This I find very interesting. It's an article from Esquire about how much damage the United States (and the rest of the world now) has done economically placating the elderly, and where this might leave the Occupy movement when it might resume this spring. It's three pages long and a bit of read, but I found it very fascinating, especially how this is the biggest elephant in the Occupy Movement room: how do you complain to the Old about the Old who used that very strategy to success when they were young?

While I don't think the result will be that stark as Mr. Marche seems to play them, I do think we have run into a grave danger by placating the elderly, basically the Baby Boomers. There are certain elements that I do find interesting like how large the average salary gap has gotten between the very old and the very young.

And I wonder where does that leave those between 35 and 65? And will that generation benefit when the Boomers are kicking the bucket as a generation in 2036, when Social Security is forecasts to run out of money?

And the biggest question I have about the article: if this is a constant problem that has been there since "the 1930's", is it really a problem or just a way to compensate all the boons that the young have by being young?

ampersand wrote:we have run into a grave danger

Was that on purpose?

Not intentional.

ampersand wrote:this is the biggest elephant in the Occupy Movement room: how do you complain to the Old about the Old who used that very strategy to success when they were young?

I thought the biggest elephant in the Occupy room was "what the fuck do we stand for - socialism or libertarianism?" Except for hating the bank bailouts, I can't tell. It seems one group claims to stand for "bailouts for me, not for thee", and the other wants to end the Fed and tell the government to butt out.

There are certain elements that I do find interesting like how large the average salary gap has gotten between the very old and the very young.

Blame the minimum wage for that. It drives up youth unemployment (generally 3x the average rate) and keeps young workers from finding jobs to start off. It effectively removes the lowest rungs from the ladder of success.

And will that generation benefit when the Boomers are kicking the bucket as a generation in 2036, when Social Security is forecasts to run out of money?

No one will benefit. When Social Security goes broke, the answer provided by our government will be to have the Fed create money to pay that obligation. As SS is tied to price inflation, which is caused by monetary inflation, this will create a never-ending cycle of exponentially increasing inflation, worse than the stagflation of the 1970s and the coming Great Inflation that will hit when we "recover" from the Great Recession (most of that will probably just set the stage for another unsustainable inflationary bubble, but it will raise prices a lot as well). It will spell the end of the American Republic, and likely the beginning of the American Empire (in its overt form) or the collapse of the Union entirely. It will also create a situation where, for a time, only those on Social Security will be able to afford anything.

And the biggest question I have about the article: if this is a constant problem that has been there since "the 1930's", is it really a problem or just a way to compensate all the boons that the young have by being young?

The boons of the youth are compensated by the old having had time to save and invest, develop skills, and earn money. The problem is a very big one, as it is barely patched now, and has the potential to explode out of control. It will, if nothing is done. (And nothing being done is sadly what will probably happen.)

ampersand wrote:[...] and where this might leave the Occupy movement when it might resume this spring.

Granted, I live in a desert where it's already in the 80s, but doesn't April count as spring already? If the Occupy movement were going to resume this spring, wouldn't it be doing so already?

collegestudent22 wrote:Blame the minimum wage for that. It drives up youth unemployment (generally 3x the average rate) and keeps young workers from finding jobs to start off. It effectively removes the lowest rungs from the ladder of success.

Boy howdy, no kidding. It creates a deeper talent pool of youth that companies hire from. I've been actively searching for new work for years but I'm competing with people with a higher education and/or more experience who are also willing to work for less. I can't even get a part-time job at fucking Starbucks, McDonalds, etc. (I can't afford to start a family or change careers).

Four months ago, I interviewed someone with a masters degree (related to our business) for a position below my level and pay. We were told to hire the (younger) former elementary school substitute teacher instead.