oppose. Throw out your plan and I will be happy to give my ideas. So, why get twitchy when I say “it sucks”? And being indifferent to it sucks. So, stop bitching about others who throw out ideas to fix it. At least they’re doing something rather than sitting back, enjoying what they managed to scrape together all the while voting to limit what others can gather. You’re a fucked up, selfish, jackass who doesn’t give a shit about others because you have yours. Fuck you. A past you don’t want to change because you must be allowed to look down on someone. Seriously, why block safety nets for others if you know there is a disparity? Because assholes like you vote for people who will not raise the minimum wage and would rather pay the military industrial complex than feed your starving neighbor - but hey, you’ve got yours. So, you’re good. But, not before you make life a living hell for others. No. You’re insuring a situation that forces others into poverty. If you think people are not trying to find jobs, congratulations, you’ve fallen for propaganda. Making you the problem. No. “The victim mentality” is people like you who are afraid others might do better than you, so you vote for people who keep those people in poverty. You fall for propaganda and do not even know it. … victim mentality. What a fucked up dumbass ….
That has nothing to do with the numbers being presented? The numbers are talking about the share of wealth at the equivalent age. Yes they came from a different time, no-one disputes that. The problem isn't that the generations born 60+ years ago did well. That's great, it's fantastic they did better than their parents. They came of age in a time of prosperity, the wealth they gained was in a large part wealth which hadn't previously existed. The problem is that for a large part our economies and countries are still run and/or heavily influenced by people who assume that their experiences still hold true. That constant economic growth will lift everyone, that opportunities in industry will increase, that productivity increases due to technology will be reflected in the populations work/life balance. My wife and I are going to start having children in the next year or two. All things considered, it's quite likely that their life will not be as prosperous as ours.
The graph shows all three generations gaining share of a growing economy. Even the Millennials are getting wealthier. If you want future prosperity for your children, prepare them well and support measures that grow the economy.
The Constitution serves everyone in many ways, some that people utterly fail to appreciate. When someone suggests that the Constitution is in the way of their scheme to make society better, they're really saying they want a world where individual rights are not protected.
Maybe this will help. Here's a clue. No amount of preparation and support will overcome this difference. Your children *will* be worse off than you. and there isn't a damn thing you or your children can do about it.
Seriously, anyone who doubts the existence or resultant economic and societal issues of income inequality really have their heads in the sand at this point.
That graph doesn't mean what you think it means. For starters, look at the y-axis. The range does not start at 0. It's 59-65%. Second--and this is the part that isn't grasped--is that one can have a diminishing share of the pie and still be better off...if the pie is growing. Do you think the GDP of the U.S. is bigger now than it was in 1955?
I know what the graph means. But, I don't think your reading comprehension is ... working. The graph shows the share of the GDP that goes to workers beginning in 1965 through 2015. In 1965, workers were getting 65.4% of the GDP. In 2015, they're only getting 56.7. That is nearly a 10% decrease in the share of the GDP. Your children will be getting even less. Do you understand now? It's not about a specific dollar amount. It's about percentages and purchasing power. Oh, let me go find a graph representing purchasing power ...
It's always the same answer: more government. Bigger government. Centrally planned economies. Central control of everything, every aspect of life. Because that has always worked out so well. You must understand, for many many people the issue is that they want someone else to do the hard parts of life for them. Make the decisions. Provide the Things. Make sure life is "fair," which usually means they get free stuff. There is little to no concept of personal responsibility, it's always Someone Else's Fault when they aren't driving a Rolls Royce to their five million dollar eight thousand square foot mansion by age 23. The Constitution? An outdated relic of a bygone age, written by Horrible Old White Men Who Owned Slaves and are therefore wrong about everything. What we need is guaranteed equality of outcome, not this primitive equality of opportunity stuff. And of course, everyone who subscribes to this worldview sees themselves as part of the elite who should be making the decisions, even though their entire life has been an exercise in avoiding responsibility.
For someone so opposed to "more government, bigger government", you sure do kiss the ass of those who want more and bigger government. We don't need new laws. We need wealthy persons and politicians to be punished for bribing and accepting bribes for creating laws that benefit the wealthy at the detriment of the populace. Not allowing the minimum wage to increase with the standard of living or GDP is criminal and should be punished. Wage fixing is just as bad as price fixing and should be punished. But, the two of you will just tell me I'm jealous and leave those poor billionaires alone. So fuck you and I completely dismiss EVERY FUCKING THING YOU HAVE TO SAY.
The actual answer is not all that complicated. First, the tax code must be simplified and rationalized. This would increase compliance. Eliminate the many, many loopholes that have been added over the years, exemptions and whatnot. A simpler tax code is a better tax code. Second, our primary and secondary educational systems must focus much more heavily on logic, critical thinking, how to do proper research, and above all inculcate a preference for long-term thinking over short-term thinking. The vast majority of all the problems afflicting humanity are due to the species' fixation on short-term gratification. Our businesses, for example, focus on quarterly profits almost to the exclusion of everything else. Third, government must be restrained from expanding into areas where it has no authority to act. As Paladin hinted at above, college costs and associated debt are directly attributable to the government making "free" money available to everyone. Secondary factors are things like colleges doing things other than educating (like highly expensive sports programs) and having bloated administrative organs. Fourth, also an educational issue, is that the emphasis on college to the exclusion of other avenues must be eliminated. There's money, serious money, to be made in the trades (carpentry, plumbing, HVAC, electrical, etc) that kids are ignoring because everyone they listen to tells them they need a college degree to get anywhere, which simply is not true. Basically a pivot of our entire society away from "gimme gimme gimme" and back to "Ask not what your country can do for you . . . "
