Occupy Wall Street

[ERD50]

The pie isn't actually shrinking. If you are in the top 20%, you are probably living better than you ever have. The share of the pie that the bottom 80% are getting has been shrinking, and the share of the pie that the bottom 50% is getting is falling off a cliff.

Some of that is an inevitable part of globalization, but some of it being caused by changes in the rules that favor the wealthy and powerful over the rest of the population.

Which rules are those?

Hopefully - we keep this train of thought FIRE-related, as in how those rules could affect the economy or our ER status, not just a rant (though I'd enjoy that ).

-ERD50

 

[JPatrick]

My two brothers are twins about 10 years younger than me (making them 29).

One of them went to college, got a degree in marketing, and now is the general manager of a Burger King. He works 60+ hours a week for about $32k/year. That's with a college degree, albeit a bad major. He works harder than I ever did, and should be more successful than average, but I suspect that unless something dramatic changes, he'll never make anything close to what I make.

My other brother never finished college. He's been very lucky to get his job at Quik Trip that pays $9/hr (after several years) and actual benefits. I don't see a lot of upside for him. Granted, he's not the most ambitious guy in the world, but he's dependable and does what he his told.

People are looking back at their experiences and thinking things are the same.

They aren't.

I guess you are throwing that back to me as examples of your point.
Your Burger King brother sounds like he has a useful degree, and excellent managerial talent along with no fear of work. If he likes the food service industry he should be able to find something else that has some room for growth. A move to Micky D's would probably even be worthwhile. Lots of managers move up there if they pursue it.
You said your other brother was not very ambitious which takes the shine off his other good habit of apparently being a excellent employee and limits what he may find in the future, I suspect.

 

[Hamlet]

Sure, there are people that are getting good jobs out of college, but they are getting to be fewer and fewer, and the price of college is getting higher and higher.

Your recent college grad is in a great field and has an in-demand skillset. I bet they graduated a lot closer to the top of their class than the bottom as well.

I didn't say that it was impossible to succeed, just that it is much harder than it used to be.

Let's see - A recent college grad that I know is making > $50K/year. Bachelor's Degree from a State school (Radiation Therapist). So I think your two sentences contradict themselves - it appears the college degree in a good field (choose wisely) is certainly a good investment, else she would be 'lucky to make more than $10/hr'.

 

[youbet]

The pie isn't actually shrinking.

You may be confusing size of the total pie with share of the pie.

Some of that is an inevitable part of globalization, but some of it being caused by changes in the rules that favor the wealthy and powerful over the rest of the population.

Can you mention any changes in the rules that favor the wealthy and powerful?

 

[Hamlet]

He's worked hard to find better opportunities, but without much success. There are more smart, hard-working young people than there are decent paying jobs. That appears to be the new normal.

So, what is he doing about it?
-ERD50

Nice strawman. The majority of the population does not have a college degree. For older people already doing well in the workforce, it is an inconvience. For people starting out, it means they will probably not get anything but a dead-end job. There will be exceptions of course, but as a group the bottom 80% of the next generation is going to do much worse than the bottom 80% of the two previous generations, IMO.

I guess we should pass a law - people who didn't finish college, and are not very ambitious should be guaranteed to get some multiple of the current minimum wage, plus benefits.

Again, what is he doing about it?
-ERD50

 

[GregLee]

I guess we should pass a law - people who didn't finish college, and are not very ambitious should be guaranteed to get some multiple of the current minimum wage, plus benefits.

That's an idea. It seems to me that your remarks, overall, miss the point. With ambition, good work habits, an education, and/or luck, one can succeed -- there's plenty of room at the top and even within shouting distance of the top. But if we want lots of prosperous consumers to keep our economy humming along, and continued political stability, we have to be concerned with the middle and bottom, too. Advice to people who find themselves in some difficulty to apply themselves is not terribly useful.

 

[REWahoo]

Here he comes...

 

[2B]

The "modern" welfare (socialist) state began in 1942 in Great Britain. Yes, during WWII! It was driven by how well the Brits came together in the face of Nazi Germany. "Their finest hour" got them started on putting together what later became known as "the dole" to assure everyone had enough to get by on. There have now been 3 generations of people on the dole. There is a large under-class of people that are effectively paid to not work and they think that's fine. The family "profession" is frequently passed down from father to son.

Most of us here are striving to achieve our "number" where we think we'll have enough money for a comfortable retirement. What would many of us do if the government suddenly said everyone will have a $30,000 per year payment if they stopped working? How many years ago would we have pulled the cord?

 

[Hamlet]

Well, aside from changes in the tax code (which others have already mentioned, here are a few--

1. The minimum wage has been eaten away by inflation to a meaningless level.

2. The bankruptcy laws were re-written (pretty much directly by the lobbyists of the banks and credit card companies). What was the result-- student debt follows you until death.

3. Laws around unions have been re-written to be more favorable to the employer. That generates downward pressure on wages.

4. The re-writing of the banking laws took the guide rails off, allowing banks, credit card companies, and insurance companies to make loans that they would not have been allowed to make before, and allowed them to gamble with taxpayer-backed money, causing pain to the borrowers, pain to shareholders, and pain to the taxpayers. Remarkably, those people are still running things more or less the same way, and are back to making money hand over fist.

5. At least in Minnesota, the share of the cost of college borne by the state has been steadily decreasing since I was in school in the early 90s.

6. SS and Medicare are fundamentally a transfer of wealth from the young to the old. These rules are fairly old (except for Medicare part D), but we are just now seeing the full effects of rules put in place in the 70s and 80s.

Which rules are those?

Hopefully - we keep this train of thought FIRE-related, as in how those rules could affect the economy or our ER status, not just a rant (though I'd enjoy that ).

-ERD50

 

[Bimmerbill]

But you can get a great education without student debt. It's not a fact of life.
Maybe I should apply for some IT jobs to see if I get any bites. I haven't been in the job market for a while, so maybe I am out of touch.

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by ERD50
I guess we should pass a law - people who didn't finish college, and are not very ambitious should be guaranteed to get some multiple of the current minimum wage, plus benefits.

That's an idea. It seems to me that your remarks, overall, miss the point. With ambition, good work habits, an education, and/or luck, one can succeed -- there's plenty of room at the top and even within shouting distance of the top. But if we want lots of prosperous consumers to keep our economy humming along, and continued political stability, we have to be concerned with the middle and bottom, too. Advice to people who find themselves in some difficulty to apply themselves is not terribly useful.

Sure, just about half the population is below average .

But the post referenced a person described as not terribly ambitious, and has no particular marketable skills. So is the idea of a $9/hr job with benefits so out-of-line? Why should he expect any 'upside' unless he develops some 'upside' to offer an employer?

Maybe more to what I think is your point - not everyone has what it takes for the high, or even mid level jobs. I just can't get into the idea that anyone 'deserves' a certain income level or anything. Yes, we should have safety nets for those who can't. Other than that, I think the market can decide what a job is 'worth'. And if that isn't good enough for someone, maybe they will be motivated to do more. If not, then they need to accept that reality.

One problem I have with all these ideas of price controls is it ignores the globalization factor. I just can't see where we are in a position to say that a citizen of the US has to get $20/hr for job X, and someone in a different time zone who would be happy to do it for $5/hr is denied the job, and his family goes hungry. That is just not my vision of 'sympathy'.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

The majority of the population does not have a college degree. For older people already doing well in the workforce, it is an inconvience.

Well, it was an inconvenience for me to get a degree (I'm a pretty poor student).

It was an inconvenience to work 60 hour weeks, to have conf calls scheduled first thing in the AM and again late at night with a 12 hour day at work in between. It was an inconvenience to go into work most Saturdays for years on end. It was an inconvenience to regularly take calls at 3AM when the night shift ran into a problem.

Yet, when someone who is 'not particularly ambitious' makes far less and does not want to be 'inconvenienced' to move ahead, we are supposed to feel sorry for them, and open our pockets to support them through re-distribution? Ask me again when I'm in a better mood (no, wait, don't bother, I'm in a GREAT mood!).

For people starting out, it means they will probably not get anything but a dead-end job. There will be exceptions of course, but as a group the bottom 80% of the next generation is going to do much worse than the bottom 80% of the two previous generations, IMO.

Man you are negative. No, I don't think that for people starting out. that anything but a dead-end job will be the exception. Unless they go into it thinking that way. Could be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I might agree with the second part. But as youbet said earlier, will that be solved by protesting, or working harder?

I'll try to get to your other post later, if the thread is still open

-ERD50

 

[Bestwifeever]

And we're out.

Porky Pig Cartoon Ending "That's All Folks!" - YouTube