Why Baby Boomers Don't Understand Occupy Wall Street

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I was born after '64-- by the way, how did we choose that arbitrary date? Is that when the Op was born?

The population boom post WWII that peaked around 1956 lasted roughly twenty years.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Crusty Old Perv

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

I understand and have no problem with them staging protests. I personally think they are missing the mark and going after the wrong segment. Even if you get the spread the wealth it will not solve the problems that they see. In fact it will more than likely make the problem worse. No one ever appreciates things unless they have earned them. This is about Socialist ideas that are being demanded. We have now had Socialism since FDR and it has never proven workable in the long run. We have had now the war on poverty and the Great Deal and still the problem exists. The war on drugs has been going forever it seems and we still have the problem.. The only thing we have done is make the problem worse and spend a lot of money doing it and causing a lot of casualties.

I also worked hard and earned a degree with no debt. It was the way it was done back then. I did have a lot of it paid for by my state that pays all tuition and fees if you are a veteran. Many of these kids would have been better off learning a trade. Most are not cut out to be academics.

Where does "spreading the wealth" come into it? People are asking for a system that is not corrupt.

And we do not have socialism in the US. I really don't understand where you get that idea.

[dalegg 143]

The population boom post WWII that peaked around 1956 lasted roughly twenty years.

I don't like it. If my mother was born just 2 years earlier and all time lines remained the same, we would both be baby boomers.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

What's interesting about this article is it doesn't take into account the trends in employment.

I remember going through high school and several colleges came to visit us to discuss their courses of study. All the usual suspects were there and some really touted their liberal arts degrees, business, engineering, etc., but by far, the most memorable (for me, anyway) were the schools that dedicated their presentation to careers where the aging workforce would be retiring soon or the projected growth would ensure job security from immediately after college all the way through retirement. They didn't necessarily say, "we have the best curriculum and programs" they said, "if you graduate from our program, you'll have a job for life."

Too many kids today think just because they went to college and have a degree they're entitled (the evil e word) to a job. And a good job at that. That is simply not the way it works in the real world.

Then you have others who think because they've worked a job - any job - for twenty years they're entitled (see, there it is again) to continuing employment. That is not the way it works in the real world either.

Well, not yet, anyway.

Had any of those folks worked a little more on their future instead of their right now, they probably would've been alright.

I remember going to high school also Slim.

This was probably before you were born.

Back then, you could count on graduating high school and being able to get a job. And not just some shitty fast food or retail job. If you went to university, you were going to be able to get a better job.

The reality is this. In just 35 years in the US, things have deteriorated to the point that even a Masters will only get you in the door for an interview.

This isn't about people wanting what they don't deserve. This is about a breakdown in the opportunity scale. This is about how most of us don't have a rat's #### prayer of ever being in the 1%.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Rebecca Jo

[slim 1,530]

I remember going to high school also Slim.

This was probably before you were born.

Back then, you could count on graduating high school and being able to get a job. And not just some shitty fast food or retail job. If you went to university, you were going to be able to get a better job.

The reality is this. In just 35 years in the US, things have deteriorated to the point that even a Masters will only get you in the door for an interview.

This isn't about people wanting what they don't deserve. This is about a breakdown in the opportunity scale. This is about how most of us don't have a rat's #### prayer of ever being in the 1%.

You're not even close to being correct. This is about everyone in America expecting a six figure salary and the highest standard of living available. Back in your day if you wanted good money and nice stuff you had to work hard for it. Often for several years. These participation trophy kids today expect the money without the hard work.

If you'll also remember, back in your day, those "hard workers" didn't live in 2,000 square foot houses and drive two brand new cars (with full coverage insurance) nor did they have 150 channels on their big screen TVs, ipads, cell phones, GPS, etc. And more often than not, mom stayed at home with the kids (cutting costs by keeping them healthy, watching over them instead of paying someone else to do so, meanwhile procuring and preparing the family's food and entertainment) and even without her second income, families often had surplus cash.

Fast forward 30 years and the problem isn't an earning problem. Much like our government it's not that folks don't have enough to spend... it's that we spend too much.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

You're not even close to being correct. This is about everyone in America expecting a six figure salary and the highest standard of living available. Back in your day if you wanted good money and nice stuff you had to work hard for it. Often for several years. These participation trophy kids today expect the money without the hard work.

If you'll also remember, back in your day, those "hard workers" didn't live in 2,000 square foot houses and drive two brand new cars (with full coverage insurance) nor did they have 150 channels on their big screen TVs, ipads, cell phones, GPS, etc. And more often than not, mom stayed at home with the kids (cutting costs by keeping them healthy, watching over them instead of paying someone else to do so, meanwhile procuring and preparing the family's food and entertainment) and even without her second income, families often had surplus cash.

Fast forward 30 years and the problem isn't an earning problem. Much like our government it's not that folks don't have enough to spend... it's that we spend too much.

Yet in 30 years real incomes have fallen... I noticed you mentioned manufactured goods. These are cheaper because they are no longer made here. For awhile, the drop in such goods masked the issue of falling wages believe it or not.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Yet in 30 years real incomes have fallen... I noticed you mentioned manufactured goods. These are cheaper because they are no longer made here. For awhile, the drop in such goods masked the issue of falling wages believe it or not.

Baby Boomers tuned out, and turned on. Now they want to retire, and you will pay for it. Doesn't seem fair, does it? You can blame our parents. We sure do.

[slim 1,530]

Yet in 30 years real incomes have fallen... I noticed you mentioned manufactured goods. These are cheaper because they are no longer made here. For awhile, the drop in such goods masked the issue of falling wages believe it or not.

Compare and contrast that to household spending. What's the average household spend now compared to what they used to 30 years ago?

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

You're not even close to being correct. This is about everyone in America expecting a six figure salary and the highest standard of living available. Back in your day if you wanted good money and nice stuff you had to work hard for it. Often for several years. These participation trophy kids today expect the money without the hard work.

If you'll also remember, back in your day, those "hard workers" didn't live in 2,000 square foot houses and drive two brand new cars (with full coverage insurance) nor did they have 150 channels on their big screen TVs, ipads, cell phones, GPS, etc. And more often than not, mom stayed at home with the kids (cutting costs by keeping them healthy, watching over them instead of paying someone else to do so, meanwhile procuring and preparing the family's food and entertainment) and even without her second income, families often had surplus cash.

Fast forward 30 years and the problem isn't an earning problem. Much like our government it's not that folks don't have enough to spend... it's that we spend too much.

Slim, I am talking about my generation coming of age in 1975. Not the people who raised me. None of the girls I went to school with planned on staying home and cooking (like some of our Mothers did). We were preparing for careers. Even my stay-at-home Mom worked a seasonal job each year to raise some extra bucks. Ozzie and Harriett was a TV show. It wasn't reality.

You are probably going to laugh at everything in this paragraph. When I graduated high school in 1975, someone on our yearbook committee decided to run around town and take pictures of prices in windows. So, I'm sitting here looking at these pictures, and they tell me that self-serve gasoline was 50.8 cents per gallon. Milk was $1.29. Three loaves of bread - $1.09. Vending machine - 30 cents. Cheer detergent 99 cents. My first real job after college paid me $650 per month. The rent on my townhouse apartment was $160 per month, I paid the utilities. Oh, and as I have mentioned many times before, the health care provided by my employer didn't cost me one red cent.

Point? Well first of all I don't think people are whining because they want six figures. I think they are saying that it takes close to six figures to maintain a decent life, where you work and save for a rainy day. Rather than hang on by the seat of your pants.

And all this deterioration in 35 years. I don't care how you want to paint it. It's alarming.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Compare and contrast that to household spending. What's the average household spend now compared to what they used to 30 years ago?

When I joined the work force over thirty years ago, spending more than 25% of your take home on housing was considered extravagant.

[Ready to do it 101]

We don't? Silly me, and I thought free health care for someone that needed attention and had no insurance and needed attention, food stamps, and unemployment were the exception... to be given in rare but necessary circumstances. Today folks, no not just folks... half the freaking population think these are entitlements and they are not only entitled to these things, they believe they are supposed to get these things. Ah, and tax credits, exemptions, etc. Tell me again, we don't have socialism? What do you call it?

And we do not have socialism in the US. I really don't understand where you get that idea.

[slim 1,530]

self-serve gasoline was 50.8 cents per gallon. Milk was $1.29. Three loaves of bread - $1.09. Vending machine - 30 cents. Cheer detergent 99 cents. My first real job after college paid me $650 per month. The rent on my townhouse apartment was $160 per month, I paid the utilities. Oh, and as I have mentioned many times before, the health care provided by my employer didn't cost me one red cent.

How much was your cable tv, internet service, cell phone and service, satellite radio/emergency transponder service? How often did you go out for dinner?

How many credit cards did you have and how much of a balance did you carry on each one?

Point? Well first of all I don't think people are whining because they want six figures. I think they are saying that it takes close to six figures to maintain a decent life, where you work and save for a rainy day. Rather than hang on by the seat of your pants.

It takes nowhere near six figures to maintain a decent life in this country. The reason folks whine is because they want to live like they make six figures but don't actually want to do the work required.

And all this deterioration in 35 years. I don't care how you want to paint it. It's alarming.

Deterioration? Gas is roughly six times as much as it was back then and everything else is roughly three times as much. Lets ballpark it at 5. If you're earning anywhere near $3250/month (or your household income balances out to where you'd be earning close to that - and don't forget about your housing, food, and medical allowances) then there really is no deterioration at all.

When I joined the work force over thirty years ago, spending more than 25% of your take home on housing was considered extravagant.

It still is. Just everyone ignores it. (While they're simultaneously paying on two cars they don't need either.)

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Compare and contrast that to household spending. What's the average household spend now compared to what they used to 30 years ago?

Its likely higher due to Housing, Fuel (petrol dropped in price through the 1980s), and the big one - healthcare.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Anyway, I don't understand why we as a society can not look at the current situation, realize there is something out of balance with the economy, and take steps to correct it. Globalisation is likely one of the big keys to the issue. Perhaps the government needs to take at least baby steps towards protecting US jobs.

[slim 1,530]

Its likely higher due to Housing, Fuel (petrol dropped in price through the 1980s), and the big one - healthcare.

Are the actual costs higher or the usage?

I don't remember every young couple having their own cookie-cutter home back in the '70s. Nor do I remember both mom and dad having brand new cars to drive 50 miles a day either. Or cell phones, for that matter.

And healthcare? Remember when mom took care of everthing and if you were really, really sick your family doctor would give you a bottle of pink stuff?

Once again... it's not the prices.

Anyway, I don't understand why we as a society can not look at the current situation, realize there is something out of balance with the economy, and take steps to correct it. Globalisation is likely one of the big keys to the issue. Perhaps the government needs to take at least baby steps towards protecting US jobs.

Why not simply let us compete in a global economy?