Jump to content

Boomers Owned Much More of the Wealth


Jules

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm sort of on board with @cmilliken that the difference between boomers and Millennials is structural.  But I also think a lot of the blame for the millennials being such douche nozzles falls squarely on their parents and society at large.  The focus was on chasing the buck and living in a McMansion while simultaneously society was very pointedly devaluing the family.  There were a lot more 2 working parent families and single-parent families where the kids were latchkey kids from an early age.  Add in participation trophies and the false notion that every kid was a perfect little precious snowflake that could do not wrong.  The millennials grew up without much sense of the value of hard work or the heartache of failure because everything was handed to them and they were told they were perfect and their shit didn't stink.  And then millennials hit the real world where this IS failure and no one is going to coddle them through life anymore.  Its no wonder the suicide rate is so high among millennials.  They've had the rug pulled out from under them due to false over-inflated expectations.  They also have far less social skills because they do most of their interaction online.  They were also fucked because 20+ years of offshoring jobs finally hit them full force when they entered the workplace.  

Couple of comments I guess.

One of my personal beliefs is that humans - as a genetic organism - haven't changed much in the last dozen or so generations.  I'm a fan of epigentics and I'm willing to entertain some environmental factors but fundamentally, if you took a human infant from 1700 and raised him in 2000 USA, they'd look and act just like any other 20 year old kid.  So when people say 'kids these days', those kids are a reflection of the environment they were raised in.  There is nothing genetically unique about boomers, genx, or millennials.

I have no doubt that people work hard and that some of them achieve great things.  But I also believe there are people that work hard and achieve nothing.  "Luck" is the combination of chance + opportunity.  You have to work to put yourself in a situation where that work can pay off - but it's STILL chance.  When  opportunity disappears, it doesn't matter how hard you work.  You CAN buy a single lottery ticket.  Not much effort but you still COULD become rich.  Personally, I'd venture that the average rice farmer works FAR FAR harder than the average middle class American.  And I'd argue that some of those folks worked every bit as hard as any of the people who post here and still died of some nasty disease that would have been cured if they were in a 'typical western' family.  So it's not 'just effort'. 

I know that some people look at poverty as a sign of poor character.  You're poor because you deserve it.  For those religious folks, that view is literally anti-christian.  And for those non religious, all I can say is hang out with poor people.  You'll discover it's also not a governing postulate.  People are people.  Poor people have no better or worse character than the folks you hang out with on a day to day basis.  What they have is less money to cover up their bad choices.  They fall harder and farther for every mistake.

So when we talk about demographic changes, it's confusing at the individual level but it's not that obscure as you pull back further.  There's been a dramatically increasing wealth gap across 300 MILLION people.   This isn't about one guy sitting on his ass... or a thousand guys.. or even a million.  This is about 10's of millions of people.  It's ALLL their fault?  To explain that level of change, there's either massive societal factors or there's a massive genetic change.

People want to feel good about themselves and people want to feel that 'they've earned' their wealth.  That's part of ego and I'm not going to argue that point.  You have worked hard and you have earned your wealth - unless you bought a lottery ticket in which case you didn't work very hard but at least you bought the ticket.  Point conceded.

What i do believe - because i have experienced it directly - is that the current economic system we've created hurts economic mobility and concentrates wealth into fewer hands in concentrated areas.  CAN you achieve wealth if you're born in Omaha?  Sure.. but its easier if you're in Philadelphia.   Move to Philadelphia?  That's a big activation barrier.  Fees to move are high and in major cities, they're prohibitive unless you already have money.

What are those systemic issues?  At the high end, the structure of capital injection IS BY DESIGN aimed at helping the incumbent. We inject money directly into gate keepers who then hand it out to the investor class who then seek deals who then flow into companies who then ... eventually.. pay employees.  At every pass is a little bit of friction - fees that are taken off to 'make sure the money is well spent'.   And the amount of friction depends on risk.  As the risk goes up, the fees GO UP and the number of ventures become EVEN MORE concentrated into the hands of the few 'accepted risk' corridors.

At the bottom end, there's an equally byzantine collection of fees and costs that are unavoidable.  Go on YouTube and watch what happens to convicts that are released from prison and how their first year of life is spent.  Yes, they're convicts.  Yes, they've served their time.  Unless you believe in scarlet letters, that's suppose to be the point where you get to restart.  Focus on how their money gets spent.  For example - they have to pay $25 application fees to find a place to live.  Of course, they tell the landlord that they ARE a felon and ask, up front, if that's going to be a problem?  The answer is usually 'apply and see' but of course, the 'rental company' NEVER rents to felons.  But they can't SAY they never rent to felons because THAT would be discrimination so they charge the felon $25 to say no.  That's PER application.  To someone already making shit wages.  They pay 4% to cash the shit paycheck.  They have no transportation so milk costs $3.99 instead of $2.99 and Raman noodles cost $0.89 cents instead of $0.25 cents.

What really opened my eyes was sitting in a meeting talking to some guys who were creating an energy REIT.  This is an investment vehicle based on energy fees.  One of the biggest growth areas is in trailer parks.  WTF trailer parks?  I grew up in a trailer park. Because it's a captive populous - the people that live there are poor and can't afford to move.  So you buy up the park, buy up the power supply, then charge $0.14 c/kwh instead of $0.10 c/kwh and pocket the difference.  This wasn't an accident.  The trailer parks are targeted because they're places where poor people are concentrated.  The investors in REITs don't care where they get their return - only that they get it.  And who are the people investing in REITs?  Who else - institutional investors who want their 8% and don't give a rats ass how they get it.  Poor people are targeted because they lack mobility in order to make money for the investor class.  I don't know how to say it any more plainly.  Go read the prospectus.  Follow the money.  This is all intentional.  Don't take my word for it.  Prove it to yourself.

As I said above, my wife is a social worker.  I could write books about the ways people get shived.  And every single cut is by design.  Its not an accident.  It's not a coincidence.  It's not a quirk.  It's the cold blooded and absolutely ruthless strategy to force money from people who can't avoid paying.  And those same companies turn around and use that money to offer perks to attract people who DO have money and have choice.   

I use to be against the idea of helicopter money.. but at this point, I literally see no alternative.  It's like the Colorado river.. no matter how much water goes in the top, none of it is hitting the Gulf of Baja.  That's why I agree with Andrew Yang.  The game is over.  There is no way, short of just handing people money, to offset the impact of the structured death by a thousand cuts.

I remember listening to an interview with this impoverished guy who was sitting at a park smoking a cigarette.  The interviewer talked to him for a few minutes and asked him about why 'do you waste money on cigarettes?  They're so expensive?"  His answer was 'I treat myself twice a day because for a few minutes, I feel normal.  I can just be an average guy, taking a break'.  Yes, he was wasting a buck a day on cigarettes and probably should have been saving it because then he'd have $300 at the end of the year.

But it's not one guy on a bench.  It's 10s of millions of people.   Are they ALLLLL just losers?  I don't think so.  I think the board has become dramatically slanted to support the incumbents.  Just like 'gerrymandered politics', we've gerrymandered our economics to help the incumbents. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

 And a lot of it will go back into the economy when the boomers start having to pay for all their end of life medical bills. 

Only in America you say?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

 When they die, that wealth is going to get passed on.  And a lot of it will go back into the economy when the boomers start having to pay for all their end of life medical bills.  

 

The end of life medical bills just help with the concentration of wealth. Live old bodies are now a cash cow. An asset to be pumped dry of funds until there is no more. As CM points out, the incumbents get one last suck on the body before tossing out the shell.

No care if the money is private or taxpayer, just that they can squeeze the lemon one last time.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

No, I didn't say.

Yeah I guess it's asking a lot for you to realize that the rest of us won't ever start having to pay for all their end of life medical bills.  

Because we're all too fuckin' smart to let Republicans and their elk run things.

Enjoy your bankrupt final years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2019 at 4:37 PM, BBender said:

Now I actually agree that anyone living in a $mil plus house and on pension should be for example taxed a death tax of say 30% but I’ll bloody fight anyone who tries to take my franking credits or other benefits I have earned to give to my kids when I cark it.

Its my fucking money and I’m enjoying retirement with a boat and a Merc . so suck it up get down to Centrelink for your handout and go smoke a bomb . 

You are a poster child for the Boomer years. It's great that you are doing ok after a moderately slow start to life.

I wouldn't get too attached to your franking credits scam though. If you look at the political messaging since the election, even the Libs can see which way the wind is blowing on that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Battlecheese said:

You are a poster child for the Boomer years. It's great that you are doing ok after a moderately slow start to life.

I wouldn't get too attached to your franking credits scam though. If you look at the political messaging since the election, even the Libs can see which way the wind is blowing on that.

Doing what the ALP proposed won't make them any money because people will just rearrange their affairs, given sufficient notice.

Now if they were going to remove the credits from superannuation funds, that would make a difference. Maybe.

But they won't do that so it's moot.

Disclaimer: no personal loss/gain as my money is in industry run superannuation funds.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, cmilliken said:

Couple of comments I guess.

One of my personal beliefs is that humans - as a genetic organism - haven't changed much in the last dozen or so generations.  I'm a fan of epigentics and I'm willing to entertain some environmental factors but fundamentally, if you took a human infant from 1700 and raised him in 2000 USA, they'd look and act just like any other 20 year old kid.  So when people say 'kids these days', those kids are a reflection of the environment they were raised in.  There is nothing genetically unique about boomers, genx, or millennials.

I have no doubt that people work hard and that some of them achieve great things.  But I also believe there are people that work hard and achieve nothing.  "Luck" is the combination of chance + opportunity.  You have to work to put yourself in a situation where that work can pay off - but it's STILL chance.  When  opportunity disappears, it doesn't matter how hard you work.  You CAN buy a single lottery ticket.  Not much effort but you still COULD become rich.  Personally, I'd venture that the average rice farmer works FAR FAR harder than the average middle class American.  And I'd argue that some of those folks worked every bit as hard as any of the people who post here and still died of some nasty disease that would have been cured if they were in a 'typical western' family.  So it's not 'just effort'. 

I know that some people look at poverty as a sign of poor character.  You're poor because you deserve it.  For those religious folks, that view is literally anti-christian.  And for those non religious, all I can say is hang out with poor people.  You'll discover it's also not a governing postulate.  People are people.  Poor people have no better or worse character than the folks you hang out with on a day to day basis.  What they have is less money to cover up their bad choices.  They fall harder and farther for every mistake.

So when we talk about demographic changes, it's confusing at the individual level but it's not that obscure as you pull back further.  There's been a dramatically increasing wealth gap across 300 MILLION people.   This isn't about one guy sitting on his ass... or a thousand guys.. or even a million.  This is about 10's of millions of people.  It's ALLL their fault?  To explain that level of change, there's either massive societal factors or there's a massive genetic change.

People want to feel good about themselves and people want to feel that 'they've earned' their wealth.  That's part of ego and I'm not going to argue that point.  You have worked hard and you have earned your wealth - unless you bought a lottery ticket in which case you didn't work very hard but at least you bought the ticket.  Point conceded.

What i do believe - because i have experienced it directly - is that the current economic system we've created hurts economic mobility and concentrates wealth into fewer hands in concentrated areas.  CAN you achieve wealth if you're born in Omaha?  Sure.. but its easier if you're in Philadelphia.   Move to Philadelphia?  That's a big activation barrier.  Fees to move are high and in major cities, they're prohibitive unless you already have money.

What are those systemic issues?  At the high end, the structure of capital injection IS BY DESIGN aimed at helping the incumbent. We inject money directly into gate keepers who then hand it out to the investor class who then seek deals who then flow into companies who then ... eventually.. pay employees.  At every pass is a little bit of friction - fees that are taken off to 'make sure the money is well spent'.   And the amount of friction depends on risk.  As the risk goes up, the fees GO UP and the number of ventures become EVEN MORE concentrated into the hands of the few 'accepted risk' corridors.

At the bottom end, there's an equally byzantine collection of fees and costs that are unavoidable.  Go on YouTube and watch what happens to convicts that are released from prison and how their first year of life is spent.  Yes, they're convicts.  Yes, they've served their time.  Unless you believe in scarlet letters, that's suppose to be the point where you get to restart.  Focus on how their money gets spent.  For example - they have to pay $25 application fees to find a place to live.  Of course, they tell the landlord that they ARE a felon and ask, up front, if that's going to be a problem?  The answer is usually 'apply and see' but of course, the 'rental company' NEVER rents to felons.  But they can't SAY they never rent to felons because THAT would be discrimination so they charge the felon $25 to say no.  That's PER application.  To someone already making shit wages.  They pay 4% to cash the shit paycheck.  They have no transportation so milk costs $3.99 instead of $2.99 and Raman noodles cost $0.89 cents instead of $0.25 cents.

What really opened my eyes was sitting in a meeting talking to some guys who were creating an energy REIT.  This is an investment vehicle based on energy fees.  One of the biggest growth areas is in trailer parks.  WTF trailer parks?  I grew up in a trailer park. Because it's a captive populous - the people that live there are poor and can't afford to move.  So you buy up the park, buy up the power supply, then charge $0.14 c/kwh instead of $0.10 c/kwh and pocket the difference.  This wasn't an accident.  The trailer parks are targeted because they're places where poor people are concentrated.  The investors in REITs don't care where they get their return - only that they get it.  And who are the people investing in REITs?  Who else - institutional investors who want their 8% and don't give a rats ass how they get it.  Poor people are targeted because they lack mobility in order to make money for the investor class.  I don't know how to say it any more plainly.  Go read the prospectus.  Follow the money.  This is all intentional.  Don't take my word for it.  Prove it to yourself.

As I said above, my wife is a social worker.  I could write books about the ways people get shived.  And every single cut is by design.  Its not an accident.  It's not a coincidence.  It's not a quirk.  It's the cold blooded and absolutely ruthless strategy to force money from people who can't avoid paying.  And those same companies turn around and use that money to offer perks to attract people who DO have money and have choice.   

I use to be against the idea of helicopter money.. but at this point, I literally see no alternative.  It's like the Colorado river.. no matter how much water goes in the top, none of it is hitting the Gulf of Baja.  That's why I agree with Andrew Yang.  The game is over.  There is no way, short of just handing people money, to offset the impact of the structured death by a thousand cuts.

I remember listening to an interview with this impoverished guy who was sitting at a park smoking a cigarette.  The interviewer talked to him for a few minutes and asked him about why 'do you waste money on cigarettes?  They're so expensive?"  His answer was 'I treat myself twice a day because for a few minutes, I feel normal.  I can just be an average guy, taking a break'.  Yes, he was wasting a buck a day on cigarettes and probably should have been saving it because then he'd have $300 at the end of the year.

But it's not one guy on a bench.  It's 10s of millions of people.   Are they ALLLLL just losers?  I don't think so.  I think the board has become dramatically slanted to support the incumbents.  Just like 'gerrymandered politics', we've gerrymandered our economics to help the incumbents. 

 

You're in the wrong job. This deserves more than half a dozen "likes" from a bunch of strangers in the mosh pit of a sailing forum.

Very well said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Doing what the ALP proposed won't make them any money because people will just rearrange their affairs, given sufficient notice.

The franking credits scare really annoyed me, and showed how little most people understand our tax system.

Today I own shares in BHP. They earn $100 for me for the year.

From that $100 they pay the government $30 on my behalf, and give me $70.

Because I would have otherwise had to declare that $100 as income, and give the gov $47 of it (keeping $53 myself), I think this is a good thing.

In 20 years I will be retired. Hopefully BHP is still earning $100 for me for the year.

If so, they will still be giving the gov $30 of MY MONEY, and giving me $70.

At that point I will have no income, and hence owe no tax. Therefore I will be asking the government to give me back my $30. Just like everyone who earns below the tax free threshold gets whatever tax they have paid back as a refund.

And as FKT says, if at that point the government won't give me back my $30, then I will either get BHP to give me the $100 directly, or sell those shares and buy shares in a company who pays unfranked dividends. Simple. Either way, I won't be donating my $30 to the gov.

It really is that simple, yet people get all bent out of shape about it for no good reason (other than a lack of interest in understanding their own finances I guess)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The company you have invested in pays tax of 30% of declared profits for distribution back to the shareholder ( you)  on your behalf . Note: not all companies do this and some may pay less than 30%.

So as per Se7 you receive a divided cheque of say $70 from the company .They have already paid 30% to the taxation department ,say $30 on that dividend of $70 you received .

So in your tax return you declare an income of $100 and claim a credit ( franked) of $30 as it is already paid by the company on your behalf.

(In ones tax return the  franking credit amount is deducted from the tax payable calculated at your rate of tax . )

What if even after declaring the $100 income in you tax return you do not have to pay tax or the tax you have to pay is less than the franked credit already paid on your behalf ? The Gov’t ,at the time,  decided that the tax paid on your behalf or part thereof should be refunded to you as you have declared the whole $100 as income . 

So investors such as me who have set up their finances to minimise tax ,eg Superannuation ( allocated pension) and shares directly owned invest in blue chip companies that pay franked dividends as part of the income stream .

The govt. opposition claimed that as you do not pay any tax you should not be entitled to get back what the company has paid on your behalf.

(In ones tax return the  franking credit amount is deducted from the tax payable calculated at your rate of tax . )

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

OK boomers :D

If you wer referring to me, you must have missed the "in 20 years I will retire".

But my generation are used to being forgotten.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

You're in the wrong job. This deserves more than half a dozen "likes" from a bunch of strangers in the mosh pit of a sailing forum.

Very well said.

Some day.  ;)  Thank you for the kind words.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Yeah I guess it's asking a lot for you to realize that the rest of us won't ever start having to pay for all their end of life medical bills.  

Because we're all too fuckin' smart to let Republicans and their elk run things.

Enjoy your bankrupt final years.

The for-profit health industry isn't going to change here, at least not for a very long time.  We see drug ads plastered all over the TV screen, followed up by health insurance ads and those ads help support the corporate media.  Billions of dollars would be lost if the U.S. had Canadian style health insurance and along with that campaign donations from for-profit healthcare would evaporate.  No way that's happening here.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jules said:

The for-profit health industry isn't going to change here, at least not for a very long time.  We see drug ads plastered all over the TV screen, followed up by health insurance ads and those ads help support the corporate media.  Billions of dollars would be lost if the U.S. had Canadian style health insurance and along with that campaign donations from for-profit healthcare would evaporate.  No way that's happening here.   

I don't watch much or any TV, I really love the drug Ads , they always seem to end "and may cause death"

and my second favorite one is , "you may not know you have this condition" but taking our drug will prevent it from occuring.

being a Boomer I can honestly say the only drugs I've every taken is a baby aspirin & being a sailor MT GAY RUM

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, garuda3 said:

I don't watch much or any TV, I really love the drug Ads , they always seem to end "and may cause death"

and my second favorite one is , "you may not know you have this condition" but taking our drug will prevent it from occuring.

being a Boomer I can honestly say the only drugs I've every taken is a baby aspirin & being a sailor MT GAY RUM

You might find this interesting

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/06/price-check-top-10-most-advertised-drugs/676763002/

These ads are usually  followed by those of lawyers seeking to sue based on the side effects that folks were already told about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2019 at 1:30 PM, BravoBravo said:

Boo Hoo...Millennials turned their collective backs on for profit corporations, were attracted to minimalist life styles and wants...spend what little money they have on overpriced cash based indie businesses that probably cheat on taxes all the while crying fro more government solutions to personal needs .They complain about housing costs and not being able to afford buying a home or renting something that suits their standards....meanwhile Mexicans their same age that bust their collective asses working multiple jobs are enjoying the American dream. One former coworker, Mexican, barley spoke English when he started with us. He is 35, owns one house outright and buying two others, the houses are in older lower income areas( where millennials would NEVER consider living. All houses have more than doubled in value according to Zillow from the recorded purchase price in county records...guy drives a beater PU he bought from the landscape company he used to work for, he paid $500 when they upgraded the fleet...he has been driving that PU for the 9 years I've known him. He says his friends all asked him why he doesn't buy a nicer vehicle, he just shrugs his shoulders and grins when telling the story. He goes to church is married with 3 kids...net worth if cashing out of his real estate is close to $500 K.... so there !....and Oh...unscientific theory of mine...have you listened to the dire drone of their "music"....No ! Rock n' Roll... 

BOO!  My children are educated, entrepreneurial and happy.

Salt of the earth.

Perhaps your piss on society is your way of justifying yourself.

I am in boom town.  People come here to work and find jobs.

The leftovers have human needs.  Real humans address them.  

It is a measure of society on how we treat the weakest members.

I'd like those in the service industry to be paid well.  You? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jules said:

 Billions of dollars would be lost if the U.S. had Canadian style health insurance

They would only be "lost" to the greedy fuckers in the health insurance industry.

The billions would still be there, they would just be redirected to something more productive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, garuda3 said:

I don't watch much or any TV, I really love the drug Ads , they always seem to end "and may cause death"

and my second favorite one is , "you may not know you have this condition" but taking our drug will prevent it from occuring.

being a Boomer I can honestly say the only drugs I've every taken is a baby aspirin & being a sailor MT GAY RUM

I liked the one that had "anal leakage" as a side effect. :lol:

Yeah, gimme some of that.

The ones that we see here spend so much time listing all the possible side effects that it's seldom clear what the med is for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

I liked the one that had "anal leakage" as a side effect. :lol:

Yeah, gimme some of that.

The ones that we see here spend so much time listing all the possible side effects that it's seldom clear what the med is for.

Maybe we should start a butt plug business to offset anal leakage.  Come in a variety of colors and materials.  And for Trump supporters our special stick up your ass version.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

They would only be "lost" to the greedy fuckers in the health insurance industry.

The billions would still be there, they would just be redirected to something more productive.

The CEO of UHC netted 18 million dollars, or another words, Sick people lost 18 million in health care 

Didn't Christ say something about healing the sick, shit what did he know he's only God's son!

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, garuda3 said:
4 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

They would only be "lost" to the greedy fuckers in the health insurance industry.

The billions would still be there, they would just be redirected to something more productive.

The CEO of UHC netted 18 million dollars, or another words, Sick people lost 18 million in health care 

Didn't Christ say something about healing the sick, shit what did he know he's only God's son!

Phagh... chump change! The top pharma CEO raked in a little over $600 million in 2017. That's almost 2 bucks from every single man, woman, and child, in the USA. The other pharma-bros are not that far behind.

Clearly, in accordance with orthodox capitalist theory, they have massively improved the health of the entire nation to earn such sums!

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Phagh... chump change! The top pharma CEO raked in a little over $600 million in 2017. That's almost 2 bucks from every single man, woman, and child, in the USA. The other pharma-bros are not that far behind.

Clearly, in accordance with orthodox capitalist theory, they have massively improved the health of the entire nation to earn such sums!

- DSK

JerKZ will confirm that last line.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2019 at 10:58 AM, SloopJonB said:
On 11/28/2019 at 12:19 AM, Fah Kiew Tu said:

However it's a fact that you can still get ahead if you're prepared to sacrifice and work your butt off.

FKT

Just like always.

Yup. Some of the hardest working people in the world are women on the continent of Africa. Look how most of 'em ended up billionaires. It's a fact, hard work pays.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, B.J. Porter said:

Yup. Some of the hardest working people in the world are women on the continent of Africa. Look how most of 'em ended up billionaires. It's a fact, hard work pays.

Are you having a bad day? Because that's a truly idiotic response.

There's no doubt that all of us in First World countries won the life lottery.

Given that, you can do the 'woe is me' thing or you can use your brains, work bloody hard and still end up nowhere if you can't catch a break. Or you can get ahead.

Flip side, if you're not a scion of the 1%, you DON'T use your brains and you DON'T work bloody hard, I can guarantee that you will NOT get ahead. Your choice.

So don't play that shit to me - I graduated from a High School that sent almost as many of my year class to jail as university, and it was a damn fine line who went where. You, OTOH, come across as an entitled upper middle class twit who tries to be 'woke' to fit in with the left's take on the guilt trip white privilege theme.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW:

Just before we wander too far off - one of the best ways to grow wealth is to buy a starter home, put in some equity, then flip and move up.

Guess who else noticed that's a good way to generate wealth?

Enter the Residential REIT market.  After a successful 20 billion dollar raise, the residential REIT community is out raising 200 BILLION dollars over the next few years.  What are they targeting?  Starter homes in metro areas.. but not Boston/NY/San Diego.  Those markets are pretty saturated.  No.. the new targets are Memphis, Raleigh, Columbus, and any metro with 1,000,000+ people and a strong economic growth rate.  The particular desirable property is anything in the adjacent burb cities, at between 4-5x the median income.

These aren't "growth" investments.  These are CASH generating companies for people who need monthly income.  WHO could that be appealing too?  Perhaps people who are set to retire who aren't interested in what MIGHT be 10 years from now but need money for expenses today?

When governments suppress bond prices, the investor class WILL figure out a way to generate their returns.   And they take it from people who don't have a choice.  You NEED your job.  You NEED a place to live.

Why now?  One reason - globalization.  Such plays use to be risky - if Boeing laid off, the local market crashed!  But in the global world, if I own 10,000 properties all over the USA AND i'm being propped up by foreign investors who LITERALLY don't care if they lose money as long as the cash is outside their countries, I can weather any downturn.  I can't wait for the market to rebound and YOU STILL NEED A PLACE TO LIVE.

So the Mexican guy working his ass off to buy houses etc?  Yea.. now he's going to be working his ass off to rent or he's going to have to outbid the local REIT investor.  If you're an incumbent, that's a pretty cool system.  If you're a boomer looking to retire, that's a pretty cool system!  If you're not.. well, too bad.

The only real countervailing force are places like Texas where there's so much land its hard to have a captive market.  That'll take a while.  But in any city where geography is more constrained?  CASH baby!

There's a similar push into the energy market because of regulatory capture.  The only new power is all being grandfathered (it's impossible in most places to get new permits) so owning an old relay station has suddenly become valuable as well.  That IS speculative because governments can change their mind faster than geography.

None of this is accidental.  And it's happening in republican strongholds and democratic strong holds.  This is working as intended.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Given that, you can do the 'woe is me' thing or you can use your brains, work bloody hard and still end up nowhere if you can't catch a break. Or you can get ahead.

Flip side, if you're not a scion of the 1%, you DON'T use your brains and you DON'T work bloody hard, I can guarantee that you will NOT get ahead. Your choice.

 

 

Sounds desperate, not getting ahead.

 

Could someone please explain this curious ambition? "Getting ahead"

.

Ahead of who? 

If you work 12 hrs per day, 6 days a week and own 4 chooks and a goat are you  ahead of the bloke that works 5 hours a day 5 days a week and only has 6 chooks?

Or in more western capitalist terms.

Is the man that works 12 hours per day 10 days straight and owns a boat, two houses (one with with a pool and 5 bedrooms and a home theatre)  and several dogs ahead of the bloke or blokess who works a normal 38 hour week and only owns a house and a cat?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

They would only be "lost" to the greedy fuckers in the health insurance industry.

Yes, and with it those fat campaign donations would be lost to those greedy fucking politicians.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2019 at 9:13 PM, Jules said:

Fraction of all US wealth owned by Boomers & Gen-Xers when the average member of each was age 35:

  • Boomers, 1989 21%
  • GenX, 2008 8%
  • The average Millennial turns 35 in 2023. Right now they own 3%.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/table/#quarter:119;series:Net worth;demographic:generation;population:all;units:shares

I'd say it's time the pendulum starts swinging the other way.

A simple toggle of a button at the site, and some quick research reveals the following:

In 1989 74 million Boomers had total wealth of $4.4 trillion

In 2008 65.8 Million GenX had total wealth $5.25 Trillion. 

In 2019 71 million Millennials had total wealth of 3.4 Trillion, up 0.37T in the last year.

These are statistics in search of a problem. It's pretty obvious that, in term of total wealth, the Millennials, entering their prime earning and wealth building years, will likely surpass both preceding cohorts in total wealth, especially as boomers retire and die.

So, to sum it up, In terms of what matters, actual wealth, GenX is doing BETTER than the Boomers.

This illustrates the importance of economic growth. The fact is that the American economic pie has grown tremendously, thanks to ALL 3 Cohorts, and the rising tide has, in fact, lifted all ships. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cruisin Loser said:

A simple toggle of a button at the site, and some quick research reveals the following:

In 1989 74 million Boomers had total wealth of $4.4 trillion In  1989 Q3, Boomers had 20.9% of the pie.

In 2008 65.8 Million GenX had total wealth $5.25 Trillion. In 2008 Q1, GenX had 8.1% of the pie.

In 2019 71 million Millennials had total wealth of 3.4 Trillion, up 0.37T in the last year. In 2019 Q1, Millenials had 3.2% of the pie.

These are statistics in search of a problem. It's pretty obvious that, in term of total wealth, the Millennials, entering their prime earning and wealth building years, will likely surpass both preceding cohorts in total wealth, especially as boomers retire and die.

So, to sum it up, In terms of what matters, actual wealth, GenX is doing BETTER than the Boomers.

This illustrates the importance of economic growth. The fact is that the American economic pie has grown tremendously, thanks to ALL 3 Cohorts, and the rising tide has, in fact, lifted all ships. 

FIFY. Well, some of it at least.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Are you having a bad day? Because that's a truly idiotic response.

There's no doubt that all of us in First World countries won the life lottery.

Given that, you can do the 'woe is me' thing or you can use your brains, work bloody hard and still end up nowhere if you can't catch a break. Or you can get ahead.

Flip side, if you're not a scion of the 1%, you DON'T use your brains and you DON'T work bloody hard, I can guarantee that you will NOT get ahead. Your choice.

So don't play that shit to me - I graduated from a High School that sent almost as many of my year class to jail as university, and it was a damn fine line who went where. You, OTOH, come across as an entitled upper middle class twit who tries to be 'woke' to fit in with the left's take on the guilt trip white privilege theme.

FKT

The blanket statement that anyone that works hard can "succeed" these days is specious, at best. We've got millions of people working their asses off in multiple jobs for many hours a week past full time just to stay above water and are one car breakdown or illness away from losing what little they have and ending up on the street. There is more to serious success than hard work, or we'd have a lot more millionaires. First world vs. 3rd world proves the statement in it's entirety, though it's a more extreme example of the principle of being born in a more optimal place.

Make whatever judgements you want about my background and upbringing - they will likely be wrong and reflect more on you than me. My parents valued education, not money, which is why they taught in private schools so my sister and I could attend as part of their compensation. It's also why I'm educated; both of my parents were the first in their families to go to college and saw it as a priority worth sacrificing for. I don't know if private school teachers make a shit-ton of money in Australia, but in the US they make less than public school teachers by a fair amount - we were never close to upper middle class. Middle class, yes.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:
8 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

You, OTOH, come across as an entitled upper middle class twit who tries to be 'woke' to fit in with the left's take on the guilt trip white privilege theme.

BJ is one of the High Priests of the Church of the Holy White Guilt.

Some of recognize we had advantages in our upbringing even if we didn't grow up affluent.

Some don't. Some imagine the world is on a level playing field when they've been playing the game on "Easy" the whole time. Some people recognize they can still win the game, but some people are stuck playing on "Hard."

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cruisin Loser said:

A simple toggle of a button at the site, and some quick research reveals the following:

In 1989 74 million Boomers had total wealth of $4.4 trillion

In 2008 65.8 Million GenX had total wealth $5.25 Trillion. 

In 2019 71 million Millennials had total wealth of 3.4 Trillion, up 0.37T in the last year.

These are statistics in search of a problem. It's pretty obvious that, in term of total wealth, the Millennials, entering their prime earning and wealth building years, will likely surpass both preceding cohorts in total wealth, especially as boomers retire and die.

So, to sum it up, In terms of what matters, actual wealth, GenX is doing BETTER than the Boomers.

This illustrates the importance of economic growth. The fact is that the American economic pie has grown tremendously, thanks to ALL 3 Cohorts, and the rising tide has, in fact, lifted all ships. 

 

 

Are those numbers adjusted for both number of people and inflation?

You can't look at the total dollar value of wealth if the number of people is larger or the dollars are worth less.

That's why the percentage of wealth is more relevant, it's not diluted by population or economics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

The blanket statement that anyone that works hard can "succeed" these days is specious, at best. We've got millions of people working their asses off in multiple jobs for many hours a week past full time just to stay above water and are one car breakdown or illness away from losing what little they have and ending up on the street. There is more to serious success than hard work, or we'd have a lot more millionaires. First world vs. 3rd world proves the statement in it's entirety, though it's a more extreme example of the principle of being born in a more optimal place.

Make whatever judgements you want about my background and upbringing - they will likely be wrong and reflect more on you than me. My parents valued education, not money, which is why they taught in private schools so my sister and I could attend as part of their compensation. It's also why I'm educated; both of my parents were the first in their families to go to college and saw it as a priority worth sacrificing for. I don't know if private school teachers make a shit-ton of money in Australia, but in the US they make less than public school teachers by a fair amount - we were never close to upper middle class. Middle class, yes.

 

I have to attest to this - my wife hadn't had a raise teaching in public school for over a dozen years - and still took a 20% pay cut to go teach in my daughters' parochial school.  She's still MUCH happier, and we did get a 25% tuition break for the girls.   Your point that hard work absent opportunity is valid, but, it's equally as valid to say that opportunity comes more easily to those who seek to create it than it does to those who sit back and wait for it to come to them.   That each position exists doesn't negate the other, and real improvement necessitates consideration of both. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BravoBravo said:

The Social Security check is now (or soon will be) referred to as a "Federal Benefit Payment?" I'll be part of the one percent to forward this. I am forwarding it because it touches a nerve in me, and I hope it will in you. Please keep passing it on until everyone in our country has read it.

The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a "Federal Benefit Payment." This isn't a benefit. It is our money paid out of our earned income! ......     ...

Then call it what it is: Our Earned Retirement Income.

 

 

I see that you're one of the stupid people who believe that Social Security is some kind of investment account.

Gee, I recall when you righties were all pissed off that it was a Ponzi scheme. Now you're mad because your Republican-controlled gov't is threatening to take it away.

Did all the people who died before qualifying for any Social Security benefits get a penny of "their" money that they paid into the system? What about all the people who qualify for Social Security payment but never paid in? This latter point is one of the problems BTW, almost have of all payment by dollar amount goes to people who never paid a penny.

Your EARNED RETIREMENT INCOME is the returns (dividends or interest, either one) on the money that you saved up and invested over your working life.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

it's equally as valid to say that opportunity comes more easily to those who seek to create it than it does to those who sit back and wait for it

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
10 hours ago, BravoBravo said:

The Social Security check is now (or soon will be) referred to as a "Federal Benefit Payment?" I'll be part of the one percent to forward this. I am forwarding it because it touches a nerve in me, and I hope it will in you. Please keep passing it on until everyone in our country has read it.

The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a "Federal Benefit Payment." This isn't a benefit. It is our money paid out of our earned income! ......     ...

Then call it what it is: Our Earned Retirement Income.

 

 

I see that you're one of the stupid people who believe that Social Security is some kind of investment account.

Gee, I recall when you righties were all pissed off that it was a Ponzi scheme. Now you're mad because your Republican-controlled gov't is threatening to take it away.

Did all the people who died before qualifying for any Social Security benefits get a penny of "their" money that they paid into the system? What about all the people who qualify for Social Security payment but never paid in? This latter point is one of the problems BTW, almost have of all payment by dollar amount goes to people who never paid a penny.

Your EARNED RETIREMENT INCOME is the returns (dividends or interest, either one) on the money that you saved up and invested over your working life.

- DSK

BB's a typical right wing financial genius.

Very big brain.

image.png.5f1210b1ce3f5726868330c6fc0ebbfd.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Social Security , even in high school ( mid 60's ) I never wanted to join but had to , 

Had I invest all my monies that I and my company where forced to pay over 50+ years of working , I would be worth millions, not thousands, 

so who says SS is a free ride for us Boomers is Bull shit , it was just another way of the goverment controlling our lives,

another fun fact, another lie that the goverment preached , that when you start withdrawing your 401k/IRA  it will be taxed at a lower rate , another government lie,

when I worked my taxes were about 15% , how with the RMD there in the 22%, yet typical capital gains is less then 12% and funny how my RMD is exactly what I owe the IRS!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, garuda3 said:

Social Security , even in high school ( mid 60's ) I never wanted to join but had to , 

Had I invest all my monies that I and my company where forced to pay over 50+ years of working , I would be worth millions, not thousands, 

...    ...

Maybe. What if your investment didn't pan out? Or you retired a year before a major crash?

Social Security is an insurance program. Yeah it's expensive. Yeah it's been distorted from the original intention; it is not sustainable as a primary middle class retirement plan but it's been forced into that role because USAneans refused to save money for most of the last 60 years.

Your point about the taxes are right on.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Maybe. What if your investment didn't pan out? Or you retired a year before a major crash?

Social Security is an insurance program. Yeah it's expensive. Yeah it's been distorted from the original intention; it is not sustainable as a primary middle class retirement plan but it's been forced into that role because USAneans refused to save money for most of the last 60 years.

Your point about the taxes are right on.

- DSK

FYI, When Ludlow started talking about " goldie locks stock market " I knew if was time to sell , so I missed the great recession, 

also started an IRA in the late 80's for 5k over 3 years which in the 2000's was worth 50K,  that was was just one !

lets see sold my NY condo 2007 so also missed the housing bubble , 

I had no training in stocks, still don't understand bonds.Read "Rich dad , Poor dad."

One thing I fault of our school system , nothing is taught about , money, investments ........

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, garuda3 said:

Social Security , even in high school ( mid 60's ) I never wanted to join but had to , 

Had I invest all my monies that I and my company where forced to pay over 50+ years of working , I would be worth millions, not thousands, 

so who says SS is a free ride for us Boomers is Bull shit , it was just another way of the goverment controlling our lives,

another fun fact, another lie that the goverment preached , that when you start withdrawing your 401k/IRA  it will be taxed at a lower rate , another government lie,

when I worked my taxes were about 15% , how with the RMD there in the 22%, yet typical capital gains is less then 12% and funny how my RMD is exactly what I owe the IRS!!

I knew a Silent who had the similar thoughts, except he owned Lehman and his job was offshored just before the Bush Crash.   He made a great clerk at the local hardware store, which was enough to supplement social security since a year  of retirement budget disappeared just as he was forced to retire a year early.   Even some of the elder generations were screwed by their generation’s actions.  

Those just graduating during the recession had it worse.   My grandfather graduated and started a pharmacy during the beginning of the Great Depression, with a $500 loan he somehow secured.    I doubt many millennials could have achieved the same thing, even though Bush was a piker compared to Hoover.   The large corporate competition and start up costs prevented it.    Still, my grandfather got lucky.   In the booming 20s he happened to study a profession that was depression resistant, would be considered essential to the public in the war and prosper in the following post war boom.   He had diversified elsewhere and was retiring out of the business as independent pharmacies ceased to be viable and the building was rendered valueless by rust belt economics and urban blight.   People don’t control as much of their destiny as they think.   Those that did well pretend it was all wisdom and effort.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, garuda3 said:

Social Security , even in high school ( mid 60's ) I never wanted to join but had to , 

Had I invest all my monies that I and my company where forced to pay over 50+ years of working , I would be worth millions, not thousands, 

so who says SS is a free ride for us Boomers is Bull shit , it was just another way of the goverment controlling our lives,

another fun fact, another lie that the goverment preached , that when you start withdrawing your 401k/IRA  it will be taxed at a lower rate , another government lie,

when I worked my taxes were about 15% , how with the RMD there in the 22%, yet typical capital gains is less then 12% and funny how my RMD is exactly what I owe the IRS!!

You sound like a typical Republican.

The purpose of SS was not to provide an individual pension plan - it was to keep huge numbers of people from going hungry in their old age. The ones who were incapable of, or too stupid to provide for themselves when they got old.

You know - an insurance scheme.

Oh, I forgot, Republicans don't understand the fundamental concept of insurance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, garuda3 said:

I had no training in stocks, still don't understand bonds.....

Pretty simple - in simplest terms;

Stocks are "secured" by a companies performance

Bonds are secured by a companies assets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

You sound like a typical Republican.

 

That's kinda funny as all my friends call me a liberal,

Thanks for the quick lesson on bonds, ,

so if a company has no assets , like facebook it's bonds are worthless ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, garuda3 said:

That's kinda funny as all my friends call me a liberal,

Thanks for the quick lesson on bonds, ,

so if a company has no assets , like facebook it's bonds are worthless ?

 

I suspect your trolling just a little (;)) but Facebook does have hard assets - about 25 billion worth of property and equipment and about 10 billion in cash - so it's bonds wouldn't be worthless if it chose to issue them.  That doesn't include brand value.

The most important number in the bond market is the 10 year Treasury Bill followed closely by the 2 year Treasure Bill.  That sets the bottom.  Those bonds are as safe as money can get and that basically sets the minimum return for all other safe investments.  Any number above that includes some level of risk. 

The 'resolution' to the housing crises was when the Federal Reserve basically took on all the "unknown risk" debt in the western world and exchanged it for T-Bills.  That's why the fed continues to make money and give it back to the Treasury.  The 'unknown risk' debt wasn't worthless - it was just unknown - so there was no way to 'value' it on the open market.  Those investments have turned out to have a higher return than the 10 Year T-bills for which they were exchanged, so the FED makes money every year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, garuda3 said:
17 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

You sound like a typical Republican.

 

That's kinda funny as all my friends call me a liberal,

Thanks for the quick lesson on bonds, ,

so if a company has no assets , like facebook it's bonds are worthless ?

Is it not remotely possible for a Republican to also be a liberal... as long as his other Republican friends don't find out?

;)

Anyway, "assets"  is a huge and flexible inclusive term. The only thing that can't possibly be an asset is a liability. You can go to the Generally Accepted Accounting Practices guide, which is actually very interesting reading if you're interested in money.

I would not say Facebook has "no assets." I have no idea how much of the equipment and real estate they use is bought/paid for vs bought with loans vs leased, but the entitlement to use it is an asset. Their anticipated cash flow is an asset. Their community reputation is an asset.

If you are considering any particular bond, the big question is "what are they going to do with the money I give them, which makes me want to give it to them in the first place?" Obviously the answer should include some variation of "make a profit with it" but that is far from the only reason.

Most people looking at finance immediately start looking at a leaf, or the bugs on that leaf, and cannot see the forest.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Is it not remotely possible for a Republican to also be a liberal... as long as his other Republican friends don't find out?

;)

 

The real answer is I'm an Independent, The advantage of that is I don't have to follow the thinking of one party or the other,  Lincoln said it best:Image result for you can make some people some of the time

I find it very, dishearting that the parties have drift away from their orgins.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, garuda3 said:

The real answer is I'm an Independent, The advantage of that is I don't have to follow the thinking of one party or the other,  Lincoln said it best:Image result for you can make some people some of the time

I find it very, dishearting that the parties have drift away from their orgins.

 

Our parties are actually coalitions, although we don't call them that. If they didn't shift with the times, they'd have gone the way of the Whigs.

What's difficult is that the Republicans have become a brand, a tribe, and their politicians don't even bother to discuss policy or platform any more. They don't have to, all they have to do is attack Democrats for whatever policy or platform -they- discuss publicly. It's a perfect solution to Lincoln's problem you stated above... unhappy constituents.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, garuda3 said:

That's kinda funny as all my friends call me a liberal,

Thanks for the quick lesson on bonds, ,

so if a company has no assets , like facebook it's bonds are worthless ?

Exactly - they are only backed by trust or faith so they aren't really bonds.

It's like giving a loan to a person with no collateral but great job prospects. It might work out great but if it doesn't you're fucked.

Being a secured creditor to an entity with no security is meaningless.

That's exactly the sort of fraudulent situation that has fucked up the financial markets since Reagan. Equity risk levels for bonds because "It's Facebook (or Google or whatever irrationally overvalued hit of the moment)".

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

The only thing that can't possibly be an asset is a liability.

It can to a Bank - to them loans are assets and deposits are liabilities. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...