Ben Shapiro Ripping on Millenals.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Apr 3, 2001
47,037
296
126
#26
Ben is a millennial himself.

I found this. Thought it was funny and sad at the same time. IMO, it's sad that this person is so distraught that he has to sue his roommate for watching a Ben Shapiro video. How sad that you can't just ignore the video. What's going to happen to this snowflake when he gets out in the real world? OMG, that guy looked at me weirdly. Should I sue? That lady was listening to a consertive talk host in her car. I'm offended! Should I sue?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/student-files-complaint-roommate-watching-ben-shapiro-video/
He filed a complaint, that's not the same thing as suing someone.
 
Oct 12, 2009
36,738
483
136
#28
Agree. Lack of real world experiences and wisdom.

I told my kid that if he got a full ride, I'd buy him a new car. Surprisingly, he said to wait until he graduated because it would be useless at college. He still doesn't have a full ride though.
 

skull

Golden Member
Jun 5, 2000
1,964
78
106
#29
Here's the deal- any pure economic system has inherent flaws that will eventually destroy it. The flaw of pure capitalism is the ability for a few to create machines that allow their creators to hoard wealth and deprive others. The game Monopoly is based on pure capitalism, and the end-game of that is one person is rich while everyone else is poor.

To counter this, taxation and different types of socialism are used (no, socialism isn't evil because it sounds like communism. There are over a dozen different types of socialism). Social programs are in place to provide care for the elderly, protection, and transportation. Taxation is supposed to prevent wealth hoarding. THIS is the area that's not working.

Right now, three people in the US have as much wealth as the lower 50% of the population. The top 400 richest people have more wealth than 66% of the population. In numbers, this means 3 people are richer than 150 million people COMBINED. 400 people are richer than 200 million people COMBINED. That money will never be returned or redestributed. The country's GDP will have to recreate that wealth so it could be distributed to the people. However this won't work because the rich have machines that continue to siphon everything towards them.

This is where a change in taxation needs to come into play. Under current tax laws, it's possible anyone making over $100 million a year can create so many tax shelters and take advantage of loopholes, they pay essentially no taxes...and they don't. They're supposed to be in 40%+ tax brackets, but the average $100M earner pays 0%-16%. This, in my opinion, is what is broken in our economy.

We're at a stage where we're not manufacturing anymore because other countries do it cheaper, most people are in unskilled service jobs, and those in high-end jobs are getting squeezed out by mega-corps and their money siphons.

If something doesn't change, all of this does not bode well. In 100 years, those Hunger Games movies might be more of a prophecy than a story.

Its not like the money is sitting in a vault locked away somewhere. Most of those billionaires have the majority of their wealth in their companies. Companies that people seems to want around or they wouldn't keep giving them their money. Then the money thats not in the businesses is in the stock market, bank accounts, bonds, etc. That money gets used by other people to invest. Then there is the money those rich people spend that goes back in to the economy. So all and all the money is still in the economy not hoarded away never to see the light of day.

I do think the rich need to be taxed more though. One way or another we have to pay off the national debt, I think thats going to be the crisis over the next 100 years.
 
Jul 12, 2006
93,959
2,066
136
#30
Mind citing some evidence behind your assertions?

Not here to act as if it's not possible, However it just seems like a pipe dream to me to think people did massive donations to circumvent the tax rates.

That, and putting money in a personal non profit isn't the same thing either.
It is literally how the system worked for about 70 years or more before Ronny Rayguns showed up and obliterated it. You want business owners and admins to actually reinvest in their people, in their business, in pension funds? Then incentivize them to actually do that. There is nothing in supply side models that ever allows for this, and this is completely by design. It was a lie sold to the masses that only the purest of idiots believe, and they still seem to believe this.
 
Jul 12, 2006
93,959
2,066
136
#31
Agree. Lack of real world experiences and wisdom.

I told my kid that if he got a full ride, I'd buy him a new car. Surprisingly, he said to wait until he graduated because it would be useless at college. He still doesn't have a full ride though.
The benefit of this is that you can just buy me that new car instead, right? :D
 

TXHokie

Platinum Member
Nov 16, 1999
2,390
29
91
#32
Got three kids heading to college next 6-7 years and I'm dreading it already. One has a full tuition scholarship and just need to cough up room and board. Retirement seems so far far away.
 
Oct 12, 2009
36,738
483
136
#33
The benefit of this is that you can just buy me that new car instead, right? :D
Naw, you look too good in that Fiat 500. :p
Got three kids heading to college next 6-7 years and I'm dreading it already. One has a full tuition scholarship and just need to cough up room and board. Retirement seems so far far away.
fact and I only have 1. Encourage a trade and refuse to pay for a history degree.:)
 

ctbaars

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2009
1,366
55
106
#34
One out with a Applied Mathematics degree and a job right out of college and no debt. One to go, which I'm afraid to say, is heading for drugs, pregnancy and never moving out. Well, I'm exaggerating, a bit. But she's at the age of making my head explode.

I paid private for the first and I work hard to do the same for the other.
 
Aug 8, 2004
8,574
0
81
#35
^^^^
that.




Same boat this year for my kid. $15K out of pocket with no other scholarships but it is private. '82-'86 at Clemson was ~$20k, all in.

If the govt/irs would stop collecting student loan debt, there would be some big changes down the line.

States have cut major funding, iirc, too.

Why is it that college tuition is one of the few things that is exempt from bankruptcy? I mean i get you cant take back the teaching, but at the same time i CAN declare bankruptcy on medical bills but i cant give that live saving procedure back either. The whole college system is rigged, there is no reason why college costs as much as it does. Books costing $300+ each, semesters costing as much as decent used cars, its insane. Its not like we are paying the professors more, so where the heck is that money going?
 
Oct 12, 2009
36,738
483
136
#36
Why is it that college tuition is one of the few things that is exempt from bankruptcy? I mean i get you cant take back the teaching, but at the same time i CAN declare bankruptcy on medical bills but i cant give that live saving procedure back either. The whole college system is rigged, there is no reason why college costs as much as it does. Books costing $300+ each, semesters costing as much as decent used cars, its insane. Its not like we are paying the professors more, so where the heck is that money going?
IIRC,@PricklyPete posted an article a few years ago, admin costs had risen 70% over a 5 year period. Plus some look like club med.

Why? Some can't explain the rationale for the student loan "no bankruptcy" exception, but others say it grew from a concern that student loan borrowers could take advantage of bankruptcy laws, borrow a bunch of debt, earn a degree and then file for bankruptcy.

So a few bad apples.....
 
Nov 27, 2001
28,856
14
126
#37
Yes, I kinda can blame kids for being mad. Honestly? By 18 I would really think the majority of kids can make a reasonable, sane, and rational thought process. Maybe it's just because I was the type that went to community college for my basics - and then transferred to a reasonable state university and got a reasonable MIS business degree that was in high demand. Is it really that complicated? We're talking about kids that are the age of 18. You would have to have some severely mental issues if you can't ask yourself questions like "What do I want to do for the rest of my life - AND - will anyone pay me a high salary to do that?"
I just want to be clear that I'm not attempting to absolve the students of their role in this mess. Ultimately, it was their choice, and in some cases, it was a bad choice. (I want to touch back on that again in a bit.) What I do want to stress is that I don't think we should ignore the role that their educators, administrators or lawmakers played in creating this mess. The blanket push for attending college after secondary education was a huge mistake, and it became even worse as post-secondary education became the norm and employers started looking for degrees for positions that don't necessarily require it. (The much used example being secretarial positions.) In other words, where a high school diploma was once the goalpost for some positions, that's now college because that's the new "norm".

I wanted to get back to the idea of choice, and ultimately, critical thinking. To some degree, I think it would be interesting to see if making some aspects of life easier has ultimately pushed some kids toward an adolescent life that lacks the need for hard choices involving critical thinking, or just experiences in general that require critical thinking. It isn't even just life, but also schooling where standardized tests are the norm, and to ensure proper funding, teachers are pushed to teach for the tests. This can mean that critical thinking is pushed aside and rote memorization is taught in its place. This is really just me musing on the subject as I'm far from an expert in this area.

Also, one question that has been on my mind is... whose job is it to help prepare the kids for certain aspects of life? One thing I've wondered is why we push to teach kids math concepts such as trigonometry or calculus, but we ignore teaching the application of math in daily life? Why don't we take time out to teach kids the math of (compound) interest, APR, etc.? For example, show them how much money it will take to pay back an Xbox One purchased on a 23.99% APR when paid back at certain amounts. Back when I was in school, they took a day or two out of seventh grade math to teach writing cheques and balancing a ledger. Do they even teach home economics anymore? I know some people don't really agree with this, and to some degree, who teaches what becomes a matter of opinion. It may be related to how I went to school when we had Home Economics as a course.

Honestly, I still think that some kids are setup to fail. Fortunately, some of them are smart enough to begin with that they can see this and avoid it. However, that doesn't apply to all of them.

You are right in the debt process at least - I've mentioned this previously, but student loans should have nothing to do with my parent's income. It's pretty hilarious considering the fact that people that do have money have a higher probability of being more responsible (higher chance of paying back the loans). But instead our stupid system says that they are unqualified and instead take the most riskiest loan possible.
I agree. Parents should not be expected to pay for college, and their income should not be taken into account in regard to loans. I know someone who will say "I have three kids that need to go to college!", and my response is usually, "And...?" That's sort of a double-whammy of "they need to go to college" and "I need to pay for it". I don't think there's anything wrong if a parent wants to help their kid with college tuition, but the expectation is wrong.

Maybe we can use things like a Letter of Intent where a parent can declare to the lender that they do not intend upon paying toward the student's tuition?

IIRC,@PricklyPete posted an article a few years ago, admin costs had risen 70% over a 5 year period. Plus some look like club med.

Why? Some can't explain the rationale for the student loan "no bankruptcy" exception, but others say it grew from a concern that student loan borrowers could take advantage of bankruptcy laws, borrow a bunch of debt, earn a degree and then file for bankruptcy.

So a few bad apples.....
I've always assumed that it was done to push lenders to be willing to give out more loans. The problem is that student loans lack any sort of tangible collateral unlike mortgages and such. So, with bankruptcy in the cards, lenders would likely be far, far more strict in giving out loans (arguably a good thing), or require collateral to be put up by a second party (parents, etc.).

The only problem is that by removing a lot of the risk from the loans, they're going a little too "Oprah" on them.
 
Feb 6, 2002
17,988
1,242
136
#39
I find it odd there are so many gullible people that being a conservative can be a job vs a real lifestyle
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS