re: Generational Hate - Will Millennials become the new Boomers?

.

The failures among them (either literal or in their minds) will need someone to blame it on.

couple of months ago the murder at the gas station on Perkins in the Trader Joe's parking lot. Perkins at Acadian

CInco De Mayo Trader Joe's Parking lot Murder

One week ago an attempted murder at the McDonald's on Perkins
McDonalds on Perkins @ College. attempted Murder two weeks ago


June 26 murder at South Downs !
Two weeks ago

Now entertain us all by doing your usual asinine bobbing and weaving

quote:

---

Boomers were given the post-war economy which is nothing to sneeze at.

---

Which "post war" economy are you referring to? You want to look into the economy that boomers were "given" because the 1970's and 80's makes your current "woes" look like romper room!

Show me which historical facts I got wrong. I don't read clickbait bullshite articles, but nice try to discredit my words without addressing the facts. Calling something propaganda is not evidence that it's false. It's evidence that you think you don't need to bring receipts.

I said that Boomers were given and benefitted from the post-war economy. That's it. An economy is not just inflation. Whatever else you embellish does not negate that fact.

You like cherry-picking time periods. You mention inflation, unemployment, and interest rates, which primarily covers the early 1970s through the early 1980s. The post-war economic expansion spans the decades following WWII. You're selecting the absolute worst stretch of it while ignoring housing affordability, manufacturing dominance, college affordability, pension prevalence, rising productivity, post-war reconstruction abroad, and American export dominance. You can't just wish those enormous advantages away.

Someone born in 1946 had a dramatically different economic experience than someone born in 1964. If you apply pencil to paper, you can probably figure out who was actually affected by the issues you're talking about and who wasn't. You can't paint an entire generation's experience with a single negative brush.

History doesn't offend me any more than learning people were enslaved or that other terrible things happened. You're pretty sensitive about this topic, so I can only guess there's a reason for that.

I love how you say "it's not even close." Based on what? Which years? Which economic indicators? Do they somehow negate what I said? If we interviewed every Boomer birth year, would they all describe the experience the way you do? I doubt someone born in 1964 was drafted into Vietnam, but I guess maybe I’d learn otherwise from those clickbait articles you keep talking about.

Your opinions don't matter if you can't support them. If you want to make a point, bring data or go somewhere else.

quote:

---

Yeah, that one is sad, but it’s not a matter of the hood invading good areas in Baton Rouge; the hood was almost certainly invited by that kid to his home. Again, very said, but hardly a “pattern” setting event to be particularly concerned about.

Anything else, or was this your evidence over the last couple of months that the sky is still falling?

Also, I love that even you appear to know how silly you look, which is why you try to preempt any response as “bobbing and weaving”. Intellectually dishonest fricking coward

---

WOW-- You've exceeded my "how bad will that sniveling fool humiliate himself this time?" expectations.

So your pathetic Bob and Weave is --a murder in a traditionally white area of town doesn't count if it was just poor black kid from the hood right? Never mind if another white, 17 year old girl is cut down in cold blood as an innocent bystander in the shoot out at McDonalds or wherever on or South of Perkins too right?

And BTW, Why did you not even acknowledge the shooting at the McDonald's? Attempted murders don't count as a problem in your book cause there's no dead body?

Thanks

quote:

---

I'm not blaming anyone for anything. History is history, and you suck at it.

---

You might not be, but most of the Boomer topics are

quote:

---

Every economics textbook measures economies using far more than those three variables. If you're claiming the post-WWII economy wasn't historically favorable, explain why economic historians consistently describe it as one of the greatest periods of sustained economic growth in American history.

---

I think the Post World War II economy was very favorable for the Greatest Generation but it ended in 1973 which is right around the time Boomers entered the workforce.

quote:

---

The post-World War II economy (1945–1973) was a historic period of unprecedented global growth, often called the "Golden Age of Capitalism." It was driven by pent-up consumer demand, technological innovation, and significant government investments, resulting in rising living standards and the expansion of the middle class.

---

quote:

---

Why have you decided inflation, unemployment, and interest rates are the only indicators that define an economy?

---

Because I'm not defining an overall economy, I am pointing out what in my opinion are the biggest indicators of how the "economy" actually affects us at the individual level. Can I get a job? How much does it cost me to borrow money? How fast are prices rising?

These are also the three biggest factors that are brought up in the typical Boomers suck woe is me thread.

So yeah the post-post WWII economy that they started in was a pretty shitty economy.

quote:

---

Price-to-income. Debt-to-income. Price-to-earnings. GDP per capita. Real wages. Purchasing power. Inflation-adjusted income. Hell, housing affordability is **literally** median home price divided by median household income. That's how economists measure it. It's one of the most common tools in economics, but apparently that's "bullshite."

---

For the most part I do think these are "bullshite." Especially in the generational arguments at the local or regional levels. There are way to many undefined variables that come into play. Comparing these ratios over decades is an apples to oranges comparison. For example in the housing affordability argument. The consumer demand is completely different today than it was in the 1970's/80's. There is a reason builders aren't building any brand new 1700 SF 4 bedroom, 2 bath houses that has linoleum floors, wood panelling, and 8 foot popcorn ceilings.

The other reason I don't give them much credence is because to your point they are tied to Median household income. I may be living in a bubble but I have a hard time believing that the median wage in LA is $25/hr and an even harder time believing that the median household income is the equivalent to two individuals making $15/hr.

Again since most the ratios are tied to median household income, which I have zero faith is accurate, I base my comparative arguments on the big three. You are free to use whatever "relative to" argument you want but if it paints the picture that the kids today have it worse than the kids in the 1970's I'm throwing the "bullshite flag."

quote:

---

Did Boomers objectively accumulate wealth?

---

Of course they did but to someone like you who obviously understands economic principles this is like calling the sky blue.

To me it's a given the generation that has had the benefit of compounding interest the longest has generated the most wealth. Here's a shocker, the gap in their wealth compared to Millennials will get bigger every year because that's how compounding interest works.

quote:

---

You picked the exact window that captures Vietnam, the oil crisis, and stagflation while conveniently excluding the post-war boom, the 1950s expansion, and the 1960s expansion. That's textbook cherry-picking.

You also don't seem to understand the Baby Boom timeline. Someone born in 1946 had a completely different first twenty years than someone born in 1964. There is no single "Boomer first twenty years." It's a simple concept, but you can't seem to grasp it.

---

I didn't cherry pick anything. As you pointed out Boomers across a 19 year span obviously had different economies when they entered workforce. If only there was a concept that would allow me use a single data point to argue the typical experience for a generation that spans 19 years. . . . Oh yeah they call it Median age perhaps you've heard of this concept before? Median year of birth for a Boomer was 1955 and they entered the work force in 1973. If I was cherry picking I would have gone with 1973 to 1986 to get the actual worse span. Instead I chose nice round numbers.

quote:

---

First you argued that Boomers "had it worse." Now you've shifted to comparing everyone's first twenty years.

---

I didn't shift anything. I kind of figured the first 20 years of a Boomer career would be implied in a "who had it worse" contest since the younger generations have been in the work force 20 years or less.

I personally think its completely asinine to compare the results of a full 40+ year career to those that are at halftime or just entering the game.

quote:

---

There are 2.2 MM 18 year olds in the country every year and our military struggles to meet current goal of signing up approximately 150,000 (total new recruits across all branches of service) to voluntarily sign up for service each year.

---

At least the military is healing. During Biden, the military became a cesspool pool of trannies wanting to get their “plumbing redone” on the government dime. Now it is back to seeing the world on Uncle Sam’s dime and get an education on his dime too.

quote:

---

I did address it. It’s not a murder and it’s not in Baton Rouge. But I appreciate that you might struggle with why that might exclude it from consideration in a discussion about murders… in Baton Rouge…

---

The frick you say you sniveling little prick?

So in other words "St. George" "attempted murders" don't count either right?

But horrifically tragic, broad daylight gang shoot out one minute down the street at the Mall Of Louisiana food court still dose right?