Most notably this- "MECA has been pleased with the relationship with Qwest/CenturyLink during this
initial fifteen (15) year term. During this term, Omaha's first dedicated public Convention
Center has steadily built up its business and, in collaboration with the Omaha Convention and
Visitors Bureau, put our City in the running for high quality local, regional and national
convention business.
For its part, the Arena has outperformed initial expectations in every way."
Last I heard we have not even begun to pay off that arena yet and they have the audacity to say that it has outperformed expectations in every way. I don't remember when Hal Daub and crew were ramming that arena down our throats that he mentioned even once that we should expect to still owe hundreds of millions on the arena 15 years later. They must believe the public is totally gullible and stupid. The convention center is about as much in the running for national convention business as I am in the running to be the next mayor of Omaha. Total FAKE NEWS.
Most notably this- "MECA has been pleased with the relationship with Qwest/CenturyLink during this
initial fifteen (15) year term. During this term, Omaha's first dedicated public Convention
Center has steadily built up its business and, in collaboration with the Omaha Convention and
Visitors Bureau, put our City in the running for high quality local, regional and national
convention business.
For its part, the Arena has outperformed initial expectations in every way."
Last I heard we have not even begun to pay off that arena yet and they have the audacity to say that it has outperformed expectations in every way. I don't remember when Hal Daub and crew were ramming that arena down our throats that he mentioned even once that we should expect to still owe hundreds of millions on the arena 15 years later. They must believe the public is totally gullible and stupid. The convention center is about as much in the running for national convention business as I am in the running to be the next mayor of Omaha. Total FAKE NEWS.
Not even begun? Yes, Omaha has "begun" to pay off that arena. And yes, it has outperformed expectations. And no, Hal Daub and "crew" didn't "ram that arena down "our" throats.
Would you thus have Omaha rely on the Civic Auditorium for concerts, sports and conventions? That was the alternative.
It's ok to post opinion as fact here and everyone has the privilege to do so as this isn't a public forum. To say that the above is "Total FAKE NEWS" is seriously stretching things.
Combine the tax revenue and other revenue directly from the convention center/arena, the property tax and other taxes generated by nearby development as a direct result of the arena/convention center being built, the jobs created that pay income tax, the events such as NCAA basketball, swimming, concerts that the civic couldn't accommodate, and on and on and you're talking about quite a bit of expanded revenue and prestige for Omaha. Did the convention center/arena pay itself off in year one? Nope. Has the city had to provide funds beyond initial projections? Nope.
Would you thus want the area where the convention center/arena to revert to the abandoned UP yards and lead smelting plant?
What exactly was your point? What would you have wanted when the convention center/arena was proposed? Have your property taxes gone up one penny as a result of this "ramming"? Have your income taxes gone up? Have your sales taxes gone up?
It's ok to post opinion as fact here and everyone has the privilege to do so as this isn't a public forum. To say that the above is "Total FAKE NEWS" is seriously stretching things.
From what I have seen here and elsewhere, people who use the term "Fake News" really don't have a good definition of what it is. And most use the term for news they don't agree with or doesn't reflect their position.
It's ok to post opinion as fact here and everyone has the privilege to do so as this isn't a public forum. To say that the above is "Total FAKE NEWS" is seriously stretching things.
From what I have seen here and elsewhere, people who use the term "Fake News" really don't have a good definition of what it is. And most use the term for news they don't agree with or doesn't reflect their position.
Bob from Omaha wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:38 am
Would you thus want the area where the convention center/arena to revert to the abandoned UP yards and lead smelting plant?
A second cousin of the Fake News People is the huge Fake Ecologically Concerned People who care about ecology only when it serves them well. If we were genuinely concerned about ecology and cleaning up our air why would you not put the arena in the center of town? There is no good reason except that would not have served the greedy people who wanted it downtown. Every time I drive by the Baxter arena I think that the big arena should of went there. It would of been easier and closer for hundreds of thousands of people. It would of been safer. It would of saved countless thousands of gallons of gas being wasted by people driving all the way downtown. And I can not be the only one that looks at that new arena in Lincoln and wonder what if only greed had not been calling the important shots and logical heads were in charge. We could of pooled Omahas money with Lincolns money and built a super nice arena at the Mahoney St park exit. We should of been shooting for getting pro sports to the area not jacking around trying to live on the past reviving downtown.
Bob from Omaha wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:38 am
Would you thus want the area where the convention center/arena to revert to the abandoned UP yards and lead smelting plant?
A second cousin of the Fake News People is the huge Fake Ecologically Concerned People who care about ecology only when it serves them well. If we were genuinely concerned about ecology and cleaning up our air why would you not put the arena in the center of town? There is no good reason except that would not have served the greedy people who wanted it downtown. Every time I drive by the Baxter arena I think that the big arena should of went there. It would of been easier and closer for hundreds of thousands of people. It would of been safer. It would of saved countless thousands of gallons of gas being wasted by people driving all the way downtown. And I can not be the only one that looks at that new arena in Lincoln and wonder what if only greed had not been calling the important shots and logical heads were in charge. We could of pooled Omahas money with Lincolns money and built a super nice arena at the Mahoney St park exit. We should of been shooting for getting pro sports to the area not jacking around trying to live on the past reviving downtown.
Bob from Omaha wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:38 am
Would you thus want the area where the convention center/arena to revert to the abandoned UP yards and lead smelting plant?
A second cousin of the Fake News People is the huge Fake Ecologically Concerned People who care about ecology only when it serves them well. If we were genuinely concerned about ecology and cleaning up our air why would you not put the arena in the center of town? There is no good reason except that would not have served the greedy people who wanted it downtown. Every time I drive by the Baxter arena I think that the big arena should of went there. It would of been easier and closer for hundreds of thousands of people. It would of been safer. It would of saved countless thousands of gallons of gas being wasted by people driving all the way downtown. And I can not be the only one that looks at that new arena in Lincoln and wonder what if only greed had not been calling the important shots and logical heads were in charge. We could of pooled Omahas money with Lincolns money and built a super nice arena at the Mahoney St park exit. We should of been shooting for getting pro sports to the area not jacking around trying to live on the past reviving downtown.
There is a zero percent chance that a pro sports team was ever going to call Ashland, NE home.
Going to Omaha's downtown arena is perfectly safe.
The arena has done wonders for OMaha's downtown. Ak Village and Baxter have done wonders for mid town. It's a win/win.
Coyote wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:53 am
Fox News has been Fake News for years.
I agree with that statement 100%. I also think we are loosing CNN and MSNBC to the same fate. Like it or not FAKE NEWS is the in thing right about now and every news organization, business and government entity out there is doing it and they all think it is cute. FAKE NEWS has become an epidemic and the public is in for trouble.
Bob from Omaha wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:38 am
Would you thus want the area where the convention center/arena to revert to the abandoned UP yards and lead smelting plant?
A second cousin of the Fake News People is the huge Fake Ecologically Concerned People who care about ecology only when it serves them well. If we were genuinely concerned about ecology and cleaning up our air why would you not put the arena in the center of town? There is no good reason except that would not have served the greedy people who wanted it downtown. Every time I drive by the Baxter arena I think that the big arena should of went there. It would of been easier and closer for hundreds of thousands of people. It would of been safer. It would of saved countless thousands of gallons of gas being wasted by people driving all the way downtown. And I can not be the only one that looks at that new arena in Lincoln and wonder what if only greed had not been calling the important shots and logical heads were in charge. We could of pooled Omahas money with Lincolns money and built a super nice arena at the Mahoney St park exit. We should of been shooting for getting pro sports to the area not jacking around trying to live on the past reviving downtown.
In the first part of your post, you say the big arena should have gone where Baxter is to save on gas. You then go right on from from that, and say it should have been at Mahoney?
omaha79 wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 11:52 am
Going to Omaha's downtown arena is perfectly safe.
Sure it is and bacon is actually good for you too. More FAKE NEWS!
I have to believe that were you to visit Detroit & I brought you with me and my family (wife & 2 kids) to downtown Detroit, at night, you'd 1) lose your mind (by the way, it's lose not loose), 2) wet your pants, or 3) both, in addition to crying like a baby. As I've said before when we lived in Omaha we were downtown day and night all the time with our kids when they were babies and we have been to downtown Detroit day and night over the 10 years we've lived here. NEVER a problem in either downtown.
Coyote wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:53 am
Fox News has been Fake News for years. Now the Oompa Loompa uses it when he doesn't agree with serious news reports and his ditto heads applaude.
....and the Democrats resort to name calling AGAIN. That Oompa Loompa is YOUR President. Your economy is booming. Your housing industry is booming. Your military is stronger, he's not sharing with the whole world what our military game plan is, black unemployment is very low, Hispanic unemployment is at an all time low, number of people on food stamps down significantly, he's not creating racial tension like Obama, he's tough on terrorism (haven't heard much about ISIS lately, have you?), he's not going on a world wide apology tour to apologize for who we are to the countries who hate us and want to kill us and then give them billions of dollars in weapons. tax money is going towards our infrastructure, not theirs. he's putting your country first.
Coyote wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:53 am
Fox News has been Fake News for years. Now the Oompa Loompa uses it when he doesn't agree with serious news reports and his ditto heads applaude.
....and the Democrats resort to name calling AGAIN. That Oompa Loompa is YOUR President. Your economy is booming. Your housing industry is booming. Your military is stronger, he's not sharing with the whole world what our military game plan is, black unemployment is very low, Hispanic unemployment is at an all time low, number of people on food stamps down significantly, he's not creating racial tension like Obama, he's tough on terrorism (haven't heard much about ISIS lately, have you?), he's not going on a world wide apology tour to apologize for who we are to the countries who hate us and want to kill us and then give them billions of dollars in weapons. tax money is going towards our infrastructure, not theirs. he's putting your country first.
Ope sorry, didn’t hear you over the sound of stagnant wages.
Coyote wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:53 am
Fox News has been Fake News for years. Now the Oompa Loompa uses it when he doesn't agree with serious news reports and his ditto heads applaude.
....and the Democrats resort to name calling AGAIN. That Oompa Loompa is YOUR President. Your economy is booming. Your housing industry is booming. Your military is stronger, he's not sharing with the whole world what our military game plan is, black unemployment is very low, Hispanic unemployment is at an all time low, number of people on food stamps down significantly, he's not creating racial tension like Obama, he's tough on terrorism (haven't heard much about ISIS lately, have you?), he's not going on a world wide apology tour to apologize for who we are to the countries who hate us and want to kill us and then give them billions of dollars in weapons. tax money is going towards our infrastructure, not theirs. he's putting your country first.
Ope sorry, didn’t hear you over the sound of stagnant wages.
Wages are fine. People that complain still seem to have money to have access to 300+ channels on their tv, they have the latest greatest smartphone, they drive expensive vehicles, they go out to eat multiple times a week at overpriced restaurants, they drink beer, smoke cigarettes, drink high priced coffee, they go to over priced concerts and sporting events, and they buy $150 shirts at the mall that look like the same shirt they sell at Walmart for $15, except it doesn't have some designer's logo or name on the tag. People need to live within their means and learn that they don't always have to have the best of everything. If you're unhappy with your wage, look for a new job, or work harder at the one you have, so maybe you will get a promotion and better pay. Higher wages should be earned. All those fast food workers were whining that they deserved $15/hr. What a joke.
OmahaOmaha wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 3:40 pm
Wages are fine. People that complain still seem to have money to have access to 300+ channels on their tv, they have the latest greatest smartphone, they drive expensive vehicles, they go out to eat multiple times a week at overpriced restaurants, they drink beer, smoke cigarettes, drink high priced coffee, they go to over priced concerts and sporting events, and they buy $150 shirts at the mall that look like the same shirt they sell at Walmart for $15, except it doesn't have some designer's logo or name on the tag. People need to live within their means and learn that they don't always have to have the best of everything.
This is one of the most uneducated comments I've read on here. Thank you for the sub-third grade macro lesson.
Obvious2677, I see you left out the most important part of my post..." If you're unhappy with your wage, look for a new job, or work harder at the one you have, so maybe you will get a promotion and better pay. Higher wages should be earned." The fact that you think my post is the most uneducated one on here really worries me. You must be part of the "give me, give me, give me" generation.
OmahaOmaha wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:05 pm
You must be part of the "give me, give me, give me" generation.
Give me the same standard of living that my parents and grandparents had? Give me a salary that I can live off of? Give me healthcare costs that don't put me in bankruptcy? Give me opportunities to make my own in the world and be able to own a home. No doubt we're the give me generation(s), but what we're demanding is the same level of living that everyone before has had for the past 80 years. You must be part of the generation who has never heard of sustainability: fiscally, ecologically, culturally. Even the way boomers built out suburbs is unsustainable. Let the young people fix the problems you left for the nation.(:
OmahaOmaha wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:05 pm
You must be part of the "give me, give me, give me" generation.
Give me the same standard of living that my parents and grandparents had? Give me a salary that I can live off of? Give me healthcare costs that don't put me in bankruptcy? Give me opportunities to make my own in the world and be able to own a home. No doubt we're the give me generation(s), but what we're demanding is the same level of living that everyone before has had for the past 80 years. You must be part of the generation who has never heard of sustainability: fiscally, ecologically, culturally. Even the way boomers built out suburbs is unsustainable. Let the young people fix the problems you left for the nation.(:
Sorry bud, but you have the same standard of living. My parents worked their |expletive| off to afford a 1 car garage home in what is now called "Old East Millard". Two salaries. We had 1 TV, no cable, we went on vacation every year (if visiting your grandparents for a few days counts as vacation). My family was fond of the Dutch Uncle talk and I got mine from grandparents, aunts, and uncles from both sides. My dad had a full time (40 hr/week) job from the age of 14 to the age of 67. My mother lived in a house without indoor plumbing till she went to college. Her Saturdays were spent cleaning the family outhouse with boiling water and home made lye soap.
The point is, that nice things didn't just land on us, we worked our |expletive| off. Healthcare is more expensive (because someone, read you and me, has to pay for the ER abuse and the other examples of medicaid fraud that happen daily, as well as the insistence of our current paying customers, again read you and me, to not have to wait, to get name brand drugs instead of generics, to get newest coolest drugs instead of old stand-bys that work just fine, and to have lots of elective procedures. All in the newest coolest architecturally inspiring palaces they can have. Add in the fact that a lot of patients who we used to say good bye to in a manner that was not very expensive, are now living longer, but at considerable expense (80% of medicare dollars are spent in the last month of life), and you see where the costs are.
The boomers built the suburbs because the war generation had already moved there and needed more space. The boomers did this to pay their way through college. That is one area that your generation got screwed on, college. Your generation and the next one needs to stand up and refuse to take garbage majors, and even garbage classes. Why go into debt so some SJW can have three credit hours of your life to |expletive| about the very white people who founded the college in question? Why go into debt to fund a major that can't get you an income that you could have earned being a welder? When you make that mistake, own it. You fudged up, no one else did. Fix that mistake by getting a better job. Fight back against waste in college. You don't need to live in a suite instead of a dorm. You really can skip the semester abroad and the spring break ski trips. Your future won't be ruined and your DNA won't unravel.
The burbs were built because the inner city areas began to suck and suck hard. Pretty much anyone who could move did so. Entire neighborhoods from South Omaha relocated to Ralston or Roxbury, or OE Millard. Same with Benson. It was just one basic reality that as the Fed lowered the boom on east Benson and some of the South O neighborhoods by restricting HUD guarantees on mortgages, prices for houses there collapsed and everyone who could still do so, split. That generation got screwed. They didn't |expletive| about it, they took the loss, reorganized their finances and dealt with it. That is called owning your mistake. It is the first step in fixing it.
OmahaOmaha wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:05 pm
Obvious2677, I see you left out the most important part of my post..." If you're unhappy with your wage, look for a new job, or work harder at the one you have, so maybe you will get a promotion and better pay. Higher wages should be earned." The fact that you think my post is the most uneducated one on here really worries me. You must be part of the "give me, give me, give me" generation.
Not an intentional omission. However, though I don't read every comment on here, it's apparent that you lack a fundamental grasp of economics. The fact that you refer to millennials (presumably) as the "give me, give me" generation, shows your flat ignorance. This has absolutely nothing to do with "higher wages being earned" it is the fundamental fact that wages have not maintained their buying power. Household incomes stagnated - unless you're in the top 10 percent of earners. This is a simple reduction in buying power for the middle class and new graduates. I guess if you choose to listen to Fox News, you'll miss out on the scientists and academicians that actually will tell you how buying power has changed over the last fifty years.
Here are some facts... since 1960, adjusted for inflation, the average entry-level salary has risen 10.35%, whereas a loaf of bread costs 18.48% more, 1 lb of bacon costs 13.35% more, 1 gallon of gas costs 21.76% more, and the average home costs 206.78% more. So... where you think we just need to "try harder" to "get promoted" you're not realizing that the cost of goods has increased at a rate that wages have not.
For a personal example - my dad bought a Camaro in 1978, brand new. The MSRP of the cheapest Camaro (though this wasn't the one he owned) that year was $4,566 - adjusted for 2018, that's $18,108.17. The cheapest Camaro MSRP for 2018 is $26,900. So not only were people buying cooler cars back in the 60s and 70s, but they were more affordable.
Is this finally making sense to you? Wages, no matter what, have not kept up with the cost of goods. This literally has nothing to do with people trying harder to get promotions or more money.
This all being said, most millenniall's have never asked for a handout. The "forgive college loans" idea is incredibly stupid. So were the Bush and Trump tax cuts (for the richest Americans) at a time when the economy is banging away - and "trickle-down" is a joke. Personally, I'm a homeowner with zero debt, significant savings - both retirement and personal, an advanced college degree and have maintained a professional job since graduation. I'm also part of the "give me, give me" generation, as you say. Though, as I said before, your comments are ignorant. Get off your high horse - you're not harder working or better than anyone else.
Millennials are working hard. A large percentage of us worked unpaid internships (thanks boomers for not paying people to do work!) while also working part time (because entry-level jobs now require decades of work experience) and getting a college degree. We'll also likely be taking care of you when you're old (or maybe we won't, who knows - economically speaking, the cost of healthcare would drop if we don't). Millennials also got jobs during the economy you ruined. Stop generalizing people that you obviously don't work with and have no knowledge of. Maybe one thing you can learn from millennials is some humility.
OmahaOmaha wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:05 pm
Obvious2677, I see you left out the most important part of my post..." If you're unhappy with your wage, look for a new job, or work harder at the one you have, so maybe you will get a promotion and better pay. Higher wages should be earned." The fact that you think my post is the most uneducated one on here really worries me. You must be part of the "give me, give me, give me" generation.
Not an intentional omission. However, though I don't read every comment on here, it's apparent that you lack a fundamental grasp of economics. The fact that you refer to millennials (presumably) as the "give me, give me" generation, shows your flat ignorance. This has absolutely nothing to do with "higher wages being earned" it is the fundamental fact that wages have not maintained their buying power. Household incomes stagnated - unless you're in the top 10 percent of earners. This is a simple reduction in buying power for the middle class and new graduates. I guess if you choose to listen to Fox News, you'll miss out on the scientists and academicians that actually will tell you how buying power has changed over the last fifty years.
Here are some facts... since 1960, adjusted for inflation, the average entry-level salary has risen 10.35%, whereas a loaf of bread costs 18.48% more, 1 lb of bacon costs 13.35% more, 1 gallon of gas costs 21.76% more, and the average home costs 206.78% more. So... where you think we just need to "try harder" to "get promoted" you're not realizing that the cost of goods has increased at a rate that wages have not.
For a personal example - my dad bought a Camaro in 1978, brand new. The MSRP of the cheapest Camaro (though this wasn't the one he owned) that year was $4,566 - adjusted for 2018, that's $18,108.17. The cheapest Camaro MSRP for 2018 is $26,900. So not only were people buying cooler cars back in the 60s and 70s, but they were more affordable.
Is this finally making sense to you? Wages, no matter what, have not kept up with the cost of goods. This literally has nothing to do with people trying harder to get promotions or more money.
I agree with the wages not keeping up. I look at my family as I was born in the late 50s ( yeah I am Old). My dad worked in a meat packing plant for 37 years and it was a good middle class job on in those days. I actually worked 3 summers there as I was going through college and I worked next to people who had college degrees such as teachers because the job in the plant paid more than a teacher job did in those days. My dad also had a part time lawn job but it mosltly a Friday night/Saturday morning gig.
My mom didn’t go back to work (she had been a teacher before they married) until my younger sister started school. We had a nice house, 2 car garage and 2 cars, I think 1 TV most of the time and 3 OTA TV stations as there was no cable.
I know today those jobs in the meatpacking plant are not good middle class jobs - I think the starting pay is 13-15/hr and I was making 7-9/hr. So wages have not kept up with the cost and the standard of living.
OmahaOmaha wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:05 pm
Obvious2677, I see you left out the most important part of my post..." If you're unhappy with your wage, look for a new job, or work harder at the one you have, so maybe you will get a promotion and better pay. Higher wages should be earned." The fact that you think my post is the most uneducated one on here really worries me. You must be part of the "give me, give me, give me" generation.
Not an intentional omission. However, though I don't read every comment on here, it's apparent that you lack a fundamental grasp of economics. The fact that you refer to millennials (presumably) as the "give me, give me" generation, shows your flat ignorance. This has absolutely nothing to do with "higher wages being earned" it is the fundamental fact that wages have not maintained their buying power. Household incomes stagnated - unless you're in the top 10 percent of earners. This is a simple reduction in buying power for the middle class and new graduates. I guess if you choose to listen to Fox News, you'll miss out on the scientists and academicians that actually will tell you how buying power has changed over the last fifty years.
Here are some facts... since 1960, adjusted for inflation, the average entry-level salary has risen 10.35%, whereas a loaf of bread costs 18.48% more, 1 lb of bacon costs 13.35% more, 1 gallon of gas costs 21.76% more, and the average home costs 206.78% more. So... where you think we just need to "try harder" to "get promoted" you're not realizing that the cost of goods has increased at a rate that wages have not.
For a personal example - my dad bought a Camaro in 1978, brand new. The MSRP of the cheapest Camaro (though this wasn't the one he owned) that year was $4,566 - adjusted for 2018, that's $18,108.17. The cheapest Camaro MSRP for 2018 is $26,900. So not only were people buying cooler cars back in the 60s and 70s, but they were more affordable.
Is this finally making sense to you? Wages, no matter what, have not kept up with the cost of goods. This literally has nothing to do with people trying harder to get promotions or more money.
I agree with the wages not keeping up. I look at my family as I was born in the late 50s ( yeah I am Old). My dad worked in a meat packing plant for 37 years and it was a good middle class job on in those days. I actually worked 3 summers there as I was going through college and I worked next to people who had college degrees such as teachers because the job in the plant paid more than a teacher job did in those days. My dad also had a part time lawn job but it mosltly a Friday night/Saturday morning gig.
My mom didn’t go back to work (she had been a teacher before they married) until my younger sister started school. We had a nice house, 2 car garage and 2 cars, I think 1 TV most of the time and 3 OTA TV stations as there was no cable.
I know today those jobs in the meatpacking plant are not good middle class jobs - I think the starting pay is 13-15/hr and I was making 7-9/hr. So wages have not kept up with the cost and the standard of living.
Let's assume you were born in '57. Assuming you were 20 (in college) while working there - 1978 - your $7-9 hourly wage, adjusted for inflation, is $27.76- $35.69/hour as of January 2018. That's $57,740.80 - $74,235.20 annually. You're were likely making more than the average american household income ($59,039 in 2016), if adjusted for inflation.
Not only that, but, presumably, you could pay for your entire education on your part-time job! In 1978, the cost of one year of tuition, room and board at a 4-year public university was $2,647 ($10,497.66 inflation adjusted).
Check this - if you made $7/hour - you'd have to work 378.14 hours to pay for that year of college, only 7.27 hours a week. If you made $9/hour, you'd have to work 294.11 hours, only 5.66 hours a week, to pay for the entire education.
In 2016, it was $19,189. So, if you made the $13-15 an hour, you'd have to work 1,476 hours at $13/hour - or 28.39 hours/week. Or 1,279.27 hours at $15/hour - 24.6 hours/week to pay for that. So....
Also - don't give me the junk on 'pick degrees that lead to jobs' - I did that. Most people do that. Even if you pick that job, you're still likely to graduate with tens of thousands of dollars in debt.
Uffda wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 1:16 pm
I agree with the wages not keeping up. I look at my family as I was born in the late 50s ( yeah I am Old). My dad worked in a meat packing plant for 37 years and it was a good middle class job on in those days. I actually worked 3 summers there as I was going through college and I worked next to people who had college degrees such as teachers because the job in the plant paid more than a teacher job did in those days. My dad also had a part time lawn job but it mosltly a Friday night/Saturday morning gig.
My mom didn’t go back to work (she had been a teacher before they married) until my younger sister started school. We had a nice house, 2 car garage and 2 cars, I think 1 TV most of the time and 3 OTA TV stations as there was no cable.
I know today those jobs in the meatpacking plant are not good middle class jobs - I think the starting pay is 13-15/hr and I was making 7-9/hr. So wages have not kept up with the cost and the standard of living.
Let's assume you were born in '57. Assuming you were 20 (in college) while working there - 1978 - your $7-9 hourly wage, adjusted for inflation, is $27.76- $35.69/hour as of January 2018. That's $57,740.80 - $74,235.20 annually. You're were likely making more than the average american household income ($59,039 in 2016), if adjusted for inflation.
Not only that, but, presumably, you could pay for your entire education on your part-time job! In 1978, the cost of one year of tuition, room and board at a 4-year public university was $2,647 ($10,497.66 inflation adjusted).
Check this - if you made $7/hour - you'd have to work 378.14 hours to pay for that year of college, only 7.27 hours a week. If you made $9/hour, you'd have to work 294.11 hours, only 5.66 hours a week, to pay for the entire education.
In 2016, it was $19,189. So, if you made the $13-15 an hour, you'd have to work 1,476 hours at $13/hour - or 28.39 hours/week. Or 1,279.27 hours at $15/hour - 24.6 hours/week to pay for that. So....
Also - don't give me the junk on 'pick degrees that lead to jobs' - I did that. Most people do that. Even if you pick that job, you're still likely to graduate with tens of thousands of dollars in debt.
It seems like you completely misunderstood the post you quoted. Some exerpts:
I agree with the wages not keeping up.
I know today those jobs in the meatpacking plant are not good middle class jobs
So wages have not kept up with the cost and the standard of living
Uffda wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 1:16 pm
I agree with the wages not keeping up. I look at my family as I was born in the late 50s ( yeah I am Old). My dad worked in a meat packing plant for 37 years and it was a good middle class job on in those days. I actually worked 3 summers there as I was going through college and I worked next to people who had college degrees such as teachers because the job in the plant paid more than a teacher job did in those days. My dad also had a part time lawn job but it mosltly a Friday night/Saturday morning gig.
My mom didn’t go back to work (she had been a teacher before they married) until my younger sister started school. We had a nice house, 2 car garage and 2 cars, I think 1 TV most of the time and 3 OTA TV stations as there was no cable.
I know today those jobs in the meatpacking plant are not good middle class jobs - I think the starting pay is 13-15/hr and I was making 7-9/hr. So wages have not kept up with the cost and the standard of living.
Let's assume you were born in '57. Assuming you were 20 (in college) while working there - 1978 - your $7-9 hourly wage, adjusted for inflation, is $27.76- $35.69/hour as of January 2018. That's $57,740.80 - $74,235.20 annually. You're were likely making more than the average american household income ($59,039 in 2016), if adjusted for inflation.
Not only that, but, presumably, you could pay for your entire education on your part-time job! In 1978, the cost of one year of tuition, room and board at a 4-year public university was $2,647 ($10,497.66 inflation adjusted).
Check this - if you made $7/hour - you'd have to work 378.14 hours to pay for that year of college, only 7.27 hours a week. If you made $9/hour, you'd have to work 294.11 hours, only 5.66 hours a week, to pay for the entire education.
In 2016, it was $19,189. So, if you made the $13-15 an hour, you'd have to work 1,476 hours at $13/hour - or 28.39 hours/week. Or 1,279.27 hours at $15/hour - 24.6 hours/week to pay for that. So....
Also - don't give me the junk on 'pick degrees that lead to jobs' - I did that. Most people do that. Even if you pick that job, you're still likely to graduate with tens of thousands of dollars in debt.
It seems like you completely misunderstood the post you quoted. Some exerpts:
I agree with the wages not keeping up.
I know today those jobs in the meatpacking plant are not good middle class jobs
So wages have not kept up with the cost and the standard of living
No - I understood - hence the agreement with him on the first 4 paragraphs, which are simply extrapolating on his example.
The last paragraph should have been quoted to someone previously who said we need to get rid of BS college majors and such. - My apologies if this wasn't clear.
obvious2677 wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 2:02 pm
Let's assume you were born in '57. Assuming you were 20 (in college) while working there - 1978 - your $7-9 hourly wage, adjusted for inflation, is $27.76- $35.69/hour as of January 2018. That's $57,740.80 - $74,235.20 annually. You're were likely making more than the average american household income ($59,039 in 2016), if adjusted for inflation.
Not only that, but, presumably, you could pay for your entire education on your part-time job! In 1978, the cost of one year of tuition, room and board at a 4-year public university was $2,647 ($10,497.66 inflation adjusted).
Check this - if you made $7/hour - you'd have to work 378.14 hours to pay for that year of college, only 7.27 hours a week. If you made $9/hour, you'd have to work 294.11 hours, only 5.66 hours a week, to pay for the entire education.
In 2016, it was $19,189. So, if you made the $13-15 an hour, you'd have to work 1,476 hours at $13/hour - or 28.39 hours/week. Or 1,279.27 hours at $15/hour - 24.6 hours/week to pay for that. So....
Also - don't give me the junk on 'pick degrees that lead to jobs' - I did that. Most people do that. Even if you pick that job, you're still likely to graduate with tens of thousands of dollars in debt.
1957 Good guess. Graduated college in 1979
I think we are on the same wavelength here.
I went to a private college and i think in those days it was $4500/yr and luckily I had the summer job and qualified for some loans. I paid those off in the first 5-10 yrs of working. I graduated with an elem ed degree and moved to WY because they paid a little more in those days. My first teaching salary was $1160/yr. I still have a paycheck around here somewhere from that first year. It was for $832/month take home pay. I had to laugh as the summer before I started teaching I had made more than that in 2 weeks at the meatpacking working 40 hr plus OT. I realized then why I was working with guys at the meatpacking plant who had education degrees but were making more trimming meat than teaching kids. Now I think that 11600 translates to about 40200 in today's dollars but you might have a better website. I think a lot of school districts start beginning teachers somewhere around that 40K so I guess their pay only goes as far as mine did 40 yrs ago.
In a couple of weeks, I am getting ready to start 40th AND last year of teaching. I have a MS ED and I make with my middle school XC coaching just over 61K. Up until last Oct I had worked 11 years in a part time (15-20 hrs/week) retail job -- Until I finally said last fall "why are you working two jobs?" and I 'retired' I have a 27 yr old daughter who has found a great job being a video business banker of a major bank in the US. Her base pay in around 50K but over the last year she has averaged $13-16K in quarterly bonuses. I have a step daughter that is 31 and has college debt that she probably never will pay off and works as an admin assistant and struggles to make ends meet at times.
But because of salaries lagging way behind, we have people out there who are one incident away from never getting out of the hole. I talked with a guy at HYVEE this weekend -- he had a heart attack a couple of months ago and he said 3 days in the hospital with surgery and everything was 80K -- he said he luckily had insurance so what he has to pay will be less than 3k. Then yesterday, talking with a college student waitress at a place I go often. She had problems with her gall bladder and the doctor wondered why she waited so long to come in -- her reason --- little insurance coverage.
Enough of a rant --- it's not always finding a better job because they don't always pay any better in the end. And also someone has to fill that spot at that pay.
GrandpaaSmucker wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 10:11 pm
And there you have it.......what it takes to make a smart man Break Bad and start selling vitamins that are not vitamins?
Yep you are correct they aren't ---Yoy sure seem to have an obsession about them or maybe you are intrigued on how to better your health. by the way, you never did respond to my private PM
Uffda wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:31 pm
1957 Good guess. Graduated college in 1979
I think we are on the same wavelength here.
I went to a private college and i think in those days it was $4500/yr and luckily I had the summer job and qualified for some loans. I paid those off in the first 5-10 yrs of working. I graduated with an elem ed degree and moved to WY because they paid a little more in those days. My first teaching salary was $1160/yr. I still have a paycheck around here somewhere from that first year. It was for $832/month take home pay. I had to laugh as the summer before I started teaching I had made more than that in 2 weeks at the meatpacking working 40 hr plus OT. I realized then why I was working with guys at the meatpacking plant who had education degrees but were making more trimming meat than teaching kids. Now I think that 11600 translates to about 40200 in today's dollars but you might have a better website. I think a lot of school districts start beginning teachers somewhere around that 40K so I guess their pay only goes as far as mine did 40 yrs ago.
You were close enough - January 1979 to January 2018, your $11,600 becomes $42,097.47. Adjusting the months will slightly adjust the quantity. Bureau of Labor Statistics has the best calculator.
Uffda wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:31 pmIn a couple of weeks, I am getting ready to start 40th AND last year of teaching. I have a MS ED and I make with my middle school XC coaching just over 61K. Up until last Oct I had worked 11 years in a part time (15-20 hrs/week) retail job -- Until I finally said last fall "why are you working two jobs?" and I 'retired' I have a 27 yr old daughter who has found a great job being a video business banker of a major bank in the US. Her base pay in around 50K but over the last year she has averaged $13-16K in quarterly bonuses. I have a step daughter that is 31 and has college debt that she probably never will pay off and works as an admin assistant and struggles to make ends meet at times.
Congrats, in advance, on the retirement.
Uffda wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:31 pmBut because of salaries lagging way behind, we have people out there who are one incident away from never getting out of the hole. I talked with a guy at HYVEE this weekend -- he had a heart attack a couple of months ago and he said 3 days in the hospital with surgery and everything was 80K -- he said he luckily had insurance so what he has to pay will be less than 3k. Then yesterday, talking with a college student waitress at a place I go often. She had problems with her gall bladder and the doctor wondered why she waited so long to come in -- her reason --- little insurance coverage.
Enough of a rant --- it's not always finding a better job because they don't always pay any better in the end. And also someone has to fill that spot at that pay.
That is exactly right. There are some people who are doing very well, some that are just alright, and some that are barely getting by and are one instance away from a complete disaster. Also, I think the avoiding the doctor is very common with people my age. I Regularly visit the dentist and the optometrist, but have only been to the doctor once in 15 years.
Wow, I didn't even know the specifics on the data showing how wages have not kept up with the cost of goods. That is insane. You can't tell me that young people have it so much easier than past generations.
Just take a moment to think about this: Huge corporations are literally being subsidized by the government--and not just by the YUGE tax cuts they keep getting. I know it's not as much of an issue in this market, but Walmart has what is essentially a "Payday Loan" program for their employees. They'll be happy to give their employees money if something comes up as long as they pay it back with extreme interest on top. The reason I mention this is because most people in that type of low-paying job rely on food stamps and other welfare programs to survive. So, instead of *insert large profit-hungry corporation* giving their employees the wages to keep them afloat, taxpayers are picking up the burden.
It's not like people want to rely on the government for everything, that is humiliating. People are willing to work for what they want, but in today's America, hard work rarely leads to any visible results unless you are already in the top half of the population. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of success stories. I'm not saying this is a fit and dry explanation. But if people were given opportunities (like an education and healthcare without bankruptcy) to lift themselves out of poverty, they would hop on it. This is part of the reason why the Job Training Program that someone shared a WaPo article about in another topic is so successful.
buildomaha wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 3:53 am
Wow, I didn't even know the specifics on the data showing how wages have not kept up with the cost of goods. That is insane. You can't tell me that young people have it so much easier than past generations.
Just take a moment to think about this: Huge corporations are literally being subsidized by the government--and not just by the YUGE tax cuts they keep getting. I know it's not as much of an issue in this market, but Walmart has what is essentially a "Payday Loan" program for their employees. They'll be happy to give their employees money if something comes up as long as they pay it back with extreme interest on top. The reason I mention this is because most people in that type of low-paying job rely on food stamps and other welfare programs to survive. So, instead of *insert large profit-hungry corporation* giving their employees the wages to keep them afloat, taxpayers are picking up the burden.
It's not like people want to rely on the government for everything, that is humiliating. People are willing to work for what they want, but in today's America, hard work rarely leads to any visible results unless you are already in the top half of the population. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of success stories. I'm not saying this is a fit and dry explanation. But if people were given opportunities (like an education and healthcare without bankruptcy) to lift themselves out of poverty, they would hop on it. This is part of the reason why the Job Training Program that someone shared a WaPo article about in another topic is so successful.
And the point was not to bash on Walmart. They are taking lots of steps to treat their employees better! They just have a past that made a perfect example of a lot of the corporate bull ish that goes on. I think the MSM has hidden the fact of how big of an issue inequality really is today, and the fact that we have a government that just gave the rich even bigger tax breaks.
buildomaha wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 3:53 am
It's not like people want to rely on the government for everything, that is humiliating. People are willing to work for what they want, but in today's America, hard work rarely leads to any visible results unless you are already in the top half of the population.
Lots of FAKE NEWS in that statement. The people are not humiliated by taking handouts from the government because in their twisted minds they are ENTITLED to government handouts. At this point in our society pride has been thrown out the window. Government handouts have and are turning our society into monsters. The very reason most of our friends from down south of the border are coming here in droves is so they can get in on the handouts too.
buildomaha wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 3:53 am
It's not like people want to rely on the government for everything, that is humiliating. People are willing to work for what they want, but in today's America, hard work rarely leads to any visible results unless you are already in the top half of the population.
Lots of FAKE NEWS in that statement. The people are not humiliated by taking handouts from the government because in their twisted minds they are ENTITLED to government handouts. At this point in our society pride has been thrown out the window. Government handouts have and are turning our society into monsters. The very reason most of our friends from down south of the border are coming here in droves is so they can get in on the handouts too.
Jesus, this is the second most asinine comment I've read in this thread.
I'll spare you a public policy and economics beatdown because you're old and likely senile - and because Fox News gives you your daily dish of terrible, factually incorrect information. Drink the Kool-Aid.
Obvious2677, yes, home prices, cars, gas, college, and health care has gone up.
New houses in the 1960's were cheaper, but they didn't come with stainless steel appliances, granite counter tops, huge master bedrooms with luxury bathrooms, finished basements, and AC. The typical 1960's house was small, usually only had one bathroom (two if you were lucky), and they weren't energy efficient like today's homes. Appliances weren't energy efficient either. When your fridge kicked in, sometimes all the lights in your house would dim. I'm guessing if they built a home in 2018 with a 1960's price, but it only had 3 bedrooms, 1 bath, an eat-in kitchen, and unfinished basement like the typical 1960's house, you wouldn't buy it.
Cars in the 1960's got horrible gas mileage, so you went through a lot more gas. Today's cars have a lot more technology and safety features than the 1960's cars which makes the cost of building the car much more, and cars back then only went 100,000 miles if you were lucky. Today's cars can easily last 300,000, so you don't have to buy near as many cars. I'm guessing if they built a car in 2018 where it only got 12 miles to the gallon, it only come with an AM/FM radio, and it didn't have power locks or power windows, you wouldn't buy it, even if it had a 1960's price.
Gas prices have mainly gone up because of all the taxes that are tacked onto the cost of gasoline. Blame that on the "tax and spend" politicians you elected. Higher gas prices made food prices go up. That also drove up the cost of building supplies, which makes the cost of building a house go up. Gas, food, and building supply costs have also gone up because of bad trade deals and government regulations. Blame that on the politicians.
College prices have gone up, but most colleges in the 1960's didn't have all the fancy buildings that they do now days. Classrooms didn't have air conditioning and computers, they didn't have fancy stadiums, multi-million dollar student centers, cafeterias that look like a buffet in a casino, and dorms where you had your own bedroom and private bathroom. I'm guessing if there was a college that existed today, that still looked like a 1960's campus and it still had the same tuition as 1960's college, you wouldn't go to it.
Health care has gone up significantly. Blame that on Obama, greedy drug makers, drug pushing doctors, people taking advantage of the system, and the people that have to go to the doctor every time they get a little scrape or bruise. People in the 1960's were tougher and didn't need to see a doctor every time they got a boo boo or they got the sniffles. Also, add all the illegals that are walking across our borders and using our health services, but paying nothing into the system.
CNN can have all these so called "experts" on, but they are nothing but liberal "experts twisting the numbers that satisfy their audience. I've watched some of these "experts" on CNN and I feel like I'm watching a bad skit on Saturday Night Live. You, my friend, are the one drinking the kool-aid. Your generation is so gullible and you believe everything the media tells you. The media is twisted these days. They twist stories to fit their agenda.
Last edited by OmahaOmaha on Tue Jul 24, 2018 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
OmahaOmaha wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 3:19 pm
Obvious2677, yes, home prices have gone up, gas prices have gone up, food prices have gone up, and even the cost of going to college has gone up.
New houses in the 1960's didn't come with stainless steel appliances, granite counter tops, huge master bedrooms with luxury bathrooms, finished basements, AC, etc..
Cars in the 1960's got horrible gas mileage, so you went through a lot more gas. Today's cars have a lot more technology and safety features than the 1960's cars, and cars back then only went 100,000 miles if you were lucky. Today's cars can easily last 300,000.
Gas prices have mainly gone up because of all the taxes that are included. Blame your tax and spend politicians for that. Higher gas prices made food prices go up. That also drove up the cost of building supplies, which makes the cost of building a house go up.
College prices have gone up, but most colleges in the 1960's didn't have all the fancy new buildings, classrooms didn't have air conditioning, they didn't have fancy stadiums, multi-million dollar student centers, cafeterias that look like a buffet in a casino, dorms where you had your own bedroom, etc..
CNN can have all these so called "experts" on, but they are liberals twisting the numbers that satisfy the liberal audience. You, my friend, are the one drinking the kool-aid.
And with all those things going up the one thing that hasn't kept pace is wages.
OmahaOmaha wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 3:19 pm
Obvious2677, yes, home prices have gone up, gas prices have gone up, food prices have gone up, and even the cost of going to college has gone up.
New houses in the 1960's didn't come with stainless steel appliances, granite counter tops, huge master bedrooms with luxury bathrooms, finished basements, AC, etc..
Cars in the 1960's got horrible gas mileage, so you went through a lot more gas. Today's cars have a lot more technology and safety features than the 1960's cars, and cars back then only went 100,000 miles if you were lucky. Today's cars can easily last 300,000.
Gas prices have mainly gone up because of all the taxes that are included. Blame your tax and spend politicians for that. Higher gas prices made food prices go up. That also drove up the cost of building supplies, which makes the cost of building a house go up.
College prices have gone up, but most colleges in the 1960's didn't have all the fancy new buildings, classrooms didn't have air conditioning, they didn't have fancy stadiums, multi-million dollar student centers, cafeterias that look like a buffet in a casino, dorms where you had your own bedroom, etc..
CNN can have all these so called "experts" on, but they are liberals twisting the numbers that satisfy the liberal audience. You, my friend, are the one drinking the kool-aid.
And before there were cars people got around with horse and buggy. And before there were refrigerators there were ice boxes. And before there were “nice” dorms and cafeterias at colleges people ate lard and slept on cots. And yet in the 1960s wages matched the cost of living. It’s not that there is less wealth to go around now, it’s that companies have this new found obsession with appeasing shareholders than their own employees.
"Video game violence is not a new problem. Who could forget in the wake of SimCity how children everywhere took up urban planning." - Stephen Colbert
OmahaOmaha wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 3:19 pm
Obvious2677, yes, home prices, cars, gas, college, and health care has gone up.
New houses in the 1960's were cheaper, but they didn't come with stainless steel appliances, granite counter tops, huge master bedrooms with luxury bathrooms, finished basements, and AC. The typical 1960's house was small, usually only had one bathroom (two if you were lucky), and they weren't energy efficient like today's homes. Appliances weren't energy efficient either. When your fridge kicked in, sometimes all the lights in your house would dim. I'm guessing if they built a home in 2018 with a 1960's price, but it only had 3 bedrooms, 1 bath, an eat-in kitchen, and unfinished basement like the typical 1960's house, you wouldn't buy it.
Cars in the 1960's got horrible gas mileage, so you went through a lot more gas. Today's cars have a lot more technology and safety features than the 1960's cars which makes the cost of building the car much more, and cars back then only went 100,000 miles if you were lucky. Today's cars can easily last 300,000, so you don't have to buy near as many cars. I'm guessing if they built a car in 2018 where it only got 12 miles to the gallon, it only come with an AM/FM radio, and it didn't have power locks or power windows, you wouldn't buy it, even if it had a 1960's price.
Gas prices have mainly gone up because of all the taxes that are tacked onto the cost of gasoline. Blame that on the "tax and spend" politicians you elected. Higher gas prices made food prices go up. That also drove up the cost of building supplies, which makes the cost of building a house go up. Gas, food, and building supply costs have also gone up because of bad trade deals and government regulations. Blame that on the politicians.
College prices have gone up, but most colleges in the 1960's didn't have all the fancy buildings that they do now days. Classrooms didn't have air conditioning and computers, they didn't have fancy stadiums, multi-million dollar student centers, cafeterias that look like a buffet in a casino, and dorms where you had your own bedroom and private bathroom. I'm guessing if there was a college that existed today, that still looked like a 1960's campus and it still had the same tuition as 1960's college, you wouldn't go to it.
Health care has gone up significantly. Blame that on Obama, greedy drug makers, drug pushing doctors, people taking advantage of the system, and the people that have to go to the doctor every time they get a little scrape or bruise. People in the 1960's were tougher and didn't need to see a doctor every time they got a boo boo or they got the sniffles. Also, add all the illegals that are walking across our borders and using our health services, but paying nothing into the system.
CNN can have all these so called "experts" on, but they are nothing but liberal "experts twisting the numbers that satisfy their audience. I've watched some of these "experts" on CNN and I feel like I'm watching a bad skit on Saturday Night Live. You, my friend, are the one drinking the kool-aid. Your generation is so gullible and you believe everything the media tells you. The media is twisted these days. They twist stories to fit their agenda.
OmahaOmaha wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 3:19 pm
Cars in the 1960's got horrible gas mileage, so you went through a lot more gas. Today's cars have a lot more technology and safety features than the 1960's cars which makes the cost of building the car much more, and cars back then only went 100,000 miles if you were lucky. Today's cars can easily last 300,000, so you don't have to buy near as many cars. I'm guessing if they built a car in 2018 where it only got 12 miles to the gallon, it only come with an AM/FM radio, and it didn't have power locks or power windows, you wouldn't buy it, even if it had a 1960's price.
Gas prices have mainly gone up because of all the taxes that are tacked onto the cost of gasoline. Blame that on the "tax and spend" politicians you elected. Higher gas prices made food prices go up. That also drove up the cost of building supplies, which makes the cost of building a house go up. Gas, food, and building supply costs have also gone up because of bad trade deals and government regulations. Blame that on the politicians.
The government regulations from the politicians are the reason why cars today can pump out 300 hp from a 4-cylinder and still get roughly 30 MPG, are safer in a crash, and don't cloud the air with toxic smog as substantially. Sorry, pal, but I'll pay the extra taxes for that.
And if you think these new tariffs are going to straighten out the "bad trade deals," I've got some disappointing news for you. First of all, the countries which Trump is trying to levy the tariffs against are going to levy counter tariffs. Second, each car manufacturer, American and foreign, who sell cars in the US, build some of those cars in the US, import some of those cars to the US, and export some cars out of the US. Not one manufacturer is in favor of or un-impacted by the tariffs. Not one. So the price of a BMW X5 (built in South Carolina) may not go up, a Chrysler Pacifica (built in Canada) will.
But we could move production of all US sold cars to the US. It would create jobs!... for the small group of people to maintain the robots who will build the cars.
You're right though, we spent too much on auto infrastructure and now we can't afford to maintain it. We should have invested more in public transit.
People in the 1960's were tougher and didn't need to see a doctor every time they got a boo boo or they got the sniffles.
They also didn't live as long and we didn't have the medical knowledge we do today. Progress has that sort of impact. I'm sorry my 90+ year old grandparents haven't passed away yet from trying to tough it out and not go to the doctor, but I'm willing to pay the extra taxes to see that they stick around.
Also, add all the illegals that are walking across our borders and using our health services, but paying nothing into the system.
So let's create a process for them to become authorized migrants. When California started giving drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants, hit-and-run crashes decreased significantly. Unless you think the "entitlement generation" is going to start cleaning hotel rooms and picking berries in the hot desert sun... They might, but you're going to be paying more for hotels and food, because even the entry level job that pays $45,000/year and requires a masters degree pays better than picking berries.
CNN can have all these so called "experts" on, but they are nothing but liberal "experts twisting the numbers that satisfy their audience. I've watched some of these "experts" on CNN and I feel like I'm watching a bad skit on Saturday Night Live. You, my friend, are the one drinking the kool-aid. Your generation is so gullible and you believe everything the media tells you. The media is twisted these days. They twist stories to fit their agenda.
This whole thing reeks of Fox News.
"Video game violence is not a new problem. Who could forget in the wake of SimCity how children everywhere took up urban planning." - Stephen Colbert
I wasn't going to answer, but your ignorance is appalling.
OmahaOmaha wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 3:19 pmCars in the 1960's got horrible gas mileage, so you went through a lot more gas.
The world produces more than twice as much oil per day. ~35million gallons per day to now more than 80 million gallons per day. The United States' population has not even doubled since 1960. Not to mention the quantity of flights and plastics is vastly larger in 2018, which also comes from crude. Production costs also dropped because of economies of scale, which obviously wasn't taught at his school.
OmahaOmaha wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 3:19 pmI'm guessing if they built a car in 2018 where it only got 12 miles to the gallon, it only come with an AM/FM radio, and it didn't have power locks or power windows, you wouldn't buy it, even if it had a 1960's price.
Wrong. I drive a 1969 Corvette Stingray in addition to my Mazda daily driver. It gets better than 12 miles per gallon. The radio gets a handful of channels, but I need a new antenna for it, so they don't come in great. It has power windows (that barely work) but no power locks. Here's a pic (and yes, I blurred the background since this is a neighborhood).
OmahaOmaha wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 3:19 pmPeople in the 1960's were tougher and didn't need to see a doctor every time they got a boo boo or they got the sniffles.
This is not millennials going to the doctor - As bigredmed1 stated, 80% of medicare dollars are spent in the last month of life. Fact: After the first year of life, health care costs are lowest for children, rise slowly throughout adult life, and increase exponentially after age 50. Annual costs for the elderly are approximately four to five times those of people in their early teens. The oldest group (85+) consumes three times as much health care per person as those 65–74, and twice as much as those 75–84.
OmahaOmaha wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 3:19 pmCNN can have all these so called "experts" on, but they are nothing but liberal "experts twisting the numbers that satisfy their audience. I've watched some of these "experts" on CNN and I feel like I'm watching a bad skit on Saturday Night Live. You, my friend, are the one drinking the kool-aid. Your generation is so gullible and you believe everything the media tells you. The media is twisted these days. They twist stories to fit their agenda.
Why wouldn't you want the government to use its money to take care of the middle class instead of giving tax cuts to people who already hold more wealth than the rest of us combined? Why wouldn't you want a more efficient and effective healthcare system? Why wouldn't you want an educated workforce?
And the argument on immigration is idiotic. As a nation, you'd be stupid not to want people to come into your country and add to the workforce and economy. People are a type of capital necessary for economic success. Open your eyes. It is 2018 and the US has a LOT more competition than we ever had in the 20th century. With China being four times more populous than the US, I would hope we'd be doing everything we can to keep our population from slipping into the aging epidemic like Japan and Russia are facing today. And sorry Trump, you can tweet that you want Norweigan immigrants and not brown immigrants, but nobody from Norway wants to come across the pond when they are richer than us and have a higher standard of living.
