Started By
Message

re: This depressing chart shows the jaw-dropping wealth gap between millennials and boomers

Posted on 12/5/19 at 5:04 pm to
Posted by hubertcumberdale
Member since Nov 2009
6817 posts
Posted on 12/5/19 at 5:04 pm to
quote:

The fall of Saigon tells a different tale unfortunately. Charlie was on our six and closing fast AF. They had more will to win that war than the US did, that's why we just gave up and left. Quitting the game before one side wins is losing.


To be fair to the boomers, the US was never going to win that war the way they were fighting it, until they killed everyone or Viet Congs all escaped to Cambodia until the US left

What a clusterfrick of a war. Couldnt imagine losing someone to such a pointless clusterfrick of a conflict
This post was edited on 12/5/19 at 5:07 pm
Posted by TigerFanInSouthland
Louisiana
Member since Aug 2012
28065 posts
Posted on 12/5/19 at 5:08 pm to
quote:

The fall of Saigon tells a different tale unfortunately. Charlie was on our six and closing fast AF.


We had all but completely pulled out by then. We allowed the ARVN forces to take it on the chin. The biggest strike the NVA threw at us failed miserably in 1968. Not a single battle that the US military was engaged in was lost. We absolutely kicked the shite out of the north Vietnamese starting in 1964.

The Easter offensive didn’t even beat us and that’s even with a token force of ours acting as advisors to the ARVN.
Posted by hubertcumberdale
Member since Nov 2009
6817 posts
Posted on 12/5/19 at 5:13 pm to
quote:

We had all but completely pulled out by then. We allowed the ARVN forces to take it on the chin. The biggest strike the NVA threw at us failed miserably in 1968. Not a single battle that the US military was engaged in was lost. We absolutely kicked the shite out of the north Vietnamese starting in 1964.


How do you define 'winning' a battle in a war that is not territorial in nature?

Example being Hamburger Hill

quote:

As it had no real military significance aside from the presence of the PAVN on it, Major General John M. Wright who replaced MG Zais as commander of the 101st Airborne in May abandoned the hill on 5 June as the operations in the valley wrapped up. Zais would comment: "This is not a war of hills. That hill had no military value whatsoever." and "We found the enemy on Hill 937 and that's where we fought him."[8]:22 The battle brought into sharp focus the changing US tactics from Westmoreland's search and destroy operations designed to engage PAVN/VC forces whenever they were located, to Abrams' new approach of attacking the PAVN/VC logistics "nose" which would be prepositioned to support attacks and which, if disrupted, would prevent large-scale PAVN/VC attacks.[8]:22-3


LINK
This post was edited on 12/5/19 at 5:14 pm
Posted by TigerFanInSouthland
Louisiana
Member since Aug 2012
28065 posts
Posted on 12/5/19 at 5:15 pm to
That war wasn’t territorial in nature?? The NVA was trying to gain control of the entire nation of South Vietnam. It was most certainly territorial in nature.
Posted by DRMPHD
College Station, Texas
Member since Jun 2018
253 posts
Posted on 12/5/19 at 5:15 pm to
Historically, going back to the Greeks, if not earlier, winning the battle meant being in possession of the field when the battle ended./
Posted by hubertcumberdale
Member since Nov 2009
6817 posts
Posted on 12/5/19 at 5:16 pm to
quote:

Historically, going back to the Greeks, if not earlier, winning the battle meant being in possession of the field when the battle ended./



I guess I am referring to the main objective of Viet Nam as being 'search and destroy' without crossing into Cambodia
This post was edited on 12/5/19 at 5:17 pm
Posted by 777Tiger
Member since Mar 2011
88781 posts
Posted on 12/5/19 at 5:16 pm to
quote:

Historically, going back to the Greeks, if not earlier, winning the battle meant being in possession of the field when the battle ended./


and when is the last time that happened?
Posted by DRMPHD
College Station, Texas
Member since Jun 2018
253 posts
Posted on 12/5/19 at 5:17 pm to
Well Fallujah is one recent example!
Posted by TigerFanInSouthland
Louisiana
Member since Aug 2012
28065 posts
Posted on 12/5/19 at 5:17 pm to
quote:

and when is the last time that happened?


I’d guess in the US military sense, the last time we fought a major engagement.
Posted by deltaland
Member since Mar 2011
100531 posts
Posted on 12/5/19 at 5:20 pm to
The reason is boomers could jump start their career earlier at 18-20 yrs old with a HS diploma while today you must go to college to get a good job, and usually rack up student loan debt. And don’t start their careers until mid to late 20s.

Also has a lot to do with cost of living for what we deem necessary. In 1960 you didn’t have a monthly cell phone bill, Internet, cable, streaming services, etc etc. Back then it was just utilities, rent/house payment, car note. It led to being easier to save earnings on a middle class income. Not to mention costs of homes and cars are outrageous today due to labor laws, insurance, materials, etc.
Posted by 777Tiger
Member since Mar 2011
88781 posts
Posted on 12/5/19 at 5:23 pm to
quote:

I’d guess in the US military sense, the last time we fought a major engagement.


well, we have bases in a lot of places, but we haven't "taken over," colonized, annexed, territorialized, or appropriated anything in a while
Posted by GreatLakesTiger24
Member since May 2012
59092 posts
Posted on 12/5/19 at 5:24 pm to
quote:

1960 you didn’t have a monthly cell phone bill, Internet, cable, streaming services, etc etc.
I think this is a little overblown because it’s just not that much money

$70 phone
$70 for internet/cable
$30 for prime and Netflix
That’s $1700/year... maybe double it if you want to get all the best stuff
Posted by DRMPHD
College Station, Texas
Member since Jun 2018
253 posts
Posted on 12/5/19 at 5:25 pm to
Of course, this just raises other issues with regard to how we measure wealth. A boomer in their 30s did not have access to things like cell phones, streaming services, life saving medicines. Millenials have all those things that improve their lives that even the wealthiest boomers did not possess in their 30s. How willing would you be to give up those things to live in the 1970s with 1970s technologies and lifestyles to have a higher share of wealth?
This post was edited on 12/5/19 at 5:27 pm
Posted by 777Tiger
Member since Mar 2011
88781 posts
Posted on 12/5/19 at 5:26 pm to
quote:

Of course, this just raises other issues with regard to how we measure wealth. A boomer in their 30s did not have access to things like cell phones, streaming services, life saving medicines. Millenials have all those things that improve their lives that even the wealthiest boomers did not possess in their 30s.




what in the hell does this mean???
Posted by cahoots
Member since Jan 2009
9134 posts
Posted on 12/5/19 at 5:27 pm to
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/20/20 at 1:03 pm
Posted by 0
Member since Aug 2011
17507 posts
Posted on 12/5/19 at 5:27 pm to
quote:

My pops told me to learn a trade, get in union, and retire with a nice pension, and money in the bank. I went Union route, but Chrysler and made nice jack at 18.



Not everybody grows up in a town with that kind of industry in it. Had I wanted to find a job out of high school that paid more than $10/ hr I would have either had to know a farmer or move.
Posted by OKBoomerSooner
Member since Dec 2019
4934 posts
Posted on 12/5/19 at 5:29 pm to
quote:

life saving medicines

Folks was dyin of preventable illnesses back in the 70s!

Come on man, those "life-saving medicines" are overwhelmingly either (1) things millennials don't use because they're for old people or (2) horrible opioid prescriptions that do more harm than good anyway.

quote:

How willing would you be to give up those things to live in the 1970s with 1970s technologies and lifestyles to have a higher share of wealth?

Lord what I wouldn't give to trade all those things I hardly use for the social cohesion and functional society I've never known. Y'all truly have no idea how bad things have gotten on a fundamental level or how valuable the things you and previous generations took for granted really are.
Posted by OweO
Plaquemine, La
Member since Sep 2009
120234 posts
Posted on 12/5/19 at 5:31 pm to
quote:

It's so annoying when they complain. Just skip your daily
Starbucks and avocado toast ffs.


I know you are saying this as a bit of a joke, but I think you point out part of the problem.

Millennials have grown up in an economy that is heavily depended on on retail. Retail makes up what? Somewhere around 70% of the US economy? In other words, it depends on everyone spending money.. And not saving.

And its made easy. People are going to coffee shops and paying a lot more for a cup of coffee than they would pay if they bought it in the store and make their own.

People eat out more than ever before. When I was a kid, it was rare for my parents to go "pick up something to eat". When we ordered a pizza or went to McDonalds or whatever.. it was for some type of event or something going on. But people pick up food more today.. Its easier, but its more expensive than cooking.

Also, the price of housing, cars, etc has gone up well past the rate of inflation. Not to mention, there are also other cost that people pay today than in the past.. Cell phone bills, internet, etc.
Posted by DRMPHD
College Station, Texas
Member since Jun 2018
253 posts
Posted on 12/5/19 at 5:31 pm to
quote:

what in the hell does this mean???


It means that even people who are less wealthy today live better lives than more wealthy people in earlier times. Is that even debatable?
Posted by cahoots
Member since Jan 2009
9134 posts
Posted on 12/5/19 at 5:33 pm to
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/20/20 at 1:02 pm
Jump to page
Page First 9 10 11 12 13 ... 18
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 11 of 18Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram