25 ways the baby boomers had it easier than millenials...

[bar4doug]

I don't know why Ward Cleaver couldn't have been told those things ... at least he could have been told that his homes and televisions and cars would be built in America or nations with comparable laws and regulations, and thus they would have been more expensive.

His televisions and cars were built in the USA because they weren't being built elsewhere. There were waiting lists for cars in the 50's. Auto makers could afford to give away the store in terms of bennies because the demand for cars could only be met by them. Once other players came to the table, not saddled with those worker obligations, it was only a matter of time until domestic industry began to suffer.

You say it "wasn't going to happen," but in 1928 most people would have said the same thing about Social Security and an 80% income tax bracket and the federal government hiring millions of people for public projects.

Social Security did not exist until 1935. An 80% income tax by itself is meaningless unless it's pegged to an income bracket. You will be more successful taxing more people than taxing few, because those few will find flaws in your legislation, and make the taxes moot. In my opinion, a broad tax on the entire population ensures that everyone realizes the cost of dreams. FDR threatened to "pack the court" to get his way, because he knew what he wanted to do wouldn't pass the sniff test at the time in the Supreme Court. Only when the seated justices realized their voices would be minimized by FDR appointing "his boys" to the court did the WPA become a reality.

I don't make my own clothes, but I know people who can. If we put tariffs on cheap foreign goods, to where Vietnamese-made clothes cost the same as American-made clothes ... I would probably take much better care of my clothes and sometimes pay my friends who can sew to make and repair clothes for me. Perhaps "patches" -- perfectly functional items that could even be turned into stylish accessories -- would come back into style. That would be awesome.

Well that's the point. People find it easier to buy goods made at a much lower cost than hand-made goods. And why would I take better care of my clothes when I'll want some new threads when the latest trends surface?

One side of the coin: "Why are you forcing me to pay more for clothes I am not going to keep for life by placing tariffs on these foreign good as compared to domestic clothes?"

The other side of the coin: "You need to pay more for clothes so that we keep people employed in this country. I am sorry that you cannot go out to eat, take that vacation, or upgrade your home, but you paying for domestic clothes is necessary, and is for the greater good..."

A tariff on foreign clothing forces a family that needs to clothe its kids to pay more....

It's an ugly debate. Everyone is certain to be unsatisfied...

 

[Penis Aficionado]

His televisions and cars were built in the USA because they weren't being built elsewhere. There were waiting lists for cars in the 50's. Auto makers could afford to give away the store in terms of bennies because the demand for cars could only be met by them. Once other players came to the table, not saddled with those worker obligations, it was only a matter of time until domestic industry began to suffer.

The "other players" could have been kept out of the American market or handicapped with tariffs to make them competitive with U.S. automakers. The economic windfall of the '50s meant that even lower-income people could buy cars, and upper-middle-income people were buying 2nd cars. It created enormous demand and that probably would have been met by American automakers eventually.

Social Security did not exist until 1935. An 80% income tax by itself is meaningless unless it's pegged to an income bracket. You will be more successful taxing more people than taxing few, because those few will find flaws in your legislation, and make the taxes moot. In my opinion, a broad tax on the entire population ensures that everyone realizes the cost of dreams. FDR threatened to "pack the court" to get his way, because he knew what he wanted to do wouldn't pass the sniff test at the time in the Supreme Court. Only when the seated justices realized their voices would be minimized by FDR appointing "his boys" to the court did the WPA become a reality.

And that's what made FDR the greatest president. Unlike Trump he actually followed through on his threats. Anyway, my point was simply that, had we made the political decision to block foreign countries from underselling our products in the '70s and '80s, we would be living in a different world today.

A tariff on foreign clothing forces a family that needs to clothe its kids to pay more....

Only if you're stuck in the mindset that the only way to get clothes is to go buy them at Walmart or Target or the mall. That mindset was created by our political decisions.

Yes, people would have to pay more for BRAND NEW THINGS, but before the globalist cheap-stuff mindset took hold, it was not unusual to repair or even make your own clothes. And I'm not talking about the Depression days .... my parents were both college-educated professionals, and as a child in the '70s and '80s my mom still sewed patches on the knees of my jeans when I wore them through ...

 

[malakos]

It's still possible to become an electrical engineer without so much as an Associate's Degree. I know people who've done it.

 

[bar4doug]

The "other players" could have been kept out of the American market or handicapped with tariffs to make them competitive with U.S. automakers. The economic windfall of the '50s meant that even lower-income people could buy cars, and upper-middle-income people were buying 2nd cars. It created enormous demand and that probably would have been met by American automakers eventually.

But how is that in itself fair? Why should any nation forbid its citizens from buying a product at a lower cost from another nation simply because it cannot be produced domestically at that cost?

Please quantify the statements you write of regarding income and second cars in the '50's, because my experience disagrees with your statement. It was one house, one car, until the '70's. Children not included.

And that's what made FDR the greatest president. Unlike Trump he actually followed through on his threats. Anyway, my point was simply that, had we made the political decision to block foreign countries from underselling our products in the '70s and '80s, we would be living in a different world today.

So are you saying that the greatest president used loopholes to get his way? Do the ends justify the means, even though they may break laws? Sorry, I cannot agree. Trump is not a topic here. Boomers and their advantage is the topic.

Only if you're stuck in the mindset that the only way to get clothes is to go buy them at Walmart or Target or the mall. That mindset was created by our political decisions.

Yes, people would have to pay more for BRAND NEW THINGS, but before the globalist cheap-stuff mindset took hold, it was not unusual to repair or even make your own clothes. And I'm not talking about the Depression days .... my parents were both college-educated professionals, and as a child in the '70s and '80s my mom still sewed patches on the knees of my jeans when I wore them through ...

If I am going to wear clothes for 24 months, then I don't care about durability. Why should I pay for durability / logevity I am not going to use?

There were many things that were "repairable" at a cost which was commensurate with the replacement cost. i.e. - In the 70's, it was cheaper to repair your color TV than buy a new one. Today? Not so much, because there aren't serviceable parts inside, and technology moves too fast to warrant a repair. (No pun intended.)

 

[Penis Aficionado]

But how is that in itself fair? Why should any nation forbid its citizens from buying a product at a lower cost from another nation simply because it cannot be produced domestically at that cost?

Well, because it might be in the best interests of the nation as a whole.

By your logic there is really no reason for a "nation" to exist -- we should just call them "marketplaces."

As for fairness, one could turn the question around: How is it fair that citizens of a nation should suddenly find themselves unemployed and broke, simply because people in another nation will do their jobs at a fraction of the cost?

Please quantify the statements you write of regarding income and second cars in the '50's, because my experience disagrees with your statement. It was one house, one car, until the '70's. Children not included.

You may be right that the middle-class second car was a '70s phenomenon. My point was that "waiting lists for cars" in the '50s was a natural reaction to a huge spike in demand for a pretty labor-intensive product. U.S. automakers figured it out before long.

So are you saying that the greatest president used loopholes to get his way? Do the ends justify the means, even though they may break laws? Sorry, I cannot agree. Trump is not a topic here. Boomers and their advantage is the topic.

I didn't mean to make Trump "the topic." Our greatest presidents -- TR, FDR and LBJ -- used loopholes, the bully pulpit, the legal power that backs the presidency and, sometimes, probably threats and personal intimidation to achieve things that were good for the country. Sometimes the ends justify the means. Especially when the worst thing the means do is economically inconvenience people in the short term. As Nixon said, "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

If I am going to wear clothes for 24 months, then I don't care about durability. Why should I pay for durability / logevity I am not going to use?

There were many things that were "repairable" at a cost which was commensurate with the replacement cost. i.e. - In the 70's, it was cheaper to repair your color TV than buy a new one. Today? Not so much, because there aren't serviceable parts inside, and technology moves too fast to warrant a repair. (No pun intended.)

Yes, but those things came with a cost -- the loss of jobs (not just the official 40-hour-a-week manufacturing jobs, but all the people who put themselves through college or padded their retirement by fixing things -- back when things used to get fixed instead of thrown away -- which I think is a huge loss of real money that economists don't take into account).

You should pay for these things because you are a citizen of a nation, not just a free-floating consumer. As a citizen of a nation you should be invested in the well-being of your fellow citizens.

 

[Mr Ed in Mass]

Gee we had it SO easy, good thing there wasn't a Draft or something

 

[southeastone]

, a house price that was equivalent to three times their annual salary in the 70's not 10 times higher which it is now, .

Incidentally UK house prices the ratio in a lot of the 70s was 5x, todays official figures is 7x, a huge increase but not what you are quoting plus we had a little inconvenience called the interest rate, you may not know about it as you live in a more or less free credit period now, imagine how "easy" we had it paying for those "cheap" houses we all got, yeah the good old days, fuck we had a ball

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/graphs-average-house-price-to-earnings-ratio.php

 

[bar4doug]

Well, because it might be in the best interests of the nation as a whole.

By your logic there is really no reason for a "nation" to exist -- we should just call them "marketplaces."

The internet, the media, and container ships have brought the economies of far away nations much closer together. Feel free to call it marketplaces if you wish. Technology makes the long distance transport of goods possible. It doesn't matter if the places are in different nations.

As for fairness, one could turn the question around: How is it fair that citizens of a nation should suddenly find themselves unemployed and broke, simply because people in another nation will do their jobs at a fraction of the cost?

It didn't happen overnight, but was a slow death. The ones who are hurt the most are the ones that didn't see it coming, or ignored the warning signs.

How many times do people or companies go with "The Low Bid" and not "The Right Bid". People go with the low bid most of the time..

Yes, but those things came with a cost -- the loss of jobs (not just the official 40-hour-a-week manufacturing jobs, but all the people who put themselves through college or padded their retirement by fixing things -- back when things used to get fixed instead of thrown away -- which I think is a huge loss of real money that economists don't take into account).

You should pay for these things because you are a citizen of a nation, not just a free-floating consumer. As a citizen of a nation you should be invested in the well-being of your fellow citizens.

Manufacturing techniques and miniaturization make the "repair" of things less likely now. You can't really replace a circuit board at a cost of buying a replacement. You might not be able to justify the cost of diagnostics plus the repair when compared to a brand new replacement unit. Times change.

If I can clothe my family for a fraction of cost by buying foreign, that leaves me money to save, or to spend on other things my family needs. My family benefits. The seamstress suffers, and unfortunately will need to learn a new skill.. Times change.

I think we agree to disagree..

 

[554279]

Every generation thinks the previous one had it easy, and every older generation thinks the same thing. Fucking argument has been going since the T-rex.

 

[AdamHenry]

The world is vastly different today. There is no job security. Cost of living is outpacing wages. Back in the boomer days you could get a job at a factory with a high school diploma, buy a house in a working class neighborhood, buy a car, and raise a family on one income. I challenge anyone who can do that today.

 

[southeastone]

The world is vastly different today. There is no job security. Cost of living is outpacing wages. Back in the boomer days you could get a job at a factory with a high school diploma, buy a house in a working class neighborhood, buy a car, and raise a family on one income. I challenge anyone who can do that today.

Not in the UK you couldn't

 

[185248]

Every generation thinks the previous one had it easy, and every older generation thinks the same thing. Fucking argument has been going since the T-rex.

My Dad was a child during the depression years. Yet they just had to make do with what they had.

There was never any regret, moaning or whinging about not having stuff. Just grateful for what they did have and made the best of it.

I played in creeks growing up for entertainment. Cost nothing. Say that to a kid now, and most would look at you and say.."What??? Yuuuuck. By the way, what's a creek"