Conquer Club

Who the hell would vote for an anti-austerity party? You greedy son's-of-bitches.

Want more jobs? How about killing the fucking union assholes and baby boomers who just kept "take, take, taking" and got us into this mess in the first place.

Children of the Corn Unite!

Except make the cut-off age 30, so it doesn't affect me.

There you have it. Genocidal NIMBYism.

I'll leave this here for you to read at your leisure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/opini ... .html?_r=0

We need to accept the fact that we simply cannot revert to historical norms in government spending and keep faith with commitments made to millions of aging workers.

This part destroys the whole argument. The problem is that these commitments were made in the 70s and 80s. We promised these people job security and benefits and retirement and now it is expected.

In Southern Ontario (where I live), unsecure jobs (defined as jobs which are on temporary contracts, or even that have no expected 5 year security) are now over 50% of jobs being created - in all income brackets. The workforce is changing, which was predicted already in the 90s, with people moving laterally through employers rather than raising in a ladder. However, these baby boomers are still hogging the last few old-style jobs, and don't even realize that what they are leaving behind in their wake is a destroyed job market, where benefits (in Canada these include dental, optical and drug plans) are almost impossible to get, employment insurance becomes a mundane occurance and capitalism moves industries at a rate too quickly for people to catch up.

This last statement needs a bit of clarification. On any given day, 30% of trading is not done by people. It is done by computers which analyze patterns in the stock market at the microsecond level and make split-second decisions. If this is the rate at which stock is traded now, it accelerates all aspects of capitalism, and I foresee downstream effects.

The point is that they created an unrealistic utopia for themselves to live in, and basically ensured that unless I get a Nobel prize in the next 10 years, I will be destitute my whole life. I am kind of going through an existential crisis right now. It's Nobel or bust for me, thanks to them (and the unions of course).

DoomYoshi wrote:This part destroys the whole argument. The problem is that these commitments were made in the 70s and 80s. We promised these people job security and benefits and retirement and now it is expected.

I don't agree that this is what we promised them. Or rather, we promised we'd take their money, put it in a "lockbox" (to borrow a term) and not touch it. And then Congress touched the crap out of it so they could spend it on other things. So we're in this predicament now.

People that paid in to social security should expect to get their money. I see nothing wrong with this (which might be what you're differentiating here). Suffice it to say, the U.S. may be in a world of shit for the next 30 years or so.

Reminds me of my favourite french saying that I learned from quite a few girls: "ne touche pas"

DoomYoshi wrote:
This part destroys the whole argument. The problem is that these commitments were made in the 70s and 80s. We promised these people job security and benefits and retirement and now it is expected.

Anybody who thinks and relies on Social Security being a retirement fund is bat shit crazy. That's not what it is intended for nor was it ever.
Anybody who relies solely on all those entitlements and benefits are merely shackling themselves in chains. The best job security in the world is simply by being indispensable and productive. Have useful skills, be very good at those skills and one need never worry about employment.

thegreekdog wrote:People that paid in to social security should expect to get their money. I see nothing wrong with this

Damn right, a deal is a deal.

thegreekdog wrote:the U.S. may be in a world of shit for the next 30 years or so.

You think? hahah.

I sometimes wonder what the US would be like if everyone lived mostly within their means. There was an article a few months ago in the Philadelphia Inquirer indicating that most people had less than $500 in savings. I think about these things a lot and have plenty of personal experience and thoughts about it. Like, for example, I lived in a modest townhome development for a few years and was shocked at the types of vehicles in the parking lot and televisions on the walls. I'm still sort of shocked that people who live at or below the US poverty line have internet access, big screen televisions, central air conditioning, video game systems, and the like. I just don't understand the concept of purchasing things and homes and vehicles on credit and then being outraged or shocked when you can't pay for them and someone comes to take them away.

Suffice it to say, I remain very disappointed in most of my fellow Americans. Some conservative radio personality remarked the other day that most Americans understand that the government cannot pay for everything and that people need to personally responsible. I'm not sure that's true anymore and it's disheartening.

Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox now.

thegreekdog wrote:I sometimes wonder what the US would be like if everyone lived mostly within their means.

The economy would collapse. We are nothing but a nation that produces "financial instruments". A nation where saving is a sin and debt must continue to expand. It's the new normal. It's a nice ride at the beginning, but at some point someone gets stuck with the bill and all hell breaks loose as everyone runs for the exit. Last one sitting at the table has to pay.

patches70 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I sometimes wonder what the US would be like if everyone lived mostly within their means.

The economy would collapse. We are nothing but a nation that produces "financial instruments". A nation where saving is a sin and debt must continue to expand. It's the new normal. It's a nice ride at the beginning, but at some point someone gets stuck with the bill and all hell breaks loose as everyone runs for the exit. Last one sitting at the table has to pay.

That is not true. During the 1860's most Americans lived within their means:

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR38.1/richard_white_gilded_age_wealth_inequality.php

Then, the Gilded Age came along and everyone wanted to try to be like the Kennedys.

DoomYoshi wrote:

During the 1860's most Americans lived within their means:

Yeah, and the US produced stuff, not exporting financial instruments. Now look at us, hence the term "the new normal".

What was different in the 1860's? Hmmm? We had a different currency, didn't have a central bank and we were traders, exporters and manufacturers. The dollar wasn't the world's reserve currency.

You've only made my point but for some reason you can't seem to put 2+2 together. Today, in the US, if people don't keep borrowing money, if credit doesn't keep flowing, we collapse. Don't you remember the market collapse in 2008? Don't you remember the tripe being said? Credit dried up, Mom and Pop stores couldn't borrow the money to meet payroll, the housing market tanked because too many people defaulted on loans and far fewer loans were being given by the banks. Financial Armageddon, all those so called "toxic assets". How soon we forget....

We had to enact TARP to give the banks a ton of money so that the credit would start to flow again and to clean up the toxic assets. Golden parachutes for all those "too big to fail" bastards. But the toxic assets weren't ever cleared, credit is still stifled and in our last quarter our economy actually contracted and over the past four quarters we've only grown a total of 1.5%. Which means there is another recession about to hit (not that we ever got out of the last recession, but that's just semantics I guess).

The US, today, is a credit based economy and how you don't seem to understand that is baffling. Because of such, if people lived within their means and stopped borrowing money, everything slams to a halt.

If we lived within our means it wouldn't be a bad thing, but it would be painful in the short term. Long term we'd come out just fine and a new economy would take hold, a new economy that was once like the days of old. Where we produced actual stuff instead of producing new ways to collect usury.

I want it to slam to a halt. I would rather deal with the short term pain now while I am young, than when I am ready to retire.

DoomYoshi wrote:I want it to slam to a halt. I would rather deal with the short term pain now while I am young, than when I am ready to retire.

I generally agree (and agreed in 2008).

DoomYoshi wrote:I want it to slam to a halt. I would rather deal with the short term pain now while I am young, than when I am ready to retire.

Yep, since you are young, you are the one who will be on the hook for our excesses of today. Thank you, BTW, I'm a getting up there in age, and I'll need all you youngin's out there working your asses off to pay for my medicare and such.

But seriously, yeah, it needs to stop and it will be painful. I'm not sure if you truly understand just how painful, but you've got the right idea. It's like taking a nasty medicine but eventually you'll feel a lot better, after you've puked your guts up all night.

What is the difference between immaturity and maturity? A mature person is able to put off instant pleasure for greater pleasure later. The immature person will take the instant pleasure and not think about the later pain. At least you are showing some maturity. That's a good thing. Now, if you can get everyone else to figure it out, then you'll be getting somewhere!

But, all one can do in life is what is best for themselves. No matter the market conditions, the economic conditions, the geopolitical conditions, if one is wise, useful and skillful, one will be just fine no matter what comes. We just have to do the best that we can and what comes will come. No use worrying about stuff if one is not at least preparing and planning for the future. Do that, and you don't ever need to worry about the future.

By your definition of maturity, no human can ever mature according to psychology. I can deal with it, I know how to fish and have lived on the streets off and on for years. I am toughening my girlfriend up as well. I wouldn't say I am a prepper, but the Paladin Press catalog reads like my e-bookshelf.

DoomYoshi wrote:By your definition of maturity, no human can ever mature according to psychology. I can deal with it, I know how to fish and have lived on the streets off and on for years. I am toughening my girlfriend up as well. I wouldn't say I am a prepper, but the Paladin Press catalog reads like my e-bookshelf.

You ain't gotta be a prepper, but it's always wise to have some things around. Not because you fear a zombie apocalypse or complete social and economic meltdown, but because natural disasters happen. Remember those poor bastards in New Orleans. Disaster can strike anytime, and it's always good to have food and water and other necessities. Just in case.

You prepare for your future by learning skills and developing them. With the right skill sets, you'll always be in demand and will even prosper greatly even in the hardest of times. That and not squander what you have.
Get out of debt, stay out of debt and store away some wealth (preferably non depreciating and stable forms) for later in life and never absolutely count on be bailed out. Unless you are a banker, then you can certainly count on being bailed out but you'd still be a scumbag.....LOL

A little prep goes a hell of a long way.


Oh, and no offense meant-

DoomYoshi wrote:have lived on the streets off and on for years

Livin' on the streets ain't exactly "living".......
Though, I suppose that can be of some use in certain conditions. Best to try and not have that happen IMO. Do the right things, the wise things, and it shouldn't. But, I guess one can never know for sure. I approve of that particular skill.

It's not that big of a deal. The USG will extend the retirement age and reduced payments to the higher income elderly while transferring more to the lower income elderly--while also reducing the total payout.

"But the USG promised something."

Oh, lol, where have you been?
It's not like we will all yell, "Bust a deal then face the wheel!" to all those politicians.

thegreekdog wrote:I sometimes wonder what the US would be like if everyone lived mostly within their means. There was an article a few months ago in the Philadelphia Inquirer indicating that most people had less than $500 in savings. I think about these things a lot and have plenty of personal experience and thoughts about it. Like, for example, I lived in a modest townhome development for a few years and was shocked at the types of vehicles in the parking lot and televisions on the walls. I'm still sort of shocked that people who live at or below the US poverty line have internet access, big screen televisions, central air conditioning, video game systems, and the like. I just don't understand the concept of purchasing things and homes and vehicles on credit and then being outraged or shocked when you can't pay for them and someone comes to take them away.

Suffice it to say, I remain very disappointed in most of my fellow Americans. Some conservative radio personality remarked the other day that most Americans understand that the government cannot pay for everything and that people need to personally responsible. I'm not sure that's true anymore and it's disheartening.

Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox now.

In this WSJ opinion piece by some economist, he was talking about how if one's income was $15,000 per year (thus receiving full welfare benefits), he would have to earn $30,000 in income order to break even (i.e. compensate for the loss in welfare payments). If his figures are correct, then that's a very perverse incentive.

BigBallinStalin wrote:In this WSJ opinion piece by some economist, he was talking about how if one's income was $15,000 per year (thus receiving full welfare benefits), he would have to earn $30,000 in income order to break even (i.e. compensate for the loss in welfare payments). If his figures are correct, then that's a very perverse incentive.

Not sure what all he included in his calculations. But if you factor in everything, not just the extra taxes but the various costs of working -- transportation, babysitting, increased dependence on take-out food, tools-of-the-trade that you may need to buy (depending on the trade), licenses and/or professional certificates of various kinds (again depending on the trade), $30K might actually be on the low side.

Put a dollar value on lost leisure time and add that in, and working for a living starts to look like an insane option.