Are you asleep?

Why hello


I'm sorry, I'm quite disturbed with the way things are and as my eyes opened I was in sorrow instantly. If I ruffled the feathers of a few cocks around here I'm sorry. I'll try and let the Alfas back to their place in the pack, however, I refuse to do so if they're views are discusting to me. Call me young, call me foolish, I guess I am then.

I will be happy to continue this conversation with you in about 15 years, when you have experience and insight into the world. You are very idealistic, as would be expected of a 20 year old.

It's what happens when it's been so bad for so long and they throw you a bone to make you think things are better. So you start to ignore it. I'm not getting quelled by some stupid facade of stability. When you're 35 They've had penty time to destroy your dreams and make you placid with tax cuts and the like, it's called brainwashing, it's where you take everything someone has and make them think that they have nothing left and then you give them something meagerly good and they think your the best. It's how cults are formed, through brain washing, so ya really think that Idealism is bad? Maybe not so long ago you felt the same way, but you pushed it aside, because you were afraid, and they've made you forget it. Who know's maybe I'm wrong. Either way, the fact that I'm 20 doesn't mean I'm stupid, and I've done my research, this country is dying. From the bottom, once the bottom is dead the top comes crumbling down. Basic law of physics.

We are aware of what is happening.

We vote.

We campaign.

We read.

We write to our representatives.

We write to editors of our papers.

We march.

We fight.

We think for ourselves.

We teach our children to do the same.

This is not new to us. We've been doing it since you were in diapers, or even before that.

Where you seem to be off the mark is in your claim that those with little ambition or who are satisfied with a simple life should be handed anything. Working three jobs to put food on your family and still not being able to pay the electricity is more of a concern to most of us than worrying about those that don't want to work.

Your argument sounds more like a righty republican wanting someone to agree with him so he can say "I told you so," since that is what some on the right claim is the thinking of the left.

They are wrong.

You are wrong.

Dear sir.
If you acutally read my posts and views then you'd notice I wasn't talking about those who arn't willing to work. I'm talking about those who work and arn't being paid enough to do those things: like paying rent, putting food on the table, and paying the bills.

I have no view about handing money out to people! I'm not saying we should all hand money to bums. Look, they don't even work, I think that's stupid. I'm just saying you shouldn't have to have 2-3 jobs to hold down the fort. Could you read before you write? I'm seriously tired of writing the same thing over and over, I hate to do it, but I'll just start saying "Clean your glasses" to anyone who accuses me of saying something I didn't. Handing money to those who don't have a job is stupid, those working should beable to live off of thier wages without having to have more than one job or go without the basics such as "Food" or "Sleep". Now, having two part time jobs because you don't have a full time is normal I guess, but two full time jobs to get by is just sad.

I can read just fine. Here's one thing I read:



Perhaps "least ambitious" was the wrong word? Maybe you meant that those limited to working in low skill jobs, that don't aspire to be rocket scientists or do not have the ability to do so, yet who fill the necessary fields that make it possible for many of us to enjoy our lives as we do, should be paid well enough to afford the basics needed in life.

Would that be more accurate? Cause a lack of ambition is not something any of us should encourage or reward.

Let me see if I understand.

People do not make enough money at some jobs to support their lifestyle. (Lifestyle being family, electricity, gas, etc.)

So, do we lower prices or do we raise pay for menial labor? If we lower prices, who is going to pay the laborer? Certainly not the employer, because he will not have the same income he had and will not be able to afford to keep paying.

Do we raise pay? If we raise pay, then the cost of goods will rise equitably. That means things will cost more and peopel will not make enough money to support their lifestyle...

One last option... study hard in school, stay out of trouble, use your education to be smarter then the guy next to you. That way you will be able to find better employment and maybe someday hire the guy next to you to work for you... then listen to him complain about not making enough money to support his lifestyle...

Basic home, food and utilities is not lifestyle.

Sadly, I find myself agreeing with LockeD in both respects.

I think in the past, it was easier to start out at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum and rise to the middle. I watched my father do it. He came from a family of poor farmers, but was smart, put himself through college, went in the army, came out and started a family. He was 32 before he owned his first home. He payed $25,000 for it in l964. He raised six children in it, did not do any renovations except to enlarge the kitchen about twenty years ago, and now he has had that same house appraised to put on the market for between $400,000 and $500,000 dollars.

The point being that that starter home for my parents, (who liked it, so they just kept living in it instead of moving up) is out of reach for any young couple who is making less than $100,000 dollars a year - and even that'd be a dangerous stretch (although they're giving mortgages based on similar income to debt ratios-I wouldn't take one-that's how and why so many are defaulting).

Locked, I also wonder how people who are working full time jobs in what used to be middle class occupations can even afford to buy homes. The neighborhood I grew up in was a mix of white and blue collar workers thirty years ago- I had friends whose fathers worked as electricians or machinists, as well as friends whose fathers were lawyers, chemists, and doctors- and we all lived in the same type of suburban house. I had one friend whose father supported his family working as a manager of a shoe store. He'd never be able to afford to buy a home in that neighborhood now. Teachers, police officers, mail truck drivers, etc. are being forced out of living in the towns they work in as they can't afford the housing- and not only buying a house-rents are becoming astronomical in some places as well.

I agree with Locked. What do the people who work, but not in a high paying profession, do to get their foot on the first rung of the housing ladder? And if they can't, how do they amass any equity or savings to see them through retirement when they can no longer work?

Because it's not just younger people who are being squeezed out of the comfort of a middle class existence- it's older people as well. People in their sixties and seventies who, despite having worked hard all their lives and should be enjoying retirement, have to go back to work or face ending up in poverty (a friend of my mother's is seventy-five years old and she went back to work at McDonald's and watching children at an after school program despite working everyday for forty years as a secretary for a good company).
Many corporations no longer give pensions.

I think s/he makes a good point- but I don't know what the answer is. And I don't know that the people who have made their nest egg through equity and homeownership and have received their pension are really looking at the situation as it truly exists for those who are coming after.

LockeD writes


What you are describing is a kid with a paper route. Unless they are severely handicapped in which case they are taken care of, grown ups can support themselves quite nicely in this country. All that is required is to have a work ethic and be willing to do a job somebody is willing to pay you to do.

This country is realistically at full employment right now. This weekend I was in Odessa TX were they are BEGGING people and offering quite attractive salaries for burger flippers at MickyD's and where virtually anybody with no experience can get $25/hour or more working in the oil fields that are booming like we haven't seen since the 1950's. There are still depressed pockets here and there, but nobody ever guaranteed us that we would always be able to work where we wanted to be and/or doing what we most wanted to do.

The recipe for self support above the poverty level is quite simple and within everybody's control. Stay in school and educate yourself including acquiring a reasonable command of the English language. A degree of fashion sense and personal hygiene is usually important. Don't do drugs or get into other illegal activities. Wait until you are married and self supporting before you have kids. Develop a work ethic, and be willing to pay your dues in the grubby jobs to learn a trade. Whether they are ambitious or not, everybody can do this and those who do will not be poor.

The ambitious who aspire to more than just not being poor will do better than those who just aspire to not be poor.

And those who think they are somehow entitled to more than what they earn are the ones who are most likely to always be poor and resentful that others have more than they do.

I just don't agree with this Foxfyre. And I am not someone who is looking at people who make more than me and feeling resentful that I'm not being paid more-I've achieved what I needed to achieve-but I would be dishonest and disingenuous if I said my background had nothing to do with it.

So I see what Locked is saying. S/he's not talking about people who use credit unwisely, or who don't want to work, or who want unreasonable amounts of whatever it is they want before they can pay for whatever it is.

She's talking about a cost of living in the US that has spiraled out of control. I have seen students of mine who come from very humble backgrounds (through absolutely no fault of their own) who have been offered partial scholarships through their hard work and determination in school, who have nonetheless had to join the military and bypass school, because though tuition was paid for, living expenses were not, and their families couldn't afford to help them with those. And Locked is right, these kids are being recruited and being asked to risk their lives precisely because (without the hope of college) there isn't any other way into the middle class for them-and from what I read-the families of the people in the military are forced to live in substandard housing and live on barely subsistance levels while their spouses are risking their lives for our country. That's just appalling to me.
And I have to be honest, while the military is fine if that's someone's choice-it's sad that it is the only fallback available to young men and women of a certain class or situation to help them elevate themselves. I wouldn't want my own son or daughter to have to be in that situation-risking his or her life for what so many others take for granted-so why should it be okay for someone else's children?

Twenty-five bucks an hour is great for a single person on his or her own-but once you start factoring mortgages and car payments and children into that-it goes pretty quickly. I'm just wondering what kind of advancement or pay raises are available to these guys who work in the oil fields or get paid the big bucks at McDonald's.

You know, people used to be able to make a life, if they did what you said. It's harder than that now-and it takes more than just hard work to make it from young adulthood through retirement with your finances intact. That's just a fact.

LockeD
LockeD, Welcome to A2K. Don't become discouraged. I understand your frustration and agree with some of your points, if not your posting style. A less belicose style might be a better method of communication, especially to those who think a person your age should be seen and not heard.

I don't know if your schooling to date has informed you about the G.I. Bill enacted as World War II ended. It made it possible to create a vibrant middle class as never before existed. Public policy has ended the theories behing the G.I. Bill and we have gone back to the social policies prior to it's enactment.

I found the following that may help you understand what happened and what needs to change.

BBB

Overview and Influence of the G.I. Bill
FAST-US-2 American Institutions Survey (Hopkins)
Department of Translation Studies, University of Tampere

The Serviceman's Readjustment Act of 1944, commonly known as the GI Bill of Rights, provided a variety of benefits for veterans (e.g. demobilized soldiers, cf. different usage in British English) of World War II. The Act, signed into law on June 22, 1944 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, evolved from the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, which had established compulsory military conscription, or "the draft."
The G.I. Bill (which is still in effect, having been revised several times since 1944) was a powerful stimulus for social and economic change in post-WWII America. It made possible the investment of billions of dollars in education and training, housing, and small business investment for millions of veterans, the result of which was a dramatically changed society. The GI Bill fostered the growth of the American middle class. Education, income opportunities, and home ownership combined to improve the standard of living for many Americans. More families were able to raise their children in comfortable environments and provide higher education for their children.

Some of the most significant benefits concerned education. Veterans who attended college or entered vocational training programs received financial assistance to help defray the cost of education and compensate for income they had lost by having been drafted into the military from their previous civilian jobs.

Any veteran who had served at least 90 days was eligible for education benefits. The benefits increased relative to length of service and time spent in a 'combat zone.' resulting The influence on higher education can be seen by a single comparison: In 1940 only 109,000 men and 77,000 women had graduated from college with bachelor's degrees. By 1949, due to the influence of the G.I. Bill, these numbers had risen to 528,000 men and 103,000 women. In all, roughly 2.2 million veterans, about one-third of all those who returned from WWII, entered U.S. colleges and universities under the G.I. Bill.

With this fivefold increase in college registrations within a very short period, schools had to construct temporary housing to accommodate the new students. Existing institutions were forced to expand. Often new campuses had to be created to accommodate the need for administrative, classroom and housing facilities. Many entirely new institutions of higher education were created. New types of higher education institutions, such as the "junior colleges," also began to emerge.

In the long term, perhaps most significant was that higher education changed from its relatively elitist status prior to WWII to an experience that was felt possible for everyone in the post-War years. For the war generation, total enrollment in colleges and universities increased from ca 1.5 million in 1939 to 2.6 million in 1949. For their children, however, access to higher education was regarded almost as self-evident. By 1969, when the first wave of the baby boom had completed higher education, total enrollment was up to 8 million. A generation later, in 1989, enrollment was 13.5 million, and it continues to increase. Higher education had become a commodity, available to all (statistics from the U.S. Department of Education, 1995).

Another important benefit of the G.I. Bill was guaranteed low-interest home loans. Any veteran who had served for at least 90 days, or who had been injured or disabled in the line of duty and had been honorably discharged, was eligible for a mortgage of up to 100% of the cost of a new home. The rapid establishment of families by returning G.I.'s, and the the "baby boom" starting in 1946, resulted in a critical need for family housing, preferably with extra bedrooms and yards to play in for the growing children.

Thus was created the new phenomenon of the suburb, symbolized by the first "Levittowns." The suburban concept spread rapidly in the 1950s, as the higher incomes of the first wave of new college graduates in the late 1940s, combined with the GI Bill's low-interest housing loans, resulted in a continuous demand for newer, larger homes. The ratio of U.S. homeowners doubled from 1 in 3 before the war to 2 in 3 after the war. And, as the availability of new suburban homes increased, people left the cities. This eventually gave rise to "inner-city" decay.

There were other benefits of the G.I. Bill as well. Low-interest loans to help start or invest in an existing business were also available to veterans. This caused a boom in small businesses. Increasingly these were located in suburbia, where both owners and customers now lived. Thus grew the impetus toward the modern "exurbs" and "edge cities."

More information can be found in The G.I. Bill, the Veterans, and the Colleges, by Keith W. Olson (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1974). This book, which was runner-up for the Frederick Jackson Turner Prize of the Organization of American Historians, is available in the university library or can be borrowed from John. Overviews are also available at: www.ohiohistory.org and Wikipedia: 'The G.I. Bill of Rights'.

I left my hometown and moved to another state 20 years ago with an 8 year old Mercury and a couple hundred dollars from selling off some belongings. I lived with my sister for a month or two and found a job in retail management paying $7.50 an hour. Within a month I moved out of my sisters house into a rental with a roommate. Another 6 months I got my own apartment and had a roommate off and on. I worked my way up to having my own store to manage, moved to a bigger company with higher retail products and made more money as assistant manager, and got rid of the roommates. I bought a new car. I paid to go to paralegal school part time while still working full time as assistant manager. I went from $12,500 a year to about $20,000 in 4 years and after finishing my additional schooling.

Now 20 grand isn't much but it's not bad for a single person and I managed to dress well, have a decent living space, bought a new car, paid for school and took a cruise.

I'm not that ambitious. I just like not having to worry about money and I happen to have a strong work ethic.

The 20 year olds today don't have to have 4 years of college, as was the push in the early 80's. Learn a trade. Work at $10 an hour learning to hang sheet rock, wallpaper, or siding, setting aside a small portion of each check while living at home to purchase your own equipment. Then start your own company and never answer to "the man." Easily $50,000 a year.

Work at $10 an hour learning to take care of kids, and set aside some portion of your paycheck for toys, books, etc. Then get your own place and watch kids in your home. Four kids at $150 / week is $30,000 with two weeks off. A single person can live on that.

Start off at McDonalds at $6 an hour and learn what you need to know about food service, inspections, food handling, etc to start your own catering business.

I'm actually somewhere between Aiden and Foxy on this one. While there are tons of opportunities for those that want to work and better their lives without having to go into the military, I know not all areas of the country have $25 oilfield jobs. But, that doesn't mean one has to stay in an area where the economy is depressed.

Well...



Hello Friend, I'm going to try and keep my testostrone down, because I was being Bellicose* with my writing. I do admit it's a very easy thing with me to get offencive or defencive about my writing. However, I do not mean to be "warlike" I assure you all.

However, I will continue to keep my general layout, Underline points I want to touch in the quote and bullet my answers to the statements, for times sake.


-That's an after school job.

-All that is required to make a living is work eithic, personal hygine, and someone willing to pay you to do a job.

-Full employment?Could be, I mean with all those people with 2-3 jobs out there.

-Is it nice there?
-Better have a few burgers for me to flip, I'm a receptionist at H&R block and I'm a return seasonal worker with another job year round, each year I get a quarter raise, that's "good", 8.25 an hour is "GOOD" for around my town. It's not a good where your talking about, but around here parts thats about what your going to have to deal with.
(by the way, one place doesn't discribe the way all America is, I'm sure that there are towns with good lower end pay and towns with worse lower in pays. That's not the point.)

- I disagree. The first will do better than the second, but the second shouldn't do without roof and food.

-Your psycology is all messed up mister, and don't get wierd, it's economical Psycology. The states of minds of those in diffrent "Brackets". I'm sure it used to be that way, everything in America was ballenced perfectly so that everyone could get one decient full time paying job and do just fine! Work a little over time here and there and all that jive and even get a TV set! No. It's not that way anymore. Stop and take a breath of filthy air, look around you, and notice.


Hello BumbleBeeBoogie, thank you for welcoming me. I enjoyed your post! It was very well written and calmed me down quite a bit. I did learn from the post script about the G.I. Bill . That's a great little ideal. Make education availible to more people, and technology sky rockets; not to mention that a large group of the plublic had a better life because of it.

Did you say they removed the G.I. Bill from affect?

Well, however, my whole outlook on the situation is if they ballence the taxes more rightly, as in the amount you have over a certain set price of living for your region decides the percent, in ballence with other factors. Then, you set up free government funded universities to create a nation of intellegent people, those who so wish will no longer make the decision not to, because there would be no consiquences. Raise America back into the technological and industral race. Not to mention a few diffrent changes here and there. Tweek the leeks and see how she runs!

Aidan writes


$25 an hour translates to $52000/year if you just work a 40 hour week. I'm sure some oil field workers do work a 40 hour or less week but if they do, its by choice, not by necessity. Most of the guys out there can work just about as much overtime as they want because they aren't finding enough workers to fill all the jobs yet. And mind you, that $25/hour is just for the uneducated, unskilled types. The guys with experience and track record and do a lot better.

But even $52000/year is more than just a living wage in most places. If it isn't where you live, I'd suggest you move to a place (which is most places) where it is.

Squinney- My thoughts exactly. In the US you don't have to be a mover and shaker to get along, and live nicely. One issue that you raise is "work ethic". A person does not have to have lots of ambition to make it in this world, as long as he is willing to work.

My son started with very little. He has never been interested in assuming greater and greater responsibilities. He is a 9 to 5er, but when he is at work, he gives it his all. Over the years he has progressed, although he was never interested in the promotions that were offered to him. He and his wife (who also works) live in a lovely home, have a couple of cars, and, in a modest way, do all the things that they want.

LockeD
LockeD wrote: Hello BumbleBeeBoogie, thank you for welcoming me. I enjoyed your post! It was very well written and calmed me down quite a bit. I did learn from the post script about the G.I. Bill . That's a great little ideal. Make education availible to more people, and technology sky rockets; not to mention that a large group of the plublic had a better life because of it.

Did you say they removed the G.I. Bill from affect?

The primarily Republican administrations have reversed most of the benefits of the G.I. Bill. Their public policies have made the cost of higher education too high for most people. Decent home ownership is becoming more difficult for far too many people. Good paying jobs are harder and harder to find.

Their economic policies are a disaster as we lose our industrial base to foreign countries. We can't even find enough manufacturers to produce the number of armored vehicles needed to protect our troops in Iraq-Afghanistan. Our troops are dying while waiting for them to come out of the one factory in the U.S.

They bow to the demands of their special interest political bases and block efforts to free us of reliance on foreign oil imports. They retard medical science advancements to pander to those they depend on for votes to retain power. It's ironic that they use wedge issues to pander to the Religious Right to retain their power so they can promote and protect the Corporate criminal classes.

Sadly, the goal of most conservative Republicans is to reverse all of the Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt administration policies and take us back to the days of Republican President Herbert Hoover policies.

If the voters don't wise up soon, we are f**ked!

BBB

I'm with BBB here.

You know we all have our own stories-I graduated from college with a degree in English, couldn't find a job in my field and worked as a receptionist at a Fred Astaire dance studio for minimum wage, while living in a shared house with five other people for $80 dollars a month, with a food budget of $l8.00 a week, while I attended graduate school to get a teaching certificate so I could get a "real" job- at which point I began working ten hour days at a salary of $l6,500 per year.
But the only thing that held it together and made it possible for me was that my father gave me $2,000 to buy a used car for a graduation present. If I hadn't had him to do that, I wouldn't have been able to get between my job and school, etc. because there was no public transportation after a certain time at night, and I certainly wouldn't have had any way to save money for a car on my own. Every penny I had went into my living expenses. So I feel for people who don't have parental support (maybe because their own parents are struggling to make ends meet).
The sad thing is is that though housing costs went through the roof between the late '80's and the late 90's (at least in the part of the country I lived in) when I quit teaching full time in l989 (to stay home with my children) I was making $26,000 a year in NJ, and when I went back to teaching full time in 2000, I was making $28,000 a year in NC.
So in the space of eleven years, although the average cost of a house in the US soared, the average salary for a teacher (with an advanced degree) had barely moved.

I don't know anything about owning your own business, etc. I do know that people who worked in what were considered middle class professions (such as teaching), used to be able to afford to buy homes and save money for retirement. I know that now it has become harder.

Foxfyre-$52,000 before taxes is great for a single person, or even a young couple just starting out. I'm not arguing that. But if you expect to pay a mortgage and feed and clothe a family while saving money for your children's education and your own retirement-it gets a little stickier.
What you said about overtime speaks to Locked's point.
A person used to be able to work one job and have a life. Now a person has to work two or three jobs, or work one job sixty or seventy hours a week to keep his or her head above water.

I would not want to be just starting out now. I agree with Locked that it is harder for those who are.

Harder than our great-grandparents that worked sun up to sun down toiling in the soil with mule drawn equipment?

Harder than our grandparents coming out of the depression?

Harder than our parents, most of whom did not go to college?

The idea that everybody should be able to attend college is a fairly new idea, coming around the time I was graduating high school.

Home ownership is a nice goal, but it isn't a right. Owning a car would be nice, but it isn't a right or a necessity with public transport.

I know what LockeD is saying regarding the transfer of money to the upper class through tax codes that are assbackwards, but I can't go along with todays younger generations having a harder time meeting their basic needs.