Still think TITNC3: Return of the Iceberg was peak

We *just* talked about how education isnt worth the price.

The situation here is simple:

People with college degrees earn more not because of their education, but because the same level of intelligence that lends itself to economic success allows a person to pass college courses.

 

We all own pickup trucks and are talking about stocks. Of course we're outliers. That doesn't discredit the point that people are trying to make in that it's much harder for new grads, whether it be high school or college, to get started in life than it was for the previous generation.

 

Except everything tacodriver said in that post you quoted was false.

So, you know, except for THAT.

 

It is indeed. Stop letting .1% of the population control 90% of the worlds resources. Boom, problem solved.

 

Of course poor black people and single moms and immigrants weren't buying up houses at 25 and having comfortable lives. Looking at it from the lens of the middle class (cause nuts to poor people) he was still correct insomuch that you could buy a house, pay it off early, have a stay at home wife, and raise a family. It was the norm for suburbia. Hell, it's why suburbia was built.

 

I disagree. I think it's always been hard and today's young people are simply more vocal about it and less willing to take action.

And the statistics back that as well:
https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/econ_focus/2021/q1/district_digest

 

We've reached the point of the discussion where Kairo goes off topic raging about strawmen.

Ima go play with my kid on the beach for a while. Check back in later.

 

so shorter mortgage terms because it was easier to pay off the debt.

i was talking more along the lines of 1930s after the depression, my grandparents day and age.

starting families later in life is not sustainable for the population or economy. Of course the population is still growing, but the later in age that people are able to start a family the higher the chance that the child will not be useful for the economy or population (chance of birth defect, autism, and miscarriage rises with age of mother.) prime age is early 20's to have healthy babies with easier recovery on the mothers.

by that time i'll probably be on my death bed, but i wouldnt be surprised to see it in my life time

 

There's a myriad of considerations to take into account. Just off the top of my head: "Everybody needs a college degree" push from society. That's a bad trend and it's been around my entire life. It's just now starting to swing the other way. So that means you've got more people tied up in the education system, for longer periods of time. The Masters degree is essentially the new undergrad degree if you really want a leg up out of the gate. That adds 2 years to time in school.

Men are now more comfortable being stay at home parents

Women make up an increasingly larger % of the work-force which equals more job competition

And especially recently, many men are retiring earlier than they would have due to covid/health reasons

 

That's a myth until you hit about 45 for women, and a non-issue for men at almost every age unless there's an underlying genetic condition.

Correction: 40. Here's the data.

All my friends who had kids in their mid 30's have healthy children. Of course biased by the fact that they come from relatively healthy, educated, stable families. Genetic screening, excellent prenatal care, etc.

 

my statement was a generalization, but it was not false.

many *middle class* people were able to pay of their debts much easier back then.

 

its a non-issue for men, but women's eggs are limited so the older they are the more a chance for defect or miscarriage. i know a few women who are having a hard time even getting pregnant who are in their mid 30s...i know, cant really say that the age is the problem, but it makes you wonder

 

*shrug* I gave you just as many charts and logic as you did. If you wanna bury your head in the sand and not look outside your door to the realities of the world, then that's on you. We get it, you won capitalism because you're better, faster, smarter, more motivated. Gold star.

 

I'd agree that it's complicated. Modern medicine can do a lot more now to create healthy pregnancies at later ages.

100 years ago if you couldn't have a kid, welp that was it, no kid for you. Now there's so many options and testing available that you can pretty much see up front if you're at risk. Of course nothing is guaranteed, but it's pretty darn good.

 

No, you apparently don't. This is as much about *you* as it is me. You are where you are for the same reasons I am where I am.


This is not a failure of the system. Any level of meritocracy on behavior is going to result in inequalities. If you want that to go away, you have to de-couple results entirely from behavior.

So again: Do you want equality under the law or equality of outcomes?

 

It's not black or white. There's a third avenue. Change the system so there can be equality under the law. You know as well as I do the current laws are written by a minority for a minority. Change the system, fix the laws, and you thereby fix the outcomes.

 

All possibilities.

The true structure of the cause isn't important. What matters is industrious behavior being on the decline from previous generations.

 

Yes it is, at this high level of generality.

I think you're misunderstanding the terms. 'Equality under the law' means the same rules for everyone. As an example, say speeding tickets are $100. This is more burdensome to a low earner than a high earner. Equality under the law = unequal personal outcomes because of individual differences.

 

Your attributing it to this generation is lazy though, or more vocal, or stamping there feet and not wanting to play or something. Statistics shows a decline in male workforce participation. Reasons why are anecdotal at best.

You want more labor participation? Here's an idea...raise the wages lol. The laziest mofo on the planet will empty garbage bins for $100k a year.

If there's a decline in labor participation, it's that people don't feel like they get enough value out of working, simple as that. Maybe the younger generation values being dead moreso than making $30k a year as a pilot carrying $100k in student debt.

 

I can't pick one or the other because as they both currently sit, they are flawed options. I want different/better/more equitable laws. I also believe that penalties should be awarded with consideration to individual circumstances.

In your example, a simple speeding ticket should probably be handled based on income. But if either driver kills someone by speeding and driving drunk, the punishment should be the same. You know, the common sense element that seems to be so lacking. It's no secret rich people can buy themselves preferable outcomes.

What's that cliche? If the penalty for a crime is a fine, then that law only exists for the lower class.

Case in point: SEC and their fines. The rule breakers build the fines into the cost of doing business, while admitting neither innocence nor guilt. THAT'S what needs fixed.