How many of you are afraid?

[J.Apple902]

Hi. I am 26, college graduate, working citizen with student loans and no mortgage yet. I already make more than the average American family and that is a scary thing to me. With nearly $500 in student loans per month, I do not see how the "average family", which is a mom and 2.2 kids who receives child support (53% divorce rate), can make it on an average of $49k.

Our country is one where 1% owns 90% of the assets; it has never been this bad before. Remember the days where Dad went to work and Mom stayed at home with the 4-5 kids? Impossible now. We live in a world where everything is privatized. I am just learning that besides the axis of evil (Afghanistan, Cuba, N Korea) that every single country in this world has a private federal reserve. How can this be? How can it be that a private institution controls all the money; in times of war, interests rates, you name it, yet the citizens have no say? How can it be that the once Rothschild empire, who established this private fed reserve system, now controls the world? They have stake in the 4 biggest banks: Chase, BofA, Citi and Wells Fargo. Each of these players owns one of the big oil companies. Chase owns BP, one owns Shell, Chevron, and Exxon Mobile too. All of these massive companies, along with the Fed Reserve system, are the puppeteers. They have stake in the drug and weapons industry too (Northrup Grumman, Lockheed Martin, all these guys are linked to the power circle), and therefore in times of global conflict, profit immensely.

How can it be that our government is in debt $16T when the Rothschild empire is estimated to be $100T? The common man is no one today. Things are no different than the middle ages. How can it be that if you are born with wealth and never work, you are taxed 15% But if you work hard your entire life, and have no money, you are taxed 30-50%? If you are not born with a last name of Leimen or Goldman Sachs or Romney or Rockefeller or Carnegie or most notably Rothschild (or anything else in the 1%), then you are a slave like in the dark ages, just like me. We live in a scary scary world and I, as a normal guy, am terrified of the even scarier reality that I am sure I am blind to :/

Thoughts? Thanks.

[bjl584]

We live in unnerving times, but I'm not quite ready to build a fall out shelter and start stockpiling weapons just yet.

I wouldn't consider myself a slave. I have a lot more possessions, money, and opportunities than my parents or grandparents ever did.

[cypher1]

Call me selfish or ignorant, but I try not to worry about certain issues that are out of my hands to control. Just like anything else in life, I take it one day at a time to focus on my goals, whether they're monetary or personal value. Basically work, save, enjoy the little things in life, and repeat.

[shaggy]

Families where "dad worked and mom stayed home with the 4-5 kids" have never been a majority of the population. It was an ideal at one point in time, but never the norm (if you look at statistics).

My grandparents were immigrants to the USA. My grandfathers worked as child labor in coal mines; one of them was only 10 years old when he started. In many areas they were an undesirable minority, forced to move due to prejudice of local communities. My father, the first family member to complete high school (and get a BS and MS), shoveled coal in a steel mill when he was 14; he joined the marines at 16 (and served in WWII) just to have a chance at getting college paid for. My grandmothers put up with a lot of abuse and rampant discrimination; they cleaned houses and restaurants, took in other people's laundry, one of them even ran a speakeasy during Prohibition. My mother grew up in a culture where higher education was not a viable option for a woman.

My life is so much better than theirs that I find it impossible to be anything but grateful. Even the problems I face are nothing like what they faced.


ETA: Things are *definitely* better than they were in the Middle Ages (which the OP referenced). One word: Sanitation.

[Bob B.]

Remember the days where Dad went to work and Mom stayed at home with the 4-5 kids? Impossible now.

I go to work, and my wife stays home with our four kids. And, I know several families locally who do the same thing, many with 3-6 kids. Admittedly, we are in the minority, but far from impossible. And, I live in a low COL area, and I make slightly more than the average income you cited. But, it can be and is done.

I dunno, I live a comfortable life. I'm usually warm, usually well fed, I don't expect that I'll have to work until I am no longer physically or mentally able to work. I'll likely retire at a point where I can enjoy life a bit.

Nope, I'll never be one of the 1% that hold 90% of assets. My kids won't either. But, we're doing OK. I'm free to make my own choices. I'm free to not make my mortgage payment, or my vehicle payment, or my credit card payment to those in the upper 1%. There are consequences to those choices. But, no one held a gun to my head and forced me to take out a mortgage, or borrow money to buy my truck, or use a CC to buy gas to put into the truck.

But, yeah, along the same vein as one of the previous posters. I live my life, and worry about my family, and pay my taxes, and give at church, and vote in every election, and know that's about all I can do.

[ua_guy]

There are some complex issues in the OP's post, but yes, overall I would say I am slightly fearful of the way things are going. Not tinfoil-hat fearful, but concerned, fearful.

We have a lot to be thankful for, over previous generations where for the most part, hardship was THE way of American life. The concern now, though, in a very generic sense is the relative decrease and drought of opportunity. At least that's what it feels like to me.

[shaggy]

There are some complex issues in the OP's post, but yes, overall I would say I am slightly fearful of the way things are going. Not tinfoil-hat fearful, but concerned, fearful.

We have a lot to be thankful for, over previous generations where for the most part, hardship was THE way of American life. The concern now, though, in a very generic sense is the relative decrease and drought of opportunity. At least that's what it feels like to me.

Interesting comment, and it shows how living in the shadow of Twitter and Facebook and Google has really colored my own perceptions. Seems like everyone under 25 I talk to has his or her own startup.

I do sympathize with those who see few opportunities. The unemployment rate for young people is disgracefully high IMO, both in the USA and in Europe.

[ua_guy]

Interesting comment, and it shows how living in the shadow of Twitter and Facebook and Google has really colored my own perceptions. Seems like everyone under 25 I talk to has his or her own startup.

I do sympathize with those who see few opportunities. The unemployment rate for young people is disgracefully high IMO, both in the USA and in Europe.

I think you're confusing what you feel is a lack of visionary entrepreneurship, or maybe even work ethic, with some of the real challenges that average families or primary income earners encounter while trying to amass wealth in this generation.

There are exceptions, of course. But amassing "1%-er" wealth in this country is an exception. Yet everyone believes they, too, could someday make it there.

[shaggy]

I think you're confusing what you feel is a lack of visionary entrepreneurship, or maybe even work ethic, with some of the real challenges that average families or primary income earners encounter while trying to amass wealth in this generation.

There are exceptions, of course. But amassing "1%-er" wealth in this country is an exception. Yet everyone believes they, too, could someday make it there.

I don't know if I understand at all now...Certainly I don't think there are fewer people willing to work hard than there used to be, and I don't know many young people who lack a work ethic. The lack of opportunity IMO is that huge numbers of them are unable to find work.

Perhaps you can explain what you meant by your original comment about "a drought of opportunity?"

[J.Apple902]

Thank you for your contributions thus far. I honestly love all feedback on this forum bc the community is great.

Maybe part of my beliefs are due to the fact that I think my generation is the one to "break" the system. Everyone is taught that if you go to high school and graduate (mandatory), you will then have an opportunity to go to college (which I was taught was mandatory too). I was raised to think that if you do not get a college education, you will not have the best life you could have. Therefore I look down upon the decision to forgo. However, this "break" I speak of is reality because for the first time ever we have many young people who took these lessons to a tee, paid a ton of money for their education, and are now no better than if they had just went right into the work-force. We're sold that the path to the "American dream" is college (filled with debt), and then mortgage (more debt), in order to have the white picket fence with 2 kids etc. It is no misconception that there are private institutions who massively benefit from these shortcomings.

Banks knew about the game mortgages, and lots of colleges know that if you graduate post 2007 with an arts degree, you may be screwed. How can you be surprised that many young people aspired to launch their own start-up and dodge these financial hurtles?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not wearing a tin foil hat either. Also, I do try to have the attitude to not worry about things I cannot control, because I believe it's wasted energy. This was mostly for feedback and to create a conversation among intelligent financially minded people. I will admit, I have gone a long time not knowing about the privatized federal reserve systems, and the inter-workings of the financial world. I want to talk about it as much as possible because at the end of the day, it is the populations with their numbers (voting) that can make change (maybe).

PS I could get started on the privatized prison network, the health and drug industry, insurance, already mentioned banking and oil - you name it, this stuff is all part of the problem :/

[Wino]

Apologies in advance for the length of this post.

What possible difference does it make to you who owns how much of anything? This "1%er" nonsense is just that - nonsense. I am frankly tired of hearing this ignorant meme. I'll just give this board membership as an example of why this meme is nonsense, as well as what I think the real problem is with the economy.

I think it is a given that the people posting on this board have more money in general than the population as a whole. I'm talking about a positive net worth and money left over. What do the people here do with their money? They invest it, mostly in some type of enterprise that will increase their wealth faster than the rate of inflation. Stocks and real estate being the two most common assets held in one form or another, with a percentage also in bonds. We do this for selfish reasons: we want to have nice things and a good retirement. We are not investing for the benefit of others.

What do these three investments have in common, other than a probability that the returns will outpace inflation? They all tend to increase the profitability of what they are invested in. The investments are basically loans to businesses to increase employment, wealth, and income for the business. A growing business tends to need more employees, and also tends to pay more in wages or benefits. Therefore, our investments are helping these businesses, even though our reasons are based on selfish self-interest.

The 1%er's do similar things with their money. They invest it, which causes the economy to grow, just as our investments cause the economy to grow. What they don't do is put it in some secret cave to hoard it, nor do they buy excessive amounts of consumer goods. How many jets do you think Warren Buffet owns? Even a $400 million yacht is only a single purchase. And one only spends that amount on a toy if he has much, much more than that invested elsewhere.

What is ruining the economy is that 25 million people are right now employed by the government either directly or indirectly as contractors. For the most part, government employees have little financial/economic return to the economy. They are not improving profitability. Note I am not saying that the jobs done are not important, but that they are an economic drain on the economy overall. Teachers, soldiers, and law enforcement are necessary drains, but many of the "government services" are self-perpetuating drains that have no purpose other than to do something that keeps them employed by the government. The private sector has to produce enough gains over and above their profitability to support the infrastructure that we collectively call "government." Roads don't pay for themselves to be built, kids don't learn chemistry through research, and unprotected wealth is the major cause of wars. All of this has to be paid for through private sector gains in wealth/profitability.

Secondarily, those who are not contributing by drawing unearned government checks - housing, food, assistance - actually cancel the effect of more than one working person for every person not contributing. It is not the fact they are getting the money (however small the amount), it is the fact that by not working, they are not increasing the overall wealth of someone or something that is hurting the economy. The fact they are not "more than 100%" of their remuneration is the problem.

Your employer gets more value than your remuneration from you, so you are worth over 100% of your cost, otherwise, you would not be employed. This "extra" percentage increases the value of the company, and we call it "profit," which can be kept, spent, or reinvested, but the whole point is that employment is a positive gain for the company's economy. When someone is on the dole in any way, they become a negative gain on the economy as a whole, and therefore cost more than an employee just by not working regardless of the dole amount. We as a nation have lost the positive differential of an employee as well as the subsistence costs.

If you understand the above, then you see that concentrating wealth doesn't hurt the economy. High unemployment hurts the economy, as well as jobs that do not contribute to the economy overall (many government jobs). Therefore, less government is the best government is not a phrase about anarchy or liberty (per se). It is an economic phrase. Also, if you understand the above, you can see that government borrowing means that they are outpacing the private sector's ability to pay for it, and such practices should be stopped.

[Goldy1]

I am the cliche "first generation to do worse than their parents"
I am 38 with young parents(they had me at 18 and funny thing are still together)
My dad had a union job(worked on line at GM) He gets a nice pension. My mom makes great money in medical field with a one year trade certificate. My parents also had some inheritance come their way as well as some rental property which isn't too bad when the places are paid off for you. I have no interest in landlording.
Us? I don't know. We are ok, but I worry about not having health insurance if my husband gets laid off. We're not in bad health, but it doesn't even matter.

[Redraidernurse]

I think you may be living in a bubble thinking that dad going to work and mom staying home with 4-5 kids is impossible. One of my sister-in laws has 5 kids and the other has 6 and they both stay home while Dad goes to work. I stay home & we have 2, expecting #3. I can think of many friends in my small town who do the same. Do you really know no stay at home moms of large families?

[ua_guy]

I don't know if I understand at all now...Certainly I don't think there are fewer people willing to work hard than there used to be, and I don't know many young people who lack a work ethic. The lack of opportunity IMO is that huge numbers of them are unable to find work.

Perhaps you can explain what you meant by your original comment about "a drought of opportunity?"

In general, I think it's the increase in the cost of education, food, housing, "living", relative to stagnating wages with solid 10 year period of economic uncertainty and instability thrown in. The buy-in to the American Dream is much higher and takes much longer to achieve. Hard work is no longer guaranteed to get you there.

Apologies in advance for the length of this post.

What possible difference does it make to you who owns how much of anything? This "1%er" nonsense is just that - nonsense. I am frankly tired of hearing this ignorant meme. I'll just give this board membership as an example of why this meme is nonsense, as well as what I think the real problem is with the economy.

I think it is a given that the people posting on this board have more money in general than the population as a whole. I'm talking about a positive net worth and money left over. What do the people here do with their money? They invest it, mostly in some type of enterprise that will increase their wealth faster than the rate of inflation. Stocks and real estate being the two most common assets held in one form or another, with a percentage also in bonds. We do this for selfish reasons: we want to have nice things and a good retirement. We are not investing for the benefit of others.

What do these three investments have in common, other than a probability that the returns will outpace inflation? They all tend to increase the profitability of what they are invested in. The investments are basically loans to businesses to increase employment, wealth, and income for the business. A growing business tends to need more employees, and also tends to pay more in wages or benefits. Therefore, our investments are helping these businesses, even though our reasons are based on selfish self-interest.

The 1%er's do similar things with their money. They invest it, which causes the economy to grow, just as our investments cause the economy to grow. What they don't do is put it in some secret cave to hoard it, nor do they buy excessive amounts of consumer goods. How many jets do you think Warren Buffet owns? Even a $400 million yacht is only a single purchase. And one only spends that amount on a toy if he has much, much more than that invested elsewhere.

What is ruining the economy is that 25 million people are right now employed by the government either directly or indirectly as contractors. For the most part, government employees have little financial/economic return to the economy. They are not improving profitability. Note I am not saying that the jobs done are not important, but that they are an economic drain on the economy overall. Teachers, soldiers, and law enforcement are necessary drains, but many of the "government services" are self-perpetuating drains that have no purpose other than to do something that keeps them employed by the government. The private sector has to produce enough gains over and above their profitability to support the infrastructure that we collectively call "government." Roads don't pay for themselves to be built, kids don't learn chemistry through research, and unprotected wealth is the major cause of wars. All of this has to be paid for through private sector gains in wealth/profitability.

Secondarily, those who are not contributing by drawing unearned government checks - housing, food, assistance - actually cancel the effect of more than one working person for every person not contributing. It is not the fact they are getting the money (however small the amount), it is the fact that by not working, they are not increasing the overall wealth of someone or something that is hurting the economy. The fact they are not "more than 100%" of their remuneration is the problem.

Your employer gets more value than your remuneration from you, so you are worth over 100% of your cost, otherwise, you would not be employed. This "extra" percentage increases the value of the company, and we call it "profit," which can be kept, spent, or reinvested, but the whole point is that employment is a positive gain for the company's economy. When someone is on the dole in any way, they become a negative gain on the economy as a whole, and therefore cost more than an employee just by not working regardless of the dole amount. We as a nation have lost the positive differential of an employee as well as the subsistence costs.

If you understand the above, then you see that concentrating wealth doesn't hurt the economy. High unemployment hurts the economy, as well as jobs that do not contribute to the economy overall (many government jobs). Therefore, less government is the best government is not a phrase about anarchy or liberty (per se). It is an economic phrase. Also, if you understand the above, you can see that government borrowing means that they are outpacing the private sector's ability to pay for it, and such practices should be stopped.

Wino, I'm familiar with this perspective and concentration of wealth is worrisome. It would be one thing if the super-wealthy didn't hold all the resources AND control the banking, defense, and commodities AND labor markets, but they do. Reaganomics "trickle down" methodology didn't work then, and it doesn't work now. People receiving government assistance are of literally no concern, when you look at it from a line-item federal budget perspective.

Simply put, the game of Monopoly is ending, where only one of the players ends up with all the money and property. That should be of dire concern because there is a point in time where the other players with no money no longer want to play the game. We're starting to see that now.

I think you may be living in a bubble thinking that dad going to work and mom staying home with 4-5 kids is impossible. One of my sister-in laws has 5 kids and the other has 6 and they both stay home while Dad goes to work. I stay home & we have 2, expecting #3. I can think of many friends in my small town who do the same. Do you really know no stay at home moms of large families?

The bigger question is, is your sister-in-law prepared to raise her kids so that college is paid for, or they are equipped to pay for college? Do they take any government assistance?

Many families elect to have a parent stay at home simply because the cost of managing and caring for the kids is higher than a working wage would bring, if both parents chose to work. I'm not saying this is the case with your sister-in-law, but it is the reality for many families. And that is *not* the American dream.

[shaggy]

In general, I think it's the increase in the cost of education, food, housing, "living", relative to stagnating wages with solid 10 year period of economic uncertainty and instability thrown in. The buy-in to the American Dream is much higher and takes much longer to achieve. Hard work is no longer guaranteed to get you there.

I've definitely seen a huge run up in the cost of education; I'm not sure if the costs of food and housing really have increased all that much (they seem to have increased at the rate of overall inflation). I do see that there are more "necessities" now than when I was 20 (e.g. Internet service, cell phone -- not available when I was 20 but pretty much needed for a young person now).

Higher education is a huge expense now, no doubt about it. If I was a young person today, I'd serious consider going into a trade unless I was sure I wanted a specialized degree such as engineering, law, or medicine. 25 years ago when I was working my way through college, I chose a state school to save on costs. Now the state schools are expensive, too.