Survey of Sorts: Are you a Millennial? Is this how you think?

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Future Guy

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Future Guy
*snip*.

I'm no economist but I think your sentiment toward the government is misplaced. Government spending can't hurt our country-- the wealth stays here. We don't hire Chinese to build roads, maintain the military, etc. Those are all jobs and contracts that are part of the economy.
Social security sure sounds like a bad thing because of how much it costs, but you think that money is flushed down the toilet? No, old people get it, and they spend it in an economy that employs YOU and ME.

I'm not saying that government spending hurts our country. I'm saying that mismanagement hurts our country. What happens to private companies that do not spend within their means? What happens to families if they do not spend within their means? They fall and fall hard and takes years to get back to where you were before you succumbed to debt. The government then steps in to 'enforce new regulations' to try to prevent it from happening again (not a bad thing mind you). My problem with the government is that they continue to borrow money to fund our budget rather than maintaining a balanced budget. Yes, a government can have debt and will need to have debt at times to get by but we should not have massive deficits like we do.

SS is a waste of money. Yes, the old people will spend it but that's not the point. It's a free government handout. Anyone that says people today just want a handout are themselves EXPECTING to receive a handout when they retire. How hypocritical is that? Save your own damn money for your retirement. You'll be spending the money that YOU earned on the economy that employs us. It would also allow the government to put funds towards other things. As I said, the government needs to undergo a 'cutting of fat'. There are plenty of programs that can be cut and plenty of employees that can be as well. One way to fix some of the problems we have is by turning some programs and entities over to the private sector. The government can fund the, but allow the private sector to operate. The program will function much better that way.

The government contracting to the private sector means MORE government spending, which will be on that borrowed money you don't like, and it seems to me that it would end up in the hands of the wealthy-- executives and shareholders-- rather than all of it filtering through government employees. Compare Blackwater and the federal military. Which makes more sense for our government to be using? Or how about Haliburton vs the State Dept?
Privatization is one of those buzzwords that appeals to libertarian-minded individuals, but in reality it amounts to favoritism and misallocation of government spending free of accountability to voters.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Future Guy

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Future Guy
*snip*.

I'm no economist but I think your sentiment toward the government is misplaced. Government spending can't hurt our country-- the wealth stays here. We don't hire Chinese to build roads, maintain the military, etc. Those are all jobs and contracts that are part of the economy.
Social security sure sounds like a bad thing because of how much it costs, but you think that money is flushed down the toilet? No, old people get it, and they spend it in an economy that employs YOU and ME.

I'm not saying that government spending hurts our country. I'm saying that mismanagement hurts our country. What happens to private companies that do not spend within their means? What happens to families if they do not spend within their means? They fall and fall hard and takes years to get back to where you were before you succumbed to debt. The government then steps in to 'enforce new regulations' to try to prevent it from happening again (not a bad thing mind you). My problem with the government is that they continue to borrow money to fund our budget rather than maintaining a balanced budget. Yes, a government can have debt and will need to have debt at times to get by but we should not have massive deficits like we do.

SS is a waste of money. Yes, the old people will spend it but that's not the point. It's a free government handout. Anyone that says people today just want a handout are themselves EXPECTING to receive a handout when they retire. How hypocritical is that? Save your own damn money for your retirement. You'll be spending the money that YOU earned on the economy that employs us. It would also allow the government to put funds towards other things. As I said, the government needs to undergo a 'cutting of fat'. There are plenty of programs that can be cut and plenty of employees that can be as well. One way to fix some of the problems we have is by turning some programs and entities over to the private sector. The government can fund the, but allow the private sector to operate. The program will function much better that way.

Social Security is not free. I pay 7.5% and my employer pays 7.5% of my salary in taxes to SS/Medicare, so that I will be able to collect benefits upon retirement.

 

[Future Guy]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Future Guy

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Future Guy
*snip*.

I'm no economist but I think your sentiment toward the government is misplaced. Government spending can't hurt our country-- the wealth stays here. We don't hire Chinese to build roads, maintain the military, etc. Those are all jobs and contracts that are part of the economy.
Social security sure sounds like a bad thing because of how much it costs, but you think that money is flushed down the toilet? No, old people get it, and they spend it in an economy that employs YOU and ME.

I'm not saying that government spending hurts our country. I'm saying that mismanagement hurts our country. What happens to private companies that do not spend within their means? What happens to families if they do not spend within their means? They fall and fall hard and takes years to get back to where you were before you succumbed to debt. The government then steps in to 'enforce new regulations' to try to prevent it from happening again (not a bad thing mind you). My problem with the government is that they continue to borrow money to fund our budget rather than maintaining a balanced budget. Yes, a government can have debt and will need to have debt at times to get by but we should not have massive deficits like we do.

SS is a waste of money. Yes, the old people will spend it but that's not the point. It's a free government handout. Anyone that says people today just want a handout are themselves EXPECTING to receive a handout when they retire. How hypocritical is that? Save your own damn money for your retirement. You'll be spending the money that YOU earned on the economy that employs us. It would also allow the government to put funds towards other things. As I said, the government needs to undergo a 'cutting of fat'. There are plenty of programs that can be cut and plenty of employees that can be as well. One way to fix some of the problems we have is by turning some programs and entities over to the private sector. The government can fund the, but allow the private sector to operate. The program will function much better that way.

The government contracting to the private sector means MORE government spending, which will be on that borrowed money you don't like, and it seems to me that it would end up in the hands of the wealthy-- executives and shareholders-- rather than all of it filtering through government employees. Compare Blackwater and the federal military. Which makes more sense for our government to be using? Or how about Haliburton vs the State Dept?
Privatization is one of those buzzwords that appeals to libertarian-minded individuals, but in reality it amounts to favoritism and misallocation of government spending free of accountability to voters.

It has to be done properly of course. There have to be some things that would be better if they were in the private sector. They'd also have to set up in a way so they're not filthy rich corporations, they'd have to be non-profits probably.

OK, so SS is not exactly a free handout, but it is still a handout. Just like welfare is not a free handout either then, as my tax dollars fund it. This is a program that I think should be eliminated. People need to stop being lazy and find a job.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Future Guy

It has to be done properly of course. There have to be some things that would be better if they were in the private sector. They'd also have to set up in a way so they're not filthy rich corporations, they'd have to be non-profits probably.

OK, so SS is not exactly a free handout, but it is still a handout. Just like welfare is not a free handout either then, as my tax dollars fund it. This is a program that I think should be eliminated. People need to stop being lazy and find a job.

Gov agencies ARE non profits.

You want to get rid of welfare because people need to stop being lazy and find a job... But unemployment can never be 0%. Well maybe it will be when those people who can't find jobs end up on the street and stop looking. What about the working poor? You think their jobs should magically become higher paying so they don't need welfare?

 

[piasabird]

You will always be better off when the government does nothing.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I am in the age group. I will do a touch worse than my parents (their professions are higher-paying), though at my age now I'm doing better than they were then (still in school).

My personal optimism is high and my personal reality bears that optimism out, though for many people my age I do see problems for them. I think a lot of people my age are f**k ups and it is the fault of the establishment that taught them mediocrity would be ok; get an arts degree, it's ok, you can get a good job after, go jack up your credit card, bitch and moan if you cannot get your way, etc.

I imagine it's fairly consistent through history--maybe more now, I am not sure--but a lot of people don't put in their hard work for reward, though we see this up through adults now, too. People who are too indolent to exercise, restrain their spending, get an education that has proven and predictable pay off, etc.

The US remains a place of opportunity for people if they put some effort in.

Ahh, the classic - "Why kids these days..." line. :roll:

People have been complaining about kids these days ever since the written record began. Do you really believe that after tens of thousands of years human nature suddenly changed over the last 20 years and young people today are radically different from their parents? Do you really believe there were no fuckups in the older generations who also spent their money on booze, hookers and gambling?

Remember your little rant cannot explain why the median income has gone down - "not trying hard enough" is something that you can bring up when talking about a particular person, but not society at large.

This is why I said it's fairly consistent through history.. I will always caveat stereotypes about generations with that, because frankly we don't know if kids really do suck now more than they used to or not. Now, despite a non-evolution between short generations, cultures most definitely do change. Case in point obesity or personal debt.

With all the investment options available to us today, I do not see why SS needs to exist anymore (other than finishing the 'obligation' for the Boomers

I agree completely. It's time for us to cut this damn thing off at the knees, cover the bases of those who are too late to catch up (so, fully cover those retiring now, and start to ween down benefits of those who are younger), and trim SS back severely. I have no problem with truly covering the well being of people who have no money and are too old to make it, but this idea of government paying wages of everybody when they retire is just ass backwards.

Government spending can't hurt our country-- the wealth stays here.

Holy crap! Government spending is part of the government/monopolistic machine which historically and unsurprisingly, due to lack of competition and true market forces, has a pretty predictable inefficiency built right into it. It is lazy and cumbersome because it can be. It doesn't have to win, because it cannot lose. If we extend your reasoning, to increase the government infinitely until it is everything would leave us all in great shape. Government is overhead, like an HR department, it is not the guy on the floor actually making product.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: ebaycj
Social Security is not free. I pay 7.5% and my employer pays 7.5% of my salary in taxes to SS/Medicare, so that I will be able to collect benefits upon retirement.

Good luck on the "receiving benefits" part.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Government spending can't hurt our country-- the wealth stays here.

Holy crap! Government spending is part of the government/monopolistic machine which historically and unsurprisingly, due to lack of competition and true market forces, has a pretty predictable inefficiency built right into it. It is lazy and cumbersome because it can be. It doesn't have to win, because it cannot lose. If we extend your reasoning, to increase the government infinitely until it is everything would leave us all in great shape. Government is overhead, like an HR department, it is not the guy on the floor actually making product.

My point is that it's not disappearing money.

There may not be much competition and true market forces, but you're ignoring accountability, oversight, and the ideology of public service. See my Blackwater :: Military comparison.

Obviously we can't increase the size of the government indefinately, but like I said my point is that the money isn't disappearing.

I don't know what you mean by government being overhead. What about service? Is the only type of labor that you value the kind that manufactures something? I think NOAA doing oceanographic surveys, government science research, GPS, etc is all pretty damn awesome-- and the products are free to the public. My job wouldn't exist if the government didn't create a land survey system.

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Do you feel you will be left out of the "American Dream"? (Whatever that is.)
I feel like the American Dream has completely changed meaning - it's no longer a little house (go look at houses built in the 1920s... 1000 sq ft), food on the table and a job. It's a McMansion, two brand new cars, a bunch of electronic toys and instant access to any desire. So no, I don't think so. I will accomplish my goals, but my goals are not the same as the current American Dream.

Are you between the ages of 18 and 35?
Yes.

Are you doing worse than your parents were at your age?
Nope, I'm doing better. Granted, my lifestyle choice is totally different; my parents were pursuing my dad's dream of professional musicianship, something they did relatively successfully for almost 15 years. I work a white collar job. Not a lot of comparison.

Are you having a hard time finding a job? Do you have poor health care? Is your personal debt ruling your life with no end in sight?
Great job, excellent upward career movement (currently plateaued until I learn some new skills), no debt and good health care.

Do you believe government is the solution? (I sure as fvck think it's the problem. Not that anarchy where Big Business has free reign is good either.)
I definitely don't think government is the solution. They meddle in far more matters than they should, and the artificial control of industry, morality, economy, etc. simply causes more problems than it could ever solve.

Are you facing fewer benefits? Are you having problem moving up the ladder?
Nope. I moved up the ladder faster than I think I probably had a right to do. Next time I choose to make a job move, I will most likely make it successfully. I wouldn't say I have fewer benefits. We all have fewer benefits than what was out there during the .com boom (prior to when I entered the job market), but those were outrageous.

At the moment is it, sure. Will we rebound? I think it will. America is not dead, and China and India will not rule the world tomorrow.
I think that relying on the national or global economy rather than on ensuring you could be self-sufficient if necessary is foolish. America is on the decline and the only question is how fast. Will it be stable throughout our lifetimes and exist for another 200 years? Or will it go down and be defunct as a healthy and functioning country by the end of our lifetimes? Who knows... There are two many variables, natural and manmade, to predict.

Do you want a Nanny State? Do you want tell the government: "I'm sorry, I failed, I can't handle life on my own. Can I please have some money?"
Emphatically NO! Nanny States cannot be self-sustaining and are doomed for failure. People taking responsibility for their own lives and decisions (and voluntarily for their neighbors, when they are in need) is the only way that we would thrive in the long run. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be human nature and it's no longer encouraged by society, so it doesn't often happen.

Do you want higher taxes?
No.

I use my Miles Credit Card on EVERYTHING because I want the miles. So are they saying that's indicative of someone who can't make it from paycheck to paycheck?
They're saying that people are relying on credit because they don't have the cash to do otherwise. And they're largely right.