The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » RETIRE!!!!! » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (5 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Nov 5, 2015, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On Nov 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On Nov 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On Nov 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
In my experience, there's a marked difference between the saving and spending habits of Americans in their 40s and 50s and those in their 70s and older, and it's not unrelated. Those who lived through the Great Depression or were raised by people who did seem to me to be far more inclined to live within or beneath their means - saving up and doing without. Those for whom it was just a story spend much more on discretionary items - toys, eating out, expensive clothes, etc. I'm sure there's quite a variety of factors at play, but it sure seems to me like the percentage of ants has declined and the percentage of grasshoppers has grown.


Apples and oranges. Spending power of workers who reached their peak earning years in 2015 vs. 1985? Pensions of same? GI Bill? Cost of higher education? Medical Costs? Percentage of salary spent on housing? Return on standard investments? It's remarkably easier to save when there is more to save.


Apples and apples. It's a lot easier to spend recreationally when there is more to spend, but that doesn't stop people from having the deluxe cable package, the latest iPhone, restaurant dinners five nights a week...


You've not addressed the points I've made about housing, medical care, education, pension plans, interest rates, all non-discretionary. The point (really anecdotes) that you reference have been around since before 1985 with old people complaining about the spendthrift ways of the younger generation. But the hard evidence is this: despite large rises in productivity, workers are not living as well as they were even thirty years ago.



Actually, in an impressive display of mentalism, I addressed your points - with you in mind, actually - before you made them:

Quote:
On Nov 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I'm sure there's quite a variety of factors at play


I'm sure that the point the I made has been around quite a while; the Great Depression was a long time ago, and 30 years ago, people who had not directly experienced it were raising children. Those who have been through the hardest rainstorms tend to be the most inclined to prepare for rainy days. OK, I have some work to do, and I also have to make time to drop a one-liner about your Tamir Rice anecdote in another thread.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20613 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Lobo yes about rainstorms. It is a perfect analogy. And without the sense of alarm often teaching others to prepare does not have that same impact.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
The Hermit
View Profile
Loyal user
300 Posts

Profile of The Hermit
Quote:
On Nov 5, 2015, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On Nov 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On Nov 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On Nov 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
In my experience, there's a marked difference between the saving and spending habits of Americans in their 40s and 50s and those in their 70s and older, and it's not unrelated. Those who lived through the Great Depression or were raised by people who did seem to me to be far more inclined to live within or beneath their means - saving up and doing without. Those for whom it was just a story spend much more on discretionary items - toys, eating out, expensive clothes, etc. I'm sure there's quite a variety of factors at play, but it sure seems to me like the percentage of ants has declined and the percentage of grasshoppers has grown.


Apples and oranges. Spending power of workers who reached their peak earning years in 2015 vs. 1985? Pensions of same? GI Bill? Cost of higher education? Medical Costs? Percentage of salary spent on housing? Return on standard investments? It's remarkably easier to save when there is more to save.


Apples and apples. It's a lot easier to spend recreationally when there is more to spend, but that doesn't stop people from having the deluxe cable package, the latest iPhone, restaurant dinners five nights a week...


You've not addressed the points I've made about housing, medical care, education, pension plans, interest rates, all non-discretionary. The point (really anecdotes) that you reference have been around since before 1985 with old people complaining about the spendthrift ways of the younger generation. But the hard evidence is this: despite large rises in productivity, workers are not living as well as they were even thirty years ago.


I will. maybe, wrong- insurance is more expensive but real cost of care is proportional except for new technologies that didn't exist then, true because of student loans pushed by govt, wrong, they are lower, higher discretionary now with somewhat lower income. As to productivity, it had almost nothing to do with workers. It was computerization and automation. That has caused some jobs to be negated, but that's always been the case. No elevator operators these days - and those guys had a union. Workers are not living as well because as a general group, the unskilled have less opportunity now than before. Manufacturing used to need unskilled labor and paid well for it. Now robots do that job. You have to have an economic benefit to the employer. No skill, low pay, no pay.

The healthcare issue is one of govt intrusion and technical breakthroughs. It costs a Billion dollars to develop a new med. Much of that is govt testing, etc. Should the company that invests that much make a good return? Or , should they invest in something else? This has drawn costs higher, but we also save millions that would have died 30 years ago. Example, we spend billions on aids research for a drug that wouldn't be needed if people behaved differently. Why should the govt spend billions on a disease that could be eradicated in a generation without medicine.
The Hermit
View Profile
Loyal user
300 Posts

Profile of The Hermit
Quote:
On Nov 5, 2015, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On Nov 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On Nov 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On Nov 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
In my experience, there's a marked difference between the saving and spending habits of Americans in their 40s and 50s and those in their 70s and older, and it's not unrelated. Those who lived through the Great Depression or were raised by people who did seem to me to be far more inclined to live within or beneath their means - saving up and doing without. Those for whom it was just a story spend much more on discretionary items - toys, eating out, expensive clothes, etc. I'm sure there's quite a variety of factors at play, but it sure seems to me like the percentage of ants has declined and the percentage of grasshoppers has grown.


Apples and oranges. Spending power of workers who reached their peak earning years in 2015 vs. 1985? Pensions of same? GI Bill? Cost of higher education? Medical Costs? Percentage of salary spent on housing? Return on standard investments? It's remarkably easier to save when there is more to save.


Apples and apples. It's a lot easier to spend recreationally when there is more to spend, but that doesn't stop people from having the deluxe cable package, the latest iPhone, restaurant dinners five nights a week...


You've not addressed the points I've made about housing, medical care, education, pension plans, interest rates, all non-discretionary. The point (really anecdotes) that you reference have been around since before 1985 with old people complaining about the spendthrift ways of the younger generation. But the hard evidence is this: despite large rises in productivity, workers are not living as well as they were even thirty years ago.


I will. maybe, wrong- insurance is more expensive but real cost of care is proportional except for new technologies that didn't exist then, true because of student loans pushed by govt, wrong, they are lower, higher discretionary now with somewhat lower income. As to productivity, it had almost nothing to do with workers. It was computerization and automation. That has caused some jobs to be negated, but that's always been the case. No elevator operators these days - and those guys had a union. Workers are not living as well because as a general group, the unskilled have less opportunity now than before. Manufacturing used to need unskilled labor and paid well for it. Now robots do that job. You have to have an economic benefit to the employer. No skill, low pay, no pay.

The healthcare issue is one of govt intrusion and technical breakthroughs. It costs a Billion dollars to develop a new med. Much of that is govt testing, etc. Should the company that invests that much make a good return? Or , should they invest in something else? This has drawn costs higher, but we also save millions that would have died 30 years ago. Example, we spend billions on aids research for a drug that wouldn't be needed if people behaved differently. Why should the govt spend billions on a disease that could be eradicated in a generation without medicine.
The Hermit
View Profile
Loyal user
300 Posts

Profile of The Hermit
Quote:
On Nov 5, 2015, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On Nov 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On Nov 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On Nov 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
In my experience, there's a marked difference between the saving and spending habits of Americans in their 40s and 50s and those in their 70s and older, and it's not unrelated. Those who lived through the Great Depression or were raised by people who did seem to me to be far more inclined to live within or beneath their means - saving up and doing without. Those for whom it was just a story spend much more on discretionary items - toys, eating out, expensive clothes, etc. I'm sure there's quite a variety of factors at play, but it sure seems to me like the percentage of ants has declined and the percentage of grasshoppers has grown.


Apples and oranges. Spending power of workers who reached their peak earning years in 2015 vs. 1985? Pensions of same? GI Bill? Cost of higher education? Medical Costs? Percentage of salary spent on housing? Return on standard investments? It's remarkably easier to save when there is more to save.


Apples and apples. It's a lot easier to spend recreationally when there is more to spend, but that doesn't stop people from having the deluxe cable package, the latest iPhone, restaurant dinners five nights a week...


You've not addressed the points I've made about housing, medical care, education, pension plans, interest rates, all non-discretionary. The point (really anecdotes) that you reference have been around since before 1985 with old people complaining about the spendthrift ways of the younger generation. But the hard evidence is this: despite large rises in productivity, workers are not living as well as they were even thirty years ago.


I will. maybe, wrong- insurance is more expensive but real cost of care is proportional except for new technologies that didn't exist then, true because of student loans pushed by govt, wrong, they are lower, higher discretionary now with somewhat lower income. As to productivity, it had almost nothing to do with workers. It was computerization and automation. That has caused some jobs to be negated, but that's always been the case. No elevator operators these days - and those guys had a union. Workers are not living as well because as a general group, the unskilled have less opportunity now than before. Manufacturing used to need unskilled labor and paid well for it. Now robots do that job. You have to have an economic benefit to the employer. No skill, low pay, no pay.

The healthcare issue is one of govt intrusion and technical breakthroughs. It costs a Billion dollars to develop a new med. Much of that is govt testing, etc. Should the company that invests that much make a good return? Or , should they invest in something else? This has drawn costs higher, but we also save millions that would have died 30 years ago. Example, we spend billions on aids research for a drug that wouldn't be needed if people behaved differently. Why should the govt spend billions on a disease that could be eradicated in a generation without medicine.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
You are sadly mistaken if you believe that everyone who contracted AIDS did so as a result "of their own behavior."

That's simply false.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20613 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
One of my best friends in 1991 contacted AIDS. He was a non drug using heterosexual. He did not frequent prostitutes.

His only behavioral issue was that he was afflicted with hemophilia. He had a knee replacement and they had to give him blood. The blood was infected. He died rather quickly.

Please explain to me which behavior he could have modified that would have changed the outcome?

I can't believe some of the things people say.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Not choosing sides here, but maybe the point was that if (other) people had changed their behavior, the blood supply wouldn't have been infected.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5023 Posts

Profile of landmark
@ Hermit

So many misconceptions in one post are hard to address at this hour but let's deal with the most fundamental one:
"You have to have an economic benefit to the employer. No skill, low pay, no pay."

There will never be enough "skilled" jobs by definition in a capitalist society. If there were lots of skilled workers, they would no longer command a higher wage. A society that actually cared about its members and not just "the economic benefit to the employer" would see this as a fundamental problem.

Same with the drug companies. "Should the company that invests that much make a good return? Or, should they invest in something else?"

The question, rather, should be, what kind of society asks the above question in a serious way, and why wouldn't that society be considered a failed one? Is the purpose of a society for the benefit of the few or the many?
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
I'd say that American society benefits "many."
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16262 Posts

Profile of tommy
Is it a secret society?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Nov 6, 2015, landmark wrote:

So many misconceptions in one post are hard to address at this hour



Welcome to my world.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2758 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
Quote:
On Nov 5, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
You are sadly mistaken if you believe that everyone who contracted AIDS did so as a result "of their own behavior."

That's simply false.


Isaac Asimov.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov
"There's no time to lose," I heard her say.
"Catch your dreams before they slip away."
"Dying all the time, lose your dreams and you could lose your mind.
Ain't life unkind?"
RNK
View Profile
Inner circle
5483 Posts

Profile of RNK
Quote:
On Nov 6, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I'd say that American society benefits "many."


Exactly! It definitely does. More than any other country in the world!
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Nov 6, 2015, ed rhodes wrote:
Quote:
On Nov 5, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
You are sadly mistaken if you believe that everyone who contracted AIDS did so as a result "of their own behavior."

That's simply false.

Isaac Asimov.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov

Tom Fogerty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Fogerty
The Hermit
View Profile
Loyal user
300 Posts

Profile of The Hermit
Quote:
On Nov 5, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
You are sadly mistaken if you believe that everyone who contracted AIDS did so as a result "of their own behavior."

That's simply false.


Context People. I don't want to start an AIDS discussion. I was using it as an example of a lot of money going to something that was traditionally treated as an epidemic. I know SOME people have gotten AIDS from no fault of their own. HOWEVER, if you don't use IV drugs or sleep with people with AIDS you don't get it. We spend billions on a disease that is caused MOSTLY by behavior, that in most cases is reckless by any standards. I am not talking about gayness. People that contract it today are almost always engaging in risky behavior.
The Hermit
View Profile
Loyal user
300 Posts

Profile of The Hermit
Quote:
On Nov 6, 2015, landmark wrote:
@ Hermit

So many misconceptions in one post are hard to address at this hour but let's deal with the most fundamental one:
"You have to have an economic benefit to the employer. No skill, low pay, no pay."

There will never be enough "skilled" jobs by definition in a capitalist society. If there were lots of skilled workers, they would no longer command a higher wage. A society that actually cared about its members and not just "the economic benefit to the employer" would see this as a fundamental problem.

Same with the drug companies. "Should the company that invests that much make a good return? Or, should they invest in something else?"

The question, rather, should be, what kind of society asks the above question in a serious way, and why wouldn't that society be considered a failed one? Is the purpose of a society for the benefit of the few or the many?


Society is not for the benefit of anyone. Who decides in 'society' who should benefit and why? Your 'clarifications' are loaded with assumptions about roles that may just not exist. What is the basis for judging whether a society has failed and who sets the definition. It seems your retort contains many personal ideas on how to judge the value of things not related or controlled by you.

As to the few or the many, who decides who the many are?
The Hermit
View Profile
Loyal user
300 Posts

Profile of The Hermit
Landmark, question on society role. In Africa, millions are infected with AIDS because they continue to do behaviors that cause it. There are education campaigns, etc. Is it society's role to protect and/or administer to people that are ill because of their own behavior? Should other countries spend billions on African AIDS when millions continue to engage in activity they are warned about or let them live with the result of their actions? If so, then society is protecting the few over the many.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » RETIRE!!!!! » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (5 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.34 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL