The Wealthy Kids Are All Right

This is not necessarily true. The entire post-WW2 period through the 1970s had a booming and growing middle class. The wealthy were not generating the vast majority of the new wealth in the country: it was widely shared by the majority of the population.

Of course it's possible - I don't think anyone, anywhere, has ever claimed otherwise. The point of the article seems to be that it's getting more difficult than it has been in the past. That fits with the concern that this current generation is the first in American history that is expected to be less well-off than the preceding one.

 

You think the gap is bad now, just wait until we get into that cyber punk #### where wealthy parents can buy treatments to ensure their child is healthier, smarter, and prettier than the kids born to poor families.

 

4 year university/vocational education should be free to kids who are willing to maintain a minimum grade level. Education is really the only realistic opportunity equalizer.

 

The post wwII generation didn't have new homes and new cars in their thirties. They kept their wealth instead of trading it for debt.

 

How is giving a free education any different than those who are coming out of school now and not able to find a job?

 

They lived in a system that didn't really make that possible - loans weren't given at 0% down, etc. In other words, the rules of the system were designed a in way that encouraged the generation of wealth by the middle class.

 

Good god, dude. You can actually post part of an article or column and simply include the link. In fact, that is BBS policy here, and Clutch will bust you for it if he sees you do it enough. What you just did posting the entire thing was absurd, and it has nothing to do with the content.

 

That is only half the story.

I have two stepkids in their early 20s. I have seen them and their contemporaries. I have also employed people in their early 20s. What I have seen is alarming. This generation of kids, as a generality, want everything now. They do not want to "pay their dues." They go out and buy the best of everything they think they can possibly afford and to hell with the repercussions. When I was that age, we all worked very hard and bought less fancy things and tried to squirrel away whatever money we could so we could have less stress later. It is a fundamental shift in society.

Sure the financing is out there and it probably shouldn't be. However, it is there because there is demand for it.

 

Like the article you posted, you're stating the obvious.

The problem lies is that the lower class (not to be associated with low class) is squandering away their lives to debt for immediate gratification. The most glaring example is school. For the older generation, going to school put you yards above those who didn't goto school. Now you're just another graduate. Its the equivalency of getting a high school diploma 20 years ago, minus the debt.
Additionally to going into debt for school, they further sink themselves into more debt for high living of standards in which they can't afford.

While some think wealth distribution is the answer, the poor will just continue to squander the redistributed wealth away back to the rich. The wealth that is stripped away from the rich will be the slower gazelles, so to speak, of the rich. Its the middle class that is being stripped away right now, not the 20 million a year banking execs. The more money you have, the more you can navigate the laws to keep your wealth. I have respect for those who work hard for the millions. I have no respect for those who simply navigate and exploit the system, the same ones who will continue to be rich. The same ones who pay for the laws to be passed to exclude them from the money grab.

So how do you keep the money in lower classes pocket?

 

I disagree. Education is the most efficient method of social mobility. If the government can lower the cost of tuition for the students that truly want to be in universities, then that would be very beneficial. It just depends on how you define education.

Education in my community (and family) means a lot of things. It means teaching you Islam and/or living a life rejecting materialism, and instead pursuing knowledge. It means realizing the utility of an anthropology degree only in this economic climate versus a dual degree of anthropology and electrical engineering. It also means teaching personal finance.

Many of my nephew's older friends with degrees in chemical engineering, computer science, physics, and more from good colleges have landed well-paying jobs within months of graduation. Some of them came from working class backgrounds. Moreover, they will go on to earn masters and doctoral degrees as well.

If you feel my post is too anecdotal, speak to some South Asian families if you can. I believe this group has one of the highest rates of higher education and income/wealth in the US. Education is a huge emphasis in our culture. I can't see why the rest of America can't learn from our experiences.

 

I think rich parents shouldn't help their kids so much.

 

The fact that there have been old blue blood families in the Northeast does not in any way prove that the policies of Reagan-Bush with their big tax breaks to the rich, reduced government services for the lower and busting of unions and mobilizing of poor folks pissed off due to race, abortion and homosexuality did not start the provable redistribution upward of American wealth.
Such policies are not new. They have been called laissez faire or conservative or lately "libertarian".

 

This sounds like an excellent way to get the vast majority of 4 year universities to further lower their standards so that everyone who puts in even the slightest bit of effort can maintain that minimum grade level and keep the cash flowing in to the university.

 

I think the reason many people work hard to become rich is so they can give their kids a leg up. This obviously doesn't apply to families that have had a great deal of wealth for generations.

 

Are the conservative posters here seriously arguing that real problem with upward mobility is the inflated sense of entitlement of the millennials? That has to be the dumbest f%&$ing thing I've read all day.

This isn't a 6 month trend people - it's been happening for years and blaming it on your kids' (which btw, YOU raised) makes you look like a grumpy old man. Why don't we go ahead and rename the GOP the GOMLP - the Get Off my Lawn Party - because that's exactly what you sound like here.

 

This is where you are incorrect. It is not your education that is getting you where you are. It is your dedication and focus. College is becoming the traditional high school, where churning out graduates is more important than the education. And like high school, if you put your focus into your studies and not just having a good time, you will more likely excel in college. If you only goto college for the good time and do the minimum to get your piece of paper, you will flunk in the real world.
Absolutely, like anything, life is what you make of it. If you set your mind to becoming an engineer, doctor or lawyer and commit yourself to it, you will do fine. I think what you are missing is that people are going into 50k in debt just to get a piece of paper, not an actual education. Lowering tuition cost is not going to fix that problem
The bigger issue is that the people living beyond their means and going into debt is only feeding the ultra wealthy further. There is a simple explanation why the middle class took a big hit over the last 10 years. They simply were living beyond their means. They lost their nice paying jobs and were screwed when they could no longer pay off their maxed out credit cards, new cars and nice houses. They could not afford to take a 20k a year pay cut, even though they still would have been making decent money. Instead, they want to blame politics, the economy and the "system" for screwing them.
Another way to put it, if you're living pay check to pay check and making nearly 6 digits, you're an idiot.

 

I don't know who you are referring to, but the diminishing middle class has been going on for the last 30 years. I don't think anyone has insinuated this is a new thing.

 

1987 called. They want their meme back. I mean seriously, you are talking about policies that were enacted before anybody in Houston had ever heard the name Craig Biggio.

I also notice that you conveniently forgot about the 8 subsequent years of Clinton and the present administration of Obama, which is going on 5 years.

My point still stands. Even the liberals are not in agreement with you, which makes you different even from them.

 

My great grandparents were poor farmers, and now, my family has reached middle class status. The way to achieve "greatness" is through hard work - in every situation. One cannot be lazy at all, or one misses his chance at moving up the ladder.