Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck

Millennials Set To Earn Less Than Generation X (bbc.com) 614

Reader AmiMoJo writes: Millennials are set to become the first generation to earn less than their predecessors, new research suggests. The Resolution Foundation found that under-35s earned 8,000 pound ($10,600) less in their twenties than Generation X workers. If wages for millennials follow the same path as Generation X, average career earnings will be about 825,000 pound ($1.1m). That would make them the first generation to earn less than their predecessors over the course of their working lives. Research found that some of the pay squeeze was due to under-35s entering the job market as the recession hit, but it also concluded that generational pay progress had ground to a halt even before the financial crisis struck in 2007/8.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Millennials Set To Earn Less Than Generation X

Comments Filter:
  • by HBI ( 604924 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @12:45PM (#52534369) Journal

    The generation after the long IT boom inaugurated in the early 1980s and finishing off in about 2001 is going to earn less than their predecessors. Color me unsurprised. We squandered the fruits of that on peak socialism. Now the long slide since 2008 will continue until some disruptive element creates economic opportunity. I'm not exactly holding my breath.

    • by thaylin ( 555395 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @12:51PM (#52534443)

      So with lower taxes we squandered it on socialism? Could it be that this is just an effect of capitalism? driving down costs == driving down wages.

    • by sinij ( 911942 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @12:54PM (#52534461)

      We squandered the fruits of that on peak socialism.

      I think you meant to write peak corporate welfare, because at least in US social nets were/are being cut at least since Reagan era, if not earlier.

      • by ohieaux ( 2860669 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @01:10PM (#52534659)

        We squandered the fruits of that on peak socialism.

        I think you meant to write peak corporate welfare, because at least in US social nets were/are being cut at least since Reagan era, if not earlier.

        Multiple sources, like the US government, report that > 1/3 households are on means tested assistance (e.g. welfare). If you add unemployment, social security and other government pensions, you are at or near 50%. Is that more, or less, than when Reagan cut welfare? Or, was that (Bill) Clinton that that reformed welfare?

        • by Ogive17 ( 691899 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @01:54PM (#52535075)
          If minimum wage kept up with inflation, maybe we wouldn't have so many people on welfare.

          It's a joke that someone can put 40 hours in per week with one employer and still need to work a 2nd job or require government assistance simply to pay the bills and put food on the table.
          • by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) <gameboyrmh@NOSpaM.gmail.com> on Monday July 18, 2016 @02:26PM (#52535371) Journal

            Exactly. And this sub-livable minimum wage amounts to a massive, unorganized corporate welfare scheme, paid by the family, friends, and government programs that subsidize the workers making sub-livable wages.

          • by XxtraLarGe ( 551297 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @02:48PM (#52535553) Journal

            If minimum wage kept up with inflation, maybe we wouldn't have so many people on welfare.

            Except for the people who will be earning $0, which is the minimum wage you get when you can't get a job.

            It's a joke that someone can put 40 hours in per week with one employer and still need to work a 2nd job or require government assistance simply to pay the bills and put food on the table.

            Minimum wage increases are usually met with price increases as well, meaning that the gains seen by minimum wage earners is minimal. However, the people earning more than minimum wage are actually hurt.

            Consider this scenario. Suppose you've been working a job for 5 years and you started out at minimum wage, $7.25. Now you're making $15 an hour due to annual increases from good performance reviews. That's a 107% increase over that time. Suddenly, the minimum wage is raised to $15 an hour. What's the likely outcome? You know you're not going to be getting a 107% increase again to $31.03. More likely, you'll get a $3-$5 raise, meaning that after 5 years of hard work, you're going to be making about 20% to 33.3% more than a person who was just hired. In addition to that, most thing you'd like to buy are now going to cost more.

            Essentially, a minimum wage increase is a wage decrease for everyone else. It doesn't hurt the rich, who will barely notice the increase, but it especially hurts the working lower & middle-lower class people who were making slightly more than minimum wage, which is a lot more than those who earn just the minimum wage.

            The one exception to this union employees, since their contracts are usually tied to minimum wage. They're always in favor of minimum wage increases because they'll get the full proportional raise, making them slightly better off than before, because everyone else is being dragged down.

      • by tsotha ( 720379 )
        No, in the US the safety net is far more lavish than it was in the '80s. There were some cuts to federal programs, which were all restored before Reagan even left office. Over the years Congress has mandated more and more benefits at the state level, which doesn't show up much on the federal budget but still needs to get paid for somehow.
    • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @12:59PM (#52534533)

      The only social nets I can spot currently are keeping banks and other "important" entities propped up. Can't identify any normal people in there.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by schnell ( 163007 )

        The only social nets I can spot currently are keeping banks and other "important" entities propped up. Can't identify any normal people in there.

        I'm pretty sure it's not the banks who are signed up for Obamacare. Or GW Bush's prescription drug benefit expansion. Companies pay into Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance, not receive money from them.

        I know it's cool and hip to say that the US government helps nobody except banks or something - usually not a charge leveled at Democratic administrations, but whatever - but it's not true and contributes nothing positive to the discussion. In the 2015 US Federal budget including discretionar [politifact.com]

    • The money has been squandered on a perpetual war that began in 2001. As of 2013, the combined costs of the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were estimated at $4 trillion [washingtonpost.com]. That money equally divided amongst all Americans amounts to roughly $1000 / person / year.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo@wo[ ]3.net ['rld' in gap]> on Monday July 18, 2016 @01:06PM (#52534615) Homepage Journal

      Nah, we screwed the millennials by changing to an economy built on debt and by turning stuff people need into unaffordable assets, e.g. houses. Any social benefits were removed, like free university education.

      It's anti-socialism. Socialism would never have allowed the end of building social housing or needing two incomes to raise a family.

      Oh, and by "we", I mean "baby boomers". I'm gen X and wasn't old enough to vote when all this shit really started in the 80s.

      • Oh, and by "we", I mean "baby boomers". I'm gen X and wasn't old enough to vote when all this shit really started in the 80s.

        I'm a boomer - but I voted against pretty much all of this stuff. And campaigned against it, too. Virtually nobody I ever voted for was elected.

        As for the political institutions: The generations before ours held onto power until quite recently (and have bequeathed it to individuals who are their ideological colleagues among later generations). Their crooked lock on the voting proc

    • by monkeyxpress ( 4016725 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @01:34PM (#52534895)

      The economy has been growing quite steadily over this period, including since 2008. If that new wealth was divided up among American workers in the same way it was in the 1980s, then millennials would be better of than previous generations.

      So the problem is not that we need a disruptive source of economic opportunity, it is that the existing disruptive sources of economic opportunity are generating wealth that is simply accumulating among current holders of wealth, to the exclusion of new workers.

      Incidentally, such an in-equal wealth distribution could not - by definition - occur if the USA was the socialist country you seem to think it is.

  • Standard of living (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fropenn ( 1116699 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @12:49PM (#52534425)
    But what really matters is standard of living. Sure, they might make less money, but in the 1980s a cell phone cost thousands and barely worked, compared to what you can get for a few hundred bucks and $30 a month. Earning less money != worse life.
    • by sinij ( 911942 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @12:56PM (#52534505)

      But what really matters is standard of living. Sure, they might make less money, but in the 1980s a cell phone cost thousands and barely worked, compared to what you can get for a few hundred bucks and $30 a month.

      Sure, we can buy electronics cheaply, but cost of housing, education, transportation are all significantly up at the same time as wages and unemployment are down.

      • by BigSlowTarget ( 325940 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @01:08PM (#52534635) Journal

        Housing is up, education is up, not so sure on transportation. I suspect that is regionally up in some places down in others.

        The smog has been cut way back, ozone is coming back, acid rain is gone. Those were worthwhile trades for higher transportation costs I think.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Education used to be free here, not it involves a mountain of debt. The environment is recovering in some ways but climate change is still looking near irreversible, and we are now paying for the boomer's cheap energy that they enjoyed.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18, 2016 @01:06PM (#52534613)

      but in the 1980s a cell phone cost thousands and barely worked, compared to what you can get for a few hundred bucks and $30 a month.

      In the 1970's a kid straight out of high school could get a job, get married, buy a 3 bed house + garage + car in the suburbs and raise 2.6 children on one paycheck.
      Today's third level graduates look forward to a half decade of half-jobs, effective vagrancy, crippling rents, and the growing impossibility of being able to afford even an apartment + car on two salaries.

      Cheap smartphones with social media apps do not health or wealth create.

      Earning less money != worse life.

      Less wealth == less life.
      Millennials could earn twice what they do now and they'd still be less wealthy than their parents because globalisation has left the vast majority of them behind.
      The only numbers that really matter are the big ticket items. Phones are not those.

      • by MBGMorden ( 803437 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @02:13PM (#52535249)

        In the 1970's a kid straight out of high school could get a job, get married, buy a 3 bed house + garage + car in the suburbs and raise 2.6 children on one paycheck.
        Today's third level graduates look forward to a half decade of half-jobs, effective vagrancy, crippling rents, and the growing impossibility of being able to afford even an apartment + car on two salaries.

        Compare the lifestyles though. The kid in the 1970's generally didn't care where he lived as long as he got that house (which BTW, was likely MUCH smaller than the average house of today - SQFT per occupant has gone up dramatically in the last ~30 years). Now people just have to live where it's "happening". Nobody wants to live in Boise - it's gotta be the bay area, or Austin, or New York.

        And how many of those "third level graduates" were for liberal arts degrees where you're really only equipped to teach what you studied in when you graduate, while 1970's kid in high school took up vocational classes in auto mechanics or HVAC - less glamorous or prestigious but ACTUAL USEFUL SKILLS. Those skills also translate well into being able to do a lot of your own home, auto, or other "around the house" type maintenance saving from having to call a repairman out every time you find a frayed cord. 30 years ago pretty much everyone was decently handy and knew how to fix basic stuff.

        And as stated - 1970's kid is doing all this on one salary. His wife/partner/other half is likely at home cooking all of their meals, rather than going downtown for organic artisan tacos and PBR's every night. When you're cooking your food at home you can afford to feed 5-6 people easily for what it would cost for one person to eat out. Now I'm not suggesting that women shouldn't be in the workforce at all (on the contrary I think its better how it is now), but it is a foolish notion to compare two time periods and say that now you NEED two incomes. You don't need it - it's just that now one partner who was once doing very real work to reduce the overhead needed to raise a family is now trading their time for extra income instead.

        Honestly, I don't get the mindset of comparing our supposedly rosy past to the present and then suggesting a huge turn towards Socialism as how we return to that. That certainly wasn't the system we had in place back then to get that result.

        • by sjames ( 1099 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @03:23PM (#52535905) Homepage Journal

          Nice try, but no. Living in the trendy areas is even more out of reach for that high school kid. So much so that places in Ca are having trouble hiring police, firefighters, and teachers because they simply can't afford to live there, even on 2 paychecks.

          That small house in Boise is out of reach for a single income even if the kid went in to HVAC or auto mechanics and the wife stays home and cooks.

        • by Sir_Eptishous ( 873977 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @03:37PM (#52536011) Homepage
          Wrong on so many levels.
          Perhaps you should read and study the economic history of the US since the 1970s to gain a better perspective on the realities, as opposed to using your half baked assertions.

          It has been shown over and over again that since the collapse of unions, the off shoring of manufacturing, globalization, increasing automation, etc that those who used to be in the American Middle Class have had a harder and harder time staying there since the 1970s.

          This has nothing to do with organic artisan tacos or PBRs or any other "look at me being the snarky/witty guy!" bullshit you care to throw out there.

          As I said, please try to read and understand what has happened in the last 30 years to the American Middle Class.
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo@wo[ ]3.net ['rld' in gap]> on Monday July 18, 2016 @01:13PM (#52534703) Homepage Journal

      A better metric would be rent/mortgage and other unavoidable costs as a proportion of income. They have all being going up. The boomers burnt all the cheap energy and broke the climate, and then bought up all the housing to use as assets while simultaneously objecting to any new stock being built.

      Millennials are actually paying for their retirements twice, once through taxes (pensions) and again through rent. And maybe an unpaid internship on the side, with a mountain of student debt on top.

      Actually, debt levels are another good indicator of quality of life. People with a lot of debt tend not to live such good lives.

    • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @02:16PM (#52535281) Journal

      But what really matters is standard of living. Sure, they might make less money, but in the 1980s a cell phone cost thousands and barely worked, compared to what you can get for a few hundred bucks and $30 a month.

      No offense, friend, but that is the stupidest goddamn thing I've seen on the Internet in the past half-hour. Lazy thinking like that is how the government gets away with reporting low inflation numbers. The really big ticket items, housing, education, cars, health care have gone up by a factor of ten since the 1980s.

      At the same time, the actual starting wages in a Ford plant today is less than it was in 1980.

      But at least you'll be able to play Pokemon Go when you're in the bread lines.

  • Because... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sperbels ( 1008585 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @12:51PM (#52534445)
    ...America is in slow economic decline.
    • Re:Because... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @01:05PM (#52534605)

      Bullshit! Why do I keep hearing that "America is in a slow economic decline, America is in a slow economic decline...", everyone parrots it and when asked to support that claim with at least a HINT of facts, nobody can back it up.

      There is nothing slow about it, really.

  • by drew_92123 ( 213321 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @12:54PM (#52534469)

    Most kids today have few if any marketable skills and are in piss poor physical shape and are unable to keep up with a demanding work environment.

    Sad but true... the current generation is fucking worthless.

    • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @01:07PM (#52534623)

      What? You mean that degree in gender studies and female studies is worthless? How can you say that? That only means more companies sorely need a Chief Diversity Officer and a Diversity Department!!!1111

      #bullshitdegreesmatter

      • by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) * on Monday July 18, 2016 @01:19PM (#52534753)

        What? You mean that degree in gender studies and female studies is worthless? How can you say that? That only means more companies sorely need a Chief Diversity Officer and a Diversity Department!!!1111

        Just think: all those people with worthless degrees probably would have gone straight to work after high school or learned a trade, if it weren't for dumbass Boomer and Gen-X parents and guidance counselors blatantly lying to them about how "necessary" a college degree (any college degree) was!

        • by Rakarra ( 112805 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @02:29PM (#52535397)

          Just think: all those people with worthless degrees probably would have gone straight to work after high school or learned a trade

          Unless you're going to be a plumber, there aren't many of those jobs left. The US has exported most of its low-skill manufacturing, and the low-skill construction and agricultural and custodial jobs tend to go to illegal immigrants because permanent residents want a higher salary. Go figure.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18, 2016 @12:57PM (#52534517)

    IMHO, these are the big issues causing this"

    1) The wealth gap today is close to what it was in the "Roaring Twenties".
    2) College is in a bubble due to government subsidies; raising the cost of college for everyone
    3) Entire industries are no longer being created like they used to (Railroad, Oil, Automobiles, Planes, Computers, etc...)
    4) Technical innovation is just "Uber-izing" everything. Jobs that can be automated, will be. Companies of the future will just be a CEO and a CTO. Everyone else not creating or automating things will earn less and less income.
    5) Globalization is feeding the wealth gap more so than ever before. The wealthy ruling class are turning governments into corporate oligarchies.
    6) The career ladder is more about where you were born that what you can do. Meritocracy, to a large extent, is becoming more and more of a myth. If you were born in a rich neighborhood and go to a private school. /rant

  • by pla ( 258480 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @01:09PM (#52534645) Journal
    Make no mistake, this didn't start with the Millennials. We started firmly down this path in the 1930s; WWII saved our grandparents, the cold war saved our parents, and the advent of the "Computer Age" saved Gen-X.

    Unless the Millennials can pull a similar rabbit out of their hats, should it really surprise us that FDR's pyramid schemes (yes, plural) have finally run out of new suckers and can only head one way from here?
    • by bjdevil66 ( 583941 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @02:02PM (#52535151)

      A few possible rabbits (mostly bad):

      1) WWIII (which would have to stay conventional and our side would have to win - though casualties would be in the hundreds of millions around the world).
      2) US government bankruptcy (this destroys the fiat dollar and a generation's savings, but the gov't can no longer can run up debt that squeezes discretionary spending.)
      3) A second "black plague" that culls the herd around the globe and humble everyone enough so they'd be more willing to help each other out and cut people's dependence on less efficient, government-sponsored socialism.)
      4) Some new technology that creates such wealth and comfort that average people no longer have to work and capitalism is transformed into something completely different.

      My money's on #3.

  • Dumb extrapolation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tomhath ( 637240 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @01:19PM (#52534751)

    The Resolution Foundation found that under-35s earned 8,000 pound ($10,600) less in their twenties than Generation X workers. If wages for millennials follow the same path as Generation X...

    It sucks to reach adulthood during a deep recession. Not sure it makes sense to use that as a predictor of the future though.

    Hopefully future administrations will realize that an economic boom is always followed by a bust. You aren't helping the country with bubbles like the stock market and housing ones that were set off in the 1990s.

  • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @01:33PM (#52534891) Journal

    It's time to stop blaming this directly on politics and realize the nature of the economy is evolving, and that past economic patterns are probably dying.

    Earning and employment problems are plaguing almost ALL "mature" (industrialized) nations, not just the socialistic or capitalistic nations. Switching to be more socialistic or more capitalistic is not solving it, at least not in terms of wages and job growth.

    I believe a combination of automation, and easy access to cheap educated 3rd-world labor via the internet is the main culprit.

    We may have to experiment to find solutions rather than keep fighting over doctrine. These experiments include but are not limited to:

    1. Tariffs on "lopsided trade" countries to encourage them to normalize their currency and/or allow more local consumption. Dictatorial countries favor employing their population (so they don't riot) and disfavor consumption and/or outside products. We gotta push them harder, or they won't budge. Tariffs are not to start trade wars, but encourage balanced trade. Crank the tariffs up slowly, if they don't comply, to avoid market shocks.

    2. Tax the rich to either provide subsistence for those without good jobs, and/or to stimulate the economy by putting more cash in consumer pockets.

    3. "Helicopter Money", which is essentially printing more money and giving it to regular folks and/or spending it on infrastructure. Inflation has been lower than expected, suggesting there is enough spare capacity in the global economy to absorb more cash in an orderly fashion. (QE, a cousin of HM, mostly trickled into the rich, not down.)

    4. "Make work" programs, such as cleaning up trash, landscaping, day-care, etc. Make-work programs, in part because of inefficient/outmoded office practices, have kept Japan's employment rate high, although arguably have stagnated economic growth: people in Japan can buy less, but at least have jobs. There may be a trade-off between jobs and stuff.

    Most conservatives say that "less regulation" is the key. That's doubtful.

    States that have tried it, such as Texas and Kansas have had very questionable results. While their unemployment rate has remained relatively strong; wages, infrastructure, medical, pollution, and education have suffered. They get slightly more employment but gut their state in exchange.

    They are essentially competing with the 3rd world by becoming more like the 3rd world. I hope that's not our only option.

    The problem is that calling something an "experiment" is political suicide. Voters want "decisive" leaders, not tinkerers; it's one reason why Trump has risen: "Mr. Do-it". But sometimes the right solution involves first admitting you have no ready answer.

  • by ErichTheRed ( 39327 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @02:01PM (#52535137)

    I see a lot of "grumpy old man" posts (I'm 40 for context...) on this subject blaming entitlement and other reasons for this. I don't see it that way...I haven't run into any of the stereotypical Millennials with a capital M that the media describes -- remember, Generation X were supposed to be "slackers" in the 90s also. So, I don't think it's the people. I think it's the work environment. Work is very different from the golden age of the 50s through the 70s in the US...
    - After WW II, a family could live comfortably on a single income, and there was a reasonably good chance someone could keep their job for life and/or be promoted from within and gain success that way. And this is any family -- from the janitor to the CEO (relatively speaking of course.)
    - After the great corporate downsizing wave of the 90s, it was still possible to graduate from any college, with any degree in any field, and still find entry-level work. While it was less possible to do the single-income thing and required lots of sacrifice to do so, the opportunity existed.
    - Now, entry level tech jobs don't exist or are done offshore or by H-1B labor. The economy has fully adjusted to two-earner families, so it's basically impossible to be a single-earner family unless you live in a really cheap part of the country (where, consequently, there are no jobs anymore.)

    So, don't blame the Millennials. They're in a tough spot. I was very lucky in my early career to be able to work my way up from an entry-level support job to where I am now...that opportunity is much harder to come by now.

  • by TigerPlish ( 174064 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @02:20PM (#52535329)

    Be warned, this is LONG, but it's not a rant, it's a summation. I've tried to edit it down, but I'm my own worst editor, I tend to write (and speak) long. So please bear with me.

    OK, here's the deal: Some of you will think this belongs on infowars, or breitbart, or whatever the paranoid-consipiracist right-wingnut site du jour is. Others will think this belongs in motherjones, or huffpost, or whatever the paranoid-conspiracist left wingnut site du jour is. And I'm sure there's people who wrote "WHY IS THIS HERE?!@?!!", I just can't see them since I have no mod points today I'm reading at threshold=1.

    Sad truth is both sides are playing us. This story is so whack it could pass for a legit Onion story!

    The short of it: This guy Powell -- a Democrat, who served on the boards of 11 big companies wrote a memo in 1971 basically saying Academia was mounting an attack on Free Enterprise. This memo was sent to his buddy, the Director of the US Chamber of Commerce, Eugene Sydnor. Then Powell gets put in the Supreme Court by Nixon.

    The result of the memo - which was kept secret from The People for a while - was the rise of Neo-Liberalism, that is, de-regulation, free-trade, and turning our economy from a production economy to a "services" economy - which really means "Financial" economy. Yeah. Banks rule us, and they crashed mightily in 2007-2008, and are still trying to put the pieces back together.

    So this Powell memo becomes one of the factors that created the corporate culture we have today. Republicans and Conservatives get the blame, when the idea and first motions were from a Liberal Democrat.

    Essentially, the result was the manipulation of media and Academia - through grants, through favors, through good old-fashioned cocksuckery - to shift the thinking of the People to thinking that Free Enterprise was a good thing, that Government shouldn't meddle with business (de-regulation). A number of think-tanks were established, that were pro-business and anti-socialist.

    At the same time while all those pieces were put together, Nixon un-hitched the dollar from the gold standard, the 1973 and 1979 energy crisis happened, the economy tanked, and the rest of the 20th century was spent in a downard slope.

    This neo-liberal foundation helped shape the Reagan economic policies, the whole trickle-down thing, the reduction of corporate taxes, etc.

    By the 90's it looked like the slope had stopped, but in the early 00's it fell off a cliff and it's still doing so.

    So yes, people - we got robbed by liberals, democrats, conservatives and republicans combined. But somehow the blame has been shifted to the conservatives, as if it is their fault for breaking the US.

    Sources? Citations? Do your own reading. Start with the Powell Memo itself, then some Chomsky, and your own examination of the event past half century. Find out what think-tanks were created and what the spout. Find out what rules were taken out to let business "flourish." This is all out there, in the open, from sites and books that are both conservative and liberal. This is not a one-sided thing, folks.

    It'll turn your stomach, it will, doing that kind of reading.

    We got played, by both sides, but the foundation was a liberal foundation, upon which most of the economic policies of today were built on.

    I don't believe any of these people. Not a one. Especially not Billary, and especially not Trump.

    What do we do? Suffer quietly, England-style? Revolution? We're trapped, folks. And what happened here spread to other countries, so emigration to say, England, is not an option, things over there and in Europe are also whacked.

    I think we're going to have to let this take its course. Let it burn, stand back and just let it burn. People already are hurting. People already have lost jobs and are having no luck in getting something like what they lost. And we're going to have to let it burn, and once it's all ashes, we'll build it again. But

    • by smugfunt ( 8972 )

      Neo-liberalism is indeed the problem, but it goes back much further than 1971.

      It was invented by a conclave of neo-classical and austrian economists in 1947: Mont Pelerin Society [wikipedia.org]

      Neo-classical economics was invented in the 1880s to protect the robber-barons from the single-taxers: Against Henry George [masongaffney.org]

      It was based largely on austrian economics which was invented in 1871 as a rebuttal of Marx: Carl Menger [wikipedia.org]

"If it's not loud, it doesn't work!" -- Blank Reg, from "Max Headroom"

Working...