8 Reasons Young Americans Don't Fight Back: How the US Crushed Youth Resistance

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The price of tuition has gone up 25 fold since then. Wages haven't. If things were truly relative, people would be making $125 an hour when they get out of school now (using your 5 dollar example from the 60's, which is probably accurate).

Actually, if his father was making $250/mo, he was making ~ $1.39/hr.

P.S. Multiplying 25X, that would give a wage of $34.72/hr for recent college graduates - probably high, but not out of the realm of possibility.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by kevman

I didn't read the article so I'm probably missing the point (or lack there of?) but...

It's not just work environments that have changed. We're living in a nanny state imposed by the very same policy makers that had all the fun when they were younger. Hell, you can't even ride your freakin' bike without a helmet anymore...

I agree it goes far beyond work. Not just safety stuff but anything remotely fun. The generation that had Woodstock is sucking the fun out of everything with conservative rules. Can you imagine a festival like Woodstock goign on now? Not a chance. It would be shut down and drowned in red tape. The best we can hope for is a corporate festival with $10.00 beers.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by blankall

Disagree.

The biggest problem is baby boomers. They've essentially created a system where housing is very difficult to attain. The cost of tuition etc.. continues to rise which creates financial dependence on parents.

Meanwhile the boomers have created a personality cult around themselves by entrenching their own job positions in the form of corporations, etc..

My parents are baby boomers, and I suspect it's the same with a lot of other posters here.

I must have missed the part where they were working on all this to keep me down. I guess when the told me about mortgages with 18% interest rates, they lied to me. My grandparents must have been lazy, apparently housing was easy to obtain in the past, yet they never owned any. I guess my parents must have lied to me about busting their asses off so they could pay for university because their parents had nothing.

I must have missed the part of history where corporations were invented sometime after 1965 so newly employed baby boomers could entrench their positions. No wonder my dad was happy to retire, it must have been hard to keep oppressing society. I can't believe they used their personality cult to keep this all from me. They must have been lying every time they provided for us and encouraged us to succeed.

Or maybe you should stop blaming others for your problems. Life has never been simplistic and nothing is guaranteed.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Cheese

LOL...baby boomers? boo hoo hoo.
Im a baby boomer and the generation before me was no different than it is today. There were many men that simply wanted to work...and there were those that retired and then simply died from boredom.
Costs have gone up 1000 times ++ since I was a young man just starting out...but I didnt b!tch or whine about it...I worked my a$$ off to pay my debts off and put money away.
If you are any good at what you do, put your head down and ass up, get on with it and you will make it too.
I may work to 80 years old just to pi$$ the gen Xers off.

Oh and...crappy article too.

That's really not the way it works now. I know many people from my father's generation who graduated college, got a job, and shortly after bought a house. That was the rule. Now it's the exception. People can't afford to become financially independent until their late 20s. Forget about buying a home with a yard.

Not only that, the standards have increased several fold.

A good analogy is hockey. Look at the skill and talent it took to make the NHL in the 1970s and 1980s. THe majority of the players then wouldn't get a cup of coffey these days. Now you have to not only be a super-athlete but have all the right connections.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Actually, if his father was making $250/mo, he was making ~ $1.39/hr.

P.S. Multiplying 25X, that would give a wage of $34.72/hr for recent college graduates - probably high, but not out of the realm of possibility.

And that was with Manitoba Fish and Wildlife so probably an ok paying goverment job then.

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The price of tuition has gone up 25 fold since then. Wages haven't. If things were truly relative, people would be making $125 an hour when they get out of school now (using your 5 dollar example from the 60's, which is probably accurate).

According to this:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/access_acce...E49_59-eng.csv

and the Excel sheet it comes with, the average weekly earnings of an employee (industrial sector) in Alberta in 1965 was $89.88. Assuming a 40 hour work week, that would be 2.25/hour.

[VladtheImpaler]

So, tuition hasn't gone up that much in relative terms. What has actually gone up is the cost of housing...

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

My parents are baby boomers, and I suspect it's the same with a lot of other posters here.

I must have missed the part where they were working on all this to keep me down. I guess when the told me about mortgages with 18% interest rates, they lied to me. My grandparents must have been lazy, apparently housing was easy to obtain in the past, yet they never owned any. I guess my parents must have lied to me about busting their asses off so they could pay for university because their parents had nothing.

The 18% mortgages were also accompanied by a huge dip in prices and were only temporary. We've also already discussed the university thing. Tuition and rent were both a fraction of what it is now. There are plenty of people busting their asses off now who can't cope, hence the loan problem.

Also, take a look at your parents course material sometime if you can. Read some outdated textbooks or track down some old exams if you can. It was nowhere near as challenging as present courses are.

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

I must have missed the part of history where corporations were invented sometime after 1965 so newly employed baby boomers could entrench their positions. No wonder my dad was happy to retire, it must have been hard to keep oppressing society. I can't believe they used their personality cult to keep this all from me. They must have been lying every time they provided for us and encouraged us to succeed.

Or maybe you should stop blaming others for your problems. Life has never been simplistic and nothing is guaranteed.

I'm not blaming anyone for my problems. I am quite well off financially after getting a post-grad degree. This isn't the reality for everyone though. Quite frankly, not everyone can get into law school, med school, engineering, etc...

Engineers, Lawyers, Doctors, will always be fine, but its the average person who truly suffers in todays society. I think the sad reality of today's world is that hard work is meaningless. A hard worker simply won't earn more than the value of their parents house. The people who get ahead in our society will be the ones who inherit their fortune from their parents.

Yes there are exceptions to this, but these have become the exception and not the rule. The cost of capital is ridiculous right now and telling someone with an entry level job they have to work really hard to save up money for that capital is ridiculous. It's just not possible.

With the exception of a few people, the only one's my age I know who've gotten ahead either had professional degrees or were set up by someone else (parent's or lucky enough to meet the right person to take pity on them).

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Yasa

According to this:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/access_acce...E49_59-eng.csv

and the Excel sheet it comes with, the average weekly earnings of an employee (industrial sector) in Alberta in 1965 was $89.88. Assuming a 40 hour work week, that would be 2.25/hour.

That's based on averages of what people declare on their income tax return. I'm guessing tradesmen back in the day were similar to tradesmen now, and income tax returns are in no way an accurate reflection of actual salaries.

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by blankall

That's based on averages of what people declare on their income tax return. I'm guessing tradesmen back in the day were similar to tradesmen now, and income tax returns are in no way an accurate reflection of actual salaries.

They also don't work 40 hour weeks, and tend to make more than the average service sector, but I'd say it's a good indication for an average wage from that decade.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Yasa

They also don't work 40 hour weeks, and tend to make more than the average service sector, but I'd say it's a good indication for an average wage from that decade.

I'd disagree.

Not only is there problems with reporting, but the nature of industrial industry jobs have changed. In the 1960s there would be a much higher percentage of grunt labourers with no particular skills. Now many industrial jobs require extensive training and education. Computers and advanced engineering practices play a much greater role in the average factory/worksite.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by blankall

The 18% mortgages were also accompanied by a huge dip in prices and were only temporary. We've also already discussed the university thing. Tuition and rent were both a fraction of what it is now. There are plenty of people busting their asses off now who can't cope, hence the loan problem.

Also, take a look at your parents course material sometime if you can. Read some outdated textbooks or track down some old exams if you can. It was nowhere near as challenging as present courses are.

).

As long as we are comparing you should have tried to research things back then. Perhaps sit down at a typewriter too.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by blankall

That's based on averages of what people declare on their income tax return. I'm guessing tradesmen back in the day were similar to tradesmen now, and income tax returns are in no way an accurate reflection of actual salaries.

so the innaccuracies are consistent. problem solved.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

so the innaccuracies are consistent. problem solved.

No. Because some people are essentially declaring nothing on their taxes. The amount declared on taxes is often more proportinoal to contemporary tax law including allowed write offs and exemptions than actual salary.

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by blankall

I'd disagree.

Not only is there problems with reporting, but the nature of industrial industry jobs have changed. In the 1960s there would be a much higher percentage of grunt labourers with no particular skills. Now many industrial jobs require extensive training and education. Computers and advanced engineering practices play a much greater role in the average factory/worksite.

Alright, here's another table;

http://www65.statcan.gc.ca/acyb02/19...63024a-eng.htm

Trades ranged anywhere from $0.44/h - $4.10/h (based on 6 cities.) Office jobs in the same cities range from $43/week to $135/week.

I have no choice but to follow these stats, as I didn't grow up in the 60's and have no idea what reporting problems they had. I just find it hard to believe that $5/hour in 1965 would be an accurate average seeing as minimum wage in 2003 (In Calgary) was $5.95 and currently $8.80.

So to me, $2.50/hour seems to be a believable average wage in the 60's. I'm having trouble finding tuition fees from the 60's to really compare but I can only assume the gap between wage/tuition then was a lot slimmer than it is now.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

As long as we are comparing you should have tried to research things back then. Perhaps sit down at a typewriter too.

I'm old enough to have done research without computers and used a typewriter (an electrics one at least). I'm sorry there's just no compairson. I've been through old exams in both science and law fields and old textbooks. The amount of information crammed into modern day textbooks is of an entirely larger scale than it was in the 1960s.

Also, if you think computers have made it easier for the average worker, think again. There now expected to keep up with previous duties and do all the e-mail, word processing, tech stuff on top of that.

In the 1960s it was hand the dictated tape to the secretary. Now its prepare a multimedia presentation.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Yasa

Alright, here's another table;

http://www65.statcan.gc.ca/acyb02/19...63024a-eng.htm

Trades ranged anywhere from $0.44/h - $4.10/h (based on 6 cities.) Office jobs in the same cities range from $43/week to $135/week.

I have no choice but to follow these stats, as I didn't grow up in the 60's and have no idea what reporting problems they had. I just find it hard to believe that $5/hour in 1965 would be an accurate average seeing as minimum wage in 2003 (In Calgary) was $5.95 and currently $8.80.

So to me, $2.50/hour seems to be a believable average wage in the 60's. I'm having trouble finding tuition fees from the 60's to really compare but I can only assume the gap between wage/tuition then was a lot slimmer than it is now.

I think the office jobs are a much better comparable. The issue once again becomes making these salaries relative to training. The current office environment requires a lot of training. Few entry level jobs in an office can be obtained without some level of post-secondary.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

My dad was making $250 a month in the 60's.

When I was a kid in the 60's, a 25 cent weekly allowance in a dusty, prairie village got me a 10 cent Dairy Milk chocolate bar and a 15 cent Comic Book (a good one!!)

In the late 70's, a glass of draft beer at the Highlander bar was .40 cents and my first paycheque was for $675 a month. I did have a student loan but, like a lot of people at the time, I just ignored it and it went away if I recall correctly. Couldn't pay it back at the time anyway. I have no idea how that happened. Maybe they're still looking for me but I haven't been hiding. It was more something you owed the Government of Alberta than a bank.

In about 1980 in Peace River, I was counting my bills versus my income and figured I could save $25 a month. That's if I was living a pretty spartan life.

My world has changed considerably since then. I have a swell house on some acres southwest of the city with a full frontal of the mountains stretching before me, yada, yada, yada . . . . .

The "put your head down, keep your pencil sharp and put the time in . . . ," something an old-timer actually said to me one time about 20 years ago, has a lot of validity.

It would be nice to be rich when you're young and some are but many aren't and I was in the latter camp. Gradually, through decades and persistence, the monetary squeeze went away.

One of my favourite Newsweek covers, from about 1973, when the Baby Boomers were entering voting age in meaningful numbers to be hugely influential:



These are the faces of the people of another generation who might have written the same article that started this thread. Those themes were being talked about then and now those faces above are in their 50's.

Just beware people who try to tell you "this time its different."

Cowperson

[firebug]

Originally Posted by blankall

That's really not the way it works now. I know many people from my father's generation who graduated college, got a job, and shortly after bought a house. That was the rule. Now it's the exception. People can't afford to become financially independent until their late 20s. Forget about buying a home with a yard.

Not only that, the standards have increased several fold.

A good analogy is hockey. Look at the skill and talent it took to make the NHL in the 1970s and 1980s. THe majority of the players then wouldn't get a cup of coffey these days. Now you have to not only be a super-athlete but have all the right connections.

The biggest issue is lifestyle inflation.

The house they bought was 1,200 sq feet at most
Maybe had 1 TV plus a radio.
The new car had no air-conditioning, power steering, automatic transmission, power windows, power door locks or keyless entry.
They may not have had a calculator let alone an iphone, ipod, or laptop.
Kitchen appliances consisted of a stove and refrigerator.

I think it would be likely that we actually can live far cheaper and easier than they did right after graduation if we chose to live as simply.

[afc wimbledon]

Actually it is only in the last 50 years buying a house has been considered a normal aspiration for most, pre the mid 60's, even in the US the vast majority rented from craddle to grave.