Today's young adults likely to be the 1st generation to not surpass the living standards of parents

from The American Prospect:



Address the Pain, Reap the Gain

Our nation's future demands that political leaders take seriously the economic plight of America's young.

Tamara Draut | March 18, 2008




Today's young adults are very likely to be the first generation to not surpass the living standards of their parents. Evidence of their declining economic opportunity and security abound, from widespread debt to lower earnings in today's labor market for all but those with advanced degrees.

While this new generation is intensely engaged in the 2008 primary process, their pocketbook concerns remain on the margins of our political debate. A candidate visiting a college campus throws in something about the need for good jobs and lower tuition. But the stump speeches and debates are aimed primarily at middle-aged voters, using broad phrases like "strengthening the middle class" and ignoring the extreme economic insecurity of the young.

There are two compelling reasons why our politics needs a platform centered on the promise of expanding economic opportunity and security for a new generation. First, any effective agenda to shore up America's middle class will have to address young people. After all, it's between the ages of 18 and 34 that the major decisions affecting the trajectory of one's life are made: how much education to complete, what to do for a living, and when to start a family. Second, it could be a winning electoral strategy -- attracting not just the youth vote but that of parents and grandparents, voters who worry about the ability of their children and grandchildren to build a better life for themselves. Indeed, polls now show that the majority of Americans do not believe the next generation will be better off than they are.

It's not surprising when you consider what has changed in just one generation. Back in the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s, three factors helped facilitate the transition to adulthood. First, there were jobs that provided good wages even for high school graduates. A college degree wasn't necessary to earn a decent living. And if you wanted to go, college was far more affordable. The second was an economy that lifted all boats, with productivity gains shared by workers and executives alike. The result was a massive growth of the middle class, which provided security and stability for families. Third, a range of public policies helped facilitate this economic mobility and opportunity: a strong minimum wage, grants for low-income students to go to college, generously subsidized state college tuition, a reliable unemployment insurance system, enforcement of the right to join a union, major incentives for homeownership, and a solid safety net for those falling on hard times. .....(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=address_the_pain_reap_the_gain

My uncle could support his entire family, two cars, nice house on over an acre and a vacation home on a lake. He worked in a shoe factory!

Try that on one income today. Better off? I don't think so. In most homes even two incomes is barely enough.

Im doing ok, not much better than the folks but Im getting along..

At my age my father was working in the steel plant as the only wage earner supporting five kids and his wife. They owned a home but struggled..

Im the sole earner supporting two kids and my wife, I own a *very tiny* home and I dont see how I could possible support seven kids but as it is I am scraping by..

But who cares about the struggles of the working man so long as wal-mart is selling cheap cloths..

ugggg...

Did you see the National Press Club program on CSPAN today? I'm not a big gun owner nor did I grow up with them in our home. But I do think it's a right. There should be gun laws and regulations.

The Constitution Society had three people on having a discussion. One man's name was Mr. Bogus (I'm not kidding) who was the most history re-visionist and founding father hater I've seen so far. He was from Roger Williams university.

Of course they wouldn't dare mention the people having guns to over throw their own tyrannical leaders. That was forbidden. It is the very backbone of having guns in a democracy. So shameful they won't even talk about it. What a bunch of liars.

One man reminded us that the revolution was against a "foreign power" not against their own. What? The British were the tyrannical government. They abused their power by doing everything to take away the rights of the people.

The old story about the militia not being a process of allowing the people to have their own guns but only the government ones. Congress controls that he stated. If individuals couldn't protect themselves from invasion or their own leaders what good would it be to have a Constitution in the first place without these rights?

What happened to them and the rest of Europeans they didn't want here in their new home. The Supreme Court is getting ready to hear the case. Why now the moderator asked? Well..stupid an election is on the way and they fear the people (financial failures, more war, chaos, etc.). They've removed our National Guard now to unarm the people.

Cheney/Bush can do anything they want. They aren't running for public office.

If the price of ammo gets much higher, they won't have to take our guns away. Only the rich will be able to afford to shoot them and the rest of us will just have to throw them at each other. BTW, I listened to the SC today and feel fairly confident that they will rule in favor of gun owners.

modern weapons they would develop for WWIII but WWIV would be fought with sticks and stones.

Seems we might be ahead of schedule with this bad economy.

I was surprised at that. Maybe because of the election?

they're going to lose that case.

I do find it rather ironic that everybody had to be disarmed (including the D.C. Chief of Police) before entering the court room. I wonder if the justices caught that irony?

My dad bought our family house for the equivalent of one year's salary AND supported a family of four. Me, my house cost five year's (pretty decent) salary and there's not much left over just supporting myself.

could support a family. Decent blue collar jobs are gone, and the white collar jobs aren't far behind.

he also had a small yacht that he took out on lake Erie on the weekends, and a huge RV that he and my grandmother drove everywhere after retirement. They owned two homes; one in Ohio and a smaller one in Florida. That would be impossible for someone working the same job today.

Sure, you buy that McMansion and lease the luxury cars -- but improving yourself always meant moving up without going beyond your means. And also having your own retirement covered, without having to reverse mortgage your house back to the bank to pay for the useless RV you think will WOW your neighbors.

So now this generation is not only chained into indentured servitude to keep up with the neighbors, and has taught their children that it's perfectly appropriate to go into debt for that new playstation or iphone that they just GOTTA have. And then they GOTTA have the games, and the accessories, ad nauseum.

Boy howdy -- there's a real harsh reality check coming for many in this country. :shrug:

borrowing. They are used to the good life.

Personally, I've seen far too many of my neighbors figuring they would get out of their debt hole if their parents would get sick and move into a nursing home, so that they can sell the house and the parents can give them their inheritance early. Of course, if they'd reined in their spending they wouldn't be in debt hell to begin with. :shrug:

Hold on to the valuables you have free and clear now. But start weening your kids off the *I gotta have it yesterday* crackpipe of spending. They are going to need some self-control to survive.

Nursing homes are so expensive now that they get the house and everything in it.

When we first moved into a new home the "young ins" moved in and took over the neigborhood. They didn't think we belonged here. It was theirs.

We over heard a few young women talking as they rode past on their bicycles. Can you imagine their parents wouldn't loan them money so they could buy a house? They seemed shocked by it. What parents raising and educating them isn't enough? Now They have to make sure they live in the way they are accustomed (but apparently can't afford). These homes are large and expensive for first time homeowners. Yet we didn't belong because we were middle aged without children or a dog? We could afford them.

No other young generation has been so spoiled (from the upper and middle class). Yet there are others (poor) who aren't...I know that too.

You seem to imply that people are falling behind due to consumption of luxury items. The major reason they are falling behind is due to the dramatic increase in real estate values, healthcare costs, higher education costs and energy costs (gas used to be 90 cents a gallon 15 years ago).

Productivity has constantly gone up, but wages have stagnated. At the same time expenses keep going up and up.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_04211999



A good book on the subject is the two income trap.

http://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Mothers-Fathers/dp/0465090826

People produce more on the job, get paid the same or less, and their expenses are going up. That is why we are in this mess. As far as buying expensive toys, I play Rainbox Six 3 games on the PC, they cost about $5 a piece and I have a tracfone ($7/month) and I'm struggling.

In MY area, the problem IS gluttonous consumption. Neighbor has a Buick, next one needs a Lexus, the next one to that needs a Mercedes - and the first one goes out and leases a Hum2, just to get the jump on the others.

ALL or most of that on CREDIT or LEASE. Not one of these neighbors have paid off a car loan in their ENTIRE LIVES. And they don't plan on paying off the mortgage because there is a bigger, badder and far more expensive subdivision just building a few blocks over.

It's the American Dream in Alfred E. Newman mode -- "What? Me Worry?" There is a fine crop of greedy dumbasses this country has raised. :shrug:

People born around 1900 did pretty well. Very few served in or were much effected by WW-I other than it did our economy pretty good. Their children would have been born going into the 'roaring 20's' and then would have come of age right in time for the Great Depression. They would have gone into their child bearing years in the poverty of the Depression and the dust bowl, and then been faced with full participation in WW-II. So I'd say that overall the children of 1920 did a lot worse than the preceeding generation.

Grandmother had to hide her Catholicism to get work in New England. There were actual signs in the windows -- "No Catholics need apply". Grandfather emigrated to the States to fight for the US in WWI because his father told him "At least the Americans will FEED you". Evidently Canadian recruits in the British units weren't being fed.

The Depression didn't hit them as hard because they didn't have much to begin with. And from what they said, that was pretty much the same with their friends and acquaintances.

I think it's a myth that people were doing well before the Crash. You had many poor, or just scraping by - just like NOW.

Your're born in 1900, you are a generation. Somewhere around 1920 you have kids, they are a second generation. Now, in accordance with the original question we will compare the two.

The first set, the ones born in 1900 came into this world just after the Spanish American War. It was a time of prosperity in this country. That prosperity followed through the first world war and into the 'roaring '20s' - a time of great prosperity. They lived high on the hog. Their children, born around 1920 were just comming of age as the great depression began and grew up as it intensified. To call their life as good as their parents would be simply absurd. They then had to fight the second world war, another blow to this country. You may recall - or now that I think about it probably not - that we were not winning that war for the first 2 years and that the 'boom' that followed didn't come into being until well into the 1940's - but that second generation that we are comparing wasn't home sucking up the benefits of war, they were on the other side of the pond fighting it - hardly the mark of a generation that is dong well.

I'm interested in your people though. Your grandfather who couldn't afford to eat was somehow able to cross the Atlantic, when he got to this land of milk and honey the first thing he did was hop back on another ship and go straight back to Europe because of his intense desire to fight and because they gave him a smammich? Why in hell did he bother to come over here in the first place? They would have fed him in France and it, and the war you tell us he desired to be in, was a couple of thousand miles closer. He could have been there in days.

Oh, and just because everyone around you is poor doesn't mean your poverty is any more bearable, if that were true the tent city outside of Los Angeles must be the happiest place in America.

Please.

My grandparents were one generation. They did NOT fare well - like most of their generation in New England. You see, they weren't using popular movies to base their histories on - they were LIVING it.

They had a child IN the Depression. She actually didn't do as well as my grandfather did (he worked in the steel mills) because she worked in an office and wasn't in possession of a personal penis. The gentleman she replaced at the Bank of America made 40% more than she did - solely because he was in possession of a penis.

Mythology is sure fun, huh? :sarcasm:

First of all, a generation is normally reckoned about 25 years - roughly the average age of a parent when a child is born. The first child of a family might have been born, on average, before the average of the parents was 25, but most people carry on having children well past 25 too (hardly anyone has a child at age 15, but many have a child at age 35 - 25 is actually the minimum age to think of as a generation. These days, 30 is probably better; but in the early part of the century, it probably was closer to 25 than 30).

Secondly, the Depression started about 1930. So someone born around 1900 would be around 30, just when they expect to be earning a steady amount, and bringing up a family. Instead they faced mass unemployment. By the time the economy is back on its feet after WW2, they aren't the prime age for getting the great new jobs - they're the older generation.

The generation after them, however, were children during the Depression. They came of age just in time to go to WW2 - tough and dangerous, but after that, if they survive, they have the GI bill, and an economy with excellent job prospects. That continued without a blip until the oil crises of the 1970s - and those were small compared with the Depression. Their life up to about 20 may have been tough, but as adults, they had a far better USA to be in than their parents - and note the article is comparing life as adults, not children.

Finally, I think the "time of prosperity" and "lived high on the hog" are pretty broadbrush statements for a whole generation. Sure, the rich were rich then, but there was far more inequality before 1940. For a long paper with all the figures, see here; here's Paul Krugman making use of that data:



An example of the figures: the top decile had between 40 and 45% of the income up until about 1940; that dropped within about 4 years to 32%, and stayed between 32 and 34% until 1987, when it leapt back to 38%, and was about 42% by 1998. The wealth of the 'roaring twenties' went largely to the rich; that of the post-war boom went to the middle class.

Hope the political results are different.

Maybe here in the USA for the last couple generations.

Hopefully there will be work for me until I retire - shooting for 60.

I don't consider myself to be "living", only "surviving".

My parents are doing well, even after several setbacks (both born around 1940).

We, on the other hand, had to spend down all of our assets to get healthcare for Hubby. Now we live on his SSDI, and I am his caregiver.

my crappy health insurance and hereditary health issues have combined to leave me in debt up to my ears. I doubt that I will EVER be able to retire. I'm perpetually exhausted and often wonder how I'll be able to continue at the same pace for decades to come.

The cost of living didn't outpace wages then. And if you had a mfg job, you did really well.

Dad was a Teamster, over the road driver for LTL carriers in the 60s and 70s. Not only were his driving wages and benefits spectacular, the buying power of his dollars beat the buying power of mine all to hell. He had to work 70 hours a week to make the living he did, but he was able to do well for a man with an 8th grade depression-era education.

I fear I will never do as well :(

42, and I've never come remotely close to equalling my parents' lifestyle. Then again, my father also worked about 60-100 hours a week. I've sworn I'd never be a slave to a company the way he was.

...was driving those LTL trucks, they could legally work 70 hours a week and that's what the company made them drive pretty much, union or no. Still, he made a damn good living at it,better than I've ever done no matter how many hours and jobs I've worked.

My dad was a butcher; worked @ Kroger transferred to Market Basket in CA in '65. Raised four kids; my mom didn't go to work until after my youngest sister was in junior high. My mom & dad are both retired; they have great health coverage; both have pensions and quite a investment portfolio. Not one of their four kids will have any of that.

I don't know if I will do better than my parents... they've set the bar pretty high. First off, they got married pretty young and were able to work together to build up wealth. They were able to go to community college for free in the 70s in NY. I, on the other hand, have thousands of dollars of loans from my university education. Ultimately, I think it's up to me though. Am I up for the challenge?

...are you willing to work two jobs? Because that's what I did when I came out of college in the late 70s, into the middle of a recession. I had student loans too.
And are you willing to start small, in terms of housing and luxuries? I didn't buy a brand new car until I was in my 30s. I bought a condo and had a roommate, and traded up gradually. That's how you do it. You live with hand-me-down furniture, and you save, and you wait for the payoff. My parents, and your parents, didn't start out in brand new McMansions with en-suite bathrooms. You can do it!!!

They were more or less true, when you compare inflation adjusted after tax incomes. People forget how brutal the 1980's recession was, and the 1990's recession wasn't much better. Later baby boomers (those born in the late 1950's or on) got hit by both recessions in the formative stages of their careers. It was no picnic.

Amen, and amen again.

Despite making more than six figures this year. I grew up in California, and still live in California but I can only dream of my parents standrad of living.

And I got lucky, and bought into a depressed market when I did buy. I would have a very hard time affording a house now, even though I make considerably more money (less than six figures, though).

we can either be green and welfarist (like a highly idealized France) or a plutocracy (conservative or neoliberal America)

I have my own house, 2 vehicles, and right many stuff I'v spent money on, like an expensive hometheater system with a 50" tv, $2000 gaming computer. Plus few thousand dollars worth of goodies for my two vehicles (stereo systems). Oh, and a $6000 dirtbike, though I'v had it for a while now. Furniture, bedding, kitchen accesories, things like that I'v gotten most of it yard sales for pretty good deals. But when its comes to thing I'll be using often, I dont like to cheap out on any of it, especially electronics!

I got pretty much everything I want, now I just wanna save money and pay off my house as fast as I can. My current job is welding/assembling utility trailers at $19/hour, I'm going back to the beach for another job (two jobs actually that I really enjoy!) in April where I can make a little more money.

Some people that make a good amount of money just dont know how to manage it and control their spending. I admit I'v gotten a little overboard with my spending quite a few times, but with a house now, no more!

Just that overall it's much harder.

Look we can sit here and tell all the stories in the world, but the numbers are the numbers.

A big part of the problem is that CEO pay is now about 170 times higher than the lowest paid worker, whereas in the 70's it was somewhere around 50 times higher. Now that's from memory I may be 10 or so points off but it is what it is. Now we're also going to have to keep SS solvent for a generation that is much larger than ours, and in a country that no offense has been run into the ground by the majority of that generation. Personally I'm thinking about leaving the country to go fuck itself.

We now get less vacation, fewer benefits, less pay when adjusted for inflation, and have fewer opportunities for advancement. Also we're required to have more education to get the jobs, and for most of us that means more debt. We also HAVE to have cellphones, computers, and cars in order to work so that means MORE DEBT just to enter the system. We work more for less pay.

And don't forget that most of the profit takers in this housing bubble weren't from my generation. My generation got fucked probably most of all in this recent downturn.

How much debt did you middle aged folks have to acrue to enter the system? Personally i'm looking at about 60k just to get a degree, buy work clothes, and get back and forth to work to make what someone like me made in 1972... before any adjustments for inflation.

On edit:

Don't forget that we're also fighting a baby boomer war at the moment. later on we're going to have to deal with all the problems that were largely left to my generation to fix such as global climate change, etc. Look I know that as Dems it's not your fault... but dammit if I'm not sick of the "You brought this on yourselves" shit from the older folks. How exactly did I do that? By working my ass of 80 hours a week in your businesses to pay your salaries at the university, and to then have to buy the shit that you make to get another shitty job with your companies so that you can pay off a house and sell it to me at an inflated price which will just further put me up to my eyes in debt... not to mention the 10k in national debt that your generation has saddled me with.

Stuff it. I am not old enough to have had control over this crap. I'm not a big spender AT ALL.

I'm only able to make it because mortgage prices here in NC arent inflated as much as right much of the country. When I moved out of my dad's house several months ago, it was worth around $100k. 35 years ago when he and mom bought it, it was only about $30k. I'm in debt of $180k now from financing mine.

The Bush gang owns the war, not a whole generation.

I graduated in 86 and in no way can compete with my retired GM father and his former 28 bucks an hour salary.

That was enough to buy a 3-bedroom, 2-bath house with two-car garage and a den, in suburban Long Beach, California for a family of four. And we always had two cars, enough to eat and clothes to wear. My mom only went to work when I was just entering junior high for a little more "economic freedom" (stepfather controlled the checkbook).

Now, both my wife and I work and we only have a 3-bedroom, 1-bath house (3rd bedroom is a converted part of the one-car garage. We have two kids and we're living from paycheck to paycheck!

One huge difference that I see in the younger generation is a failure to save for hard times. As someone who was raised by parents who lived through the Depression, that value trickled down to me. I learned to save for things I wanted to buy, instead of buying on credit, and I learned to adjust my expectations of lifestyle to fit the amount on my paycheck. Contrast that with my niece and her husband, who are up to their eyeballs in debt, bought a house they couldn't afford on an adjustable rate mortgage with no money down (which is about to go into foreclosure), always wearing the hottest looks, "destination wedding" in Cancun, etc. I earn twice what they do, but you would never know that from looking at the houses we live in, or the TVs we watch (they have TWO large flat screens -- I'm considering buying my first soon.) Oh, and did I mention that the minute they had equity in their house, they took out $30,000 to build a pool? And now the house is worth less than they owe, because of the downturn? That's purely failing to anticipate that hard times can come. My parents knew that, and they saved for it.

And by the way -- don't tell me you can't save. Everybody can save SOMETHING -- even if it's only $5 a week.

When you're paying 20% interest on what it took you to get through school and get a job. Saving = throwing away money in that scenario.

First of all, I can't believe that you're arguing against the value of saving. So, your plan is to never have an emergency fund in the bank, nothing to fall back on? So, when something comes along, a crisis, you'll borrow more money to fix it, and just perpetuate the original problem of too much debt? And in the meantime, the years go marching on, and you want to buy a house, but you have no money to put down, so you pay an even higher interest rate because you have no down payment, and on , and on, and on. That is so short-sighted.

Do you know what I did when I came out of college with student loan debt? I worked two jobs for 10 years, until it was paid off.

And anecdotal evidence. That's always astounding.

What say you on people who have not one penny to save? Do you honestly think everyone makes enough money that they CAN save?

So, everyone's LUCK is now the same? Everyone's financial situations are now the same? La di da, savings should be NO PROBLEM!! You make 50k a year?? You mean that you aren't living like royalty off of that amount?? COME on! Pull yourselves up by your bootstraps, camper! You're not poor compared to the rest of the world!

Between me needing basement waterproofing because my foundation is getting stairstep cracks, little triple-digit emergencies or unexpecteds that pop up almost monthly, the increased cost of gas, food, utilities, school, books, day care, auto repairs, etc, my miniscule tax return (because SOMEone's gotta fund the rich and pay for their oil wars, might as well be schmucks like ME!), getting no child support, having to have a car note on a used 2003 Corolla because the wife's '92 Nissan was practically on $200/mo life support and it just wasn't worth it, the fact that both of us have to work and are going no place really slow, our salaries that are losing big time to rising inflation, costs and taxes . . . I'd say I could save approximately BUPKIS PER MONTH!!!!

Get hit with a Clue By Four, will ya?

For example, my niece and her husband are only victims of their own excesses, and will receive no sympathy from me. Your situation, on the other hand, is much more sympathetic, and I recognize it to be a common one across America. However....and believe me, I am saying this gently, I do believe that everyone can save something. You pay yourself first (in savings) and then you pay your bills. Sit down and go over your budget (I've done this for dozens of people over the years) and you will find that a trip to McDonald's could have meant $10 in a savings account. Or carrying your lunch could mean $20 a week in a savings account. There are always ways to shave off a few dollars here and there. We all tend to live to the limits of our means, no matter how much we make, unless we take the time to realize that corporate America does its damndest to convince us we need or want a lot of crap that we don't need at all. All the best to you.

And by the way, I think I was surprisingly civil in my response to you, despite the hostile and demeaning tone of your reply to my OP.

That people often don't squeeze enough from their budgets the fact is that it is irrefutably harder to make it now that it was for at least the last 60 years for MOST Americans.

What about the above graph doesn't make sense? We work harder for less. Things cost more.

I guess I'm just a pragmatist. Sort of, "well, if that's the reality, then let's deal with it." It may take ten years for a family to save a down payment now, when it formerly took five. That sucks -- but not even starting to save, just throwing up one's hands and saying "I'll just live on debt" -- well that makes no sense at all.
As I said in a former post, I faced a recession when I came out of college in the late 70s. I was certainly in the same situation -- student debt, looking at a lifestyle poorer than my parents' -- but I did what I had to do to get through those lean years. I went without a car when I didn't need one. etc etc.

I'm not saying it's easy. I'm just saying it can be done.

because at some point, there is no insurance and the money is gone. All that is left is bankruptcy and a future of living at near-poverty level on disability. And when we both die, the state gets our estate to repay the medical expenses.

Did you know... that to receive Medicaid in Cal., a couple is allowed a house, a car and no more than $3000 cash assets (checking and savings); life insurance, 401ks, etc. are considered cash assets. We are essentially not allowed to save money, even if we could.


ed- ugh, not enough coffee yet...

who are they kidding? it's 2008, how does this writer not know that we have had the 80s, 90s, and most of the 2000s since the 50s, 60s, and 70s? has she been in a coma for the last 30 years or something?

kids have not done as well as parents for a long time, we're talking decades here, that's why so many people have advanced degrees, no jobs, no opportunities for anything except getting more debt and going to more school

i know many people, their dads had union jobs, but they couldn't get one, there was never an opening, and those dads are retired now and "the young" pushing 50

today's generation is nothing special, my generation didn't have any opportunity either, there were no jobs to be had during most of the 80s

didn't do as well financially as the "greatest generation."

if I did there is no way we would ever catch up to where my parents were when mom passed and dad was still working.

I'm 31 and I can't afford to buy a home in California... yet I make just short of six figures (heck last year I made more than six figures if you count stock sales.) Yet for me it would be financially wreckless to buy a home larger than a 300 sq ft studio.

So yes, if I can't do it, I sure as hell know how many young 20 somethings can't either.

I for one am not going to accept guilt.

Not all boomers had it easy. This one didn't.

And IME, our parents weren't nearly as lenient and touchy-feely as gen x's parents.

Sounds like you're po at your parents.

You're living in one of the most expensive areas of the US. Ever thought of moving?

Oh wait, your generation abandoned unions out of greed in the 80s. The result is that my generation, if we want union protections, have to completely rebuild unions from scratch across the ENTIRE public sector. Considering that the same Anti-Union propoganda exists today that existed in the 80s we have an entire generation that has never known the power of unions, and doesn't believe in them. It was the baby boomer generation that failed to MAINTAIN the unions that they were given by their parents.

Baby boomers never considered the consequences of doing away with the one lever of control the middle and working class had in the public sector. It's too bad they didn't consider the unionless future their children would someday face.

I have only one relative who belonged to a union. He worked for GM.

Why don't you move from someplace where everything's so expensive?

I know it's awful to say that a generation failed at something. But in this case they DID fail. They failed the trust their parents had when they handed those unions over to them. They failed the trust of their children by failing to maintain the unions and falling for the lies of right.

The Baby Boomers failed to recognize as a group the importance of maintaining unions, because there is no way that power could survive an entire generation abandoning it.

I apologize for I said at first, before I edited my post.

Now I'm not.

I'm sick and tired of being blamed for things I didn't do. IME, as a boomer, I didn't have an easy life, didn't have lots of material things, etc. From where I sit it seems like many of gen X had it much easier than I and most of my classmates ever had it. Many of them (not all) were raised by parents who indulged them too much.

The baby boomers protested against and ended the draft, and if it hadn't been for them, you might be in Iraq today.

Think about that.

And welcome to my ignore list.

They pitted non union against union in job wars. Corporations refused to negotiate with unions. The workers went on strike. They lost their jobs to non union workers because jobs were scarce. This happened in industry after industry.

You know, the kind that defend union workers through laws that protect union work places from the type of exploits you just mentioned?

and since it didn't rain much it's our fault. You better learn to take responsibility for your life and stop blaming other people for your failings.

You live in a time and place and you make the best of your situation. That's what all of us have to do. No one is promised a rose garden. No one made your life hard for you, you do that. In stead of sitting on your pity pot you better get off you ass and make something of yourself.

Actually I'm considering a move to Chicago in the next two months where my California income well afford me a nice home in the core of the city. I imagine things aren't much better for the average Chicagoan who works in a "wage adjusted" position similar to mine. Thankfully the money I've been saving here to try and afford a down payment on a home well be a HUGE down payment there.

And no... I'm not pissed at my parents. They are both union professionals. They are both democrats, and both worked hard for the best pay possible for their fellow teachers even when their fellow teachers were afraid to strike.

...be worse off than their parents. At least from the point of view of the older X'ers (Graduated HS early to mid/late 80's) which were born to the older Boomers (those Boomers who made it to Vietnam and were teens and young adults during the late 60's early 70's.).

But then again people run fast and loose with age ranges (even the so called experts) so I imagine someone will disagree.

n/t

I don't know anybody who can afford a home and I'm surronded by highly paid professionals making around 80-120k per year.

Granted, the home I bought is a 1952 starter which needed (and still needs) upgrades and repairs, but at least it's not a balsawood McMansion and affordable. There's no way I would have been able to buy a house from 2005 on, even in NE Ohio, where homes are relatively accessible.

And this was back when the dollar traveled a lot further than it does now. He made the equivalent of about 100k (today's dollars, which goes a LONG way in NE Ohio) and I'm making nowhere NEAR that.

Granted, he had to practically live there to make that money, but at least he got paid overtime and double overtime. I'm on salary and a comparatively miniscule one at that.

I'm not certain whether I should end with "It's good to be the king" or "Mission accomplished".

Where I grew up, in the early 60s, the boys that graduated from Hight School, usually went to work for the lumber industry in the Pacific Northwest.
Some went to work for big companies like Weyerhauser (sic) or International Paper, some went to work for contract loggers like Ben Thomas or Jensen & Grove. Many worked in the plywood and sawmills, many others logging the timber to feed the mills. Now when a person graduates, they go into the service or move out of the area. Almost no more industrial operations left in that part of the State.

Some of us had a glimmer of hope during the dot com boom but rather than cash out even more of us lost 2-3 wages right down a hole. Housing boom same shit different decade. Now that a lot of us are turning 40, we see there is no way we are going to equal the income of our parents in real income.


Remember that GEN-X has had to live with the Minimum Wage staying stagnant for Two Different 10 year periods in our lives yet most of us are just turning forty. Half our lives inflation has been eating us.



I have had the honor of once working a similar job that my Great Grandfather did at the same factory.

But the difference is that I was hired on as a temp and paid about 1/3 less in real wages.