The 99 percent

ninky_2

Okay, so I'm far from being rightwing but I find this lot extraordinarily annoying.

http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/

Case 1: If you have loaded yourself up with debt doing some pointless degree that no one wants to hire, why get yourself up the duff with yet another future wageslave and expect other people's taxes to support that choice?

The welfare state is the best invention since the wheel but it should be for those disabled or impoverished through genetics or accidents / misfortune (i.e. not diet-induced diabetics), orphans and/or abandoned.

State-funded meritocratic scholarships are a bonus not a birthright - if you can't afford to pay for the future education of your child then don't have them.

And please don't moan about credit card debts whilst sporting a girth the size of one of the smaller American States.

Rant over.

MFSaver

Many people do not realise that it is common for your present job(s) to be completely unrelated to your degree.

Many people want rights, but not the responsibility that comes with those rights.

Many people have been told that their future will be bright, but are unwilling to work to earn that bright future.

Many people want to do a job they enjoy, but refuses to be paid what their job is worth. They are however willing for someone else to pay them top-level pay for doing that job.

Many people complain about not making enough money, but are unwilling to change their ways to make the money they want.

I could go on, but my lunch break is over. Everytime I hear people complain about not having enough, I recall this story published in my home country's newspaper a couple of years back: An illiterate Indian lady, widowed in her 20s, worked day and night to support her eight children and put them through university, some of them now working as lawyers and doctors. what an inspiration.

OptionARMAGEDDON

Those people need a jolly boot up the baby maker and given a box of fanny wipes.

An illiterate Indian lady, widowed in her 20s, worked day and night to support her eight children and put them through university, some of them now working as lawyers and doctors. what an inspiration.

If she had her pipes cut or practiced contraception after baby 2 she would have found it much easier.

MFSaver

OptionARMAGEDDON wrote: »

If she had her pipes cut or practiced contraception after baby 2 she would have found it much easier.

If it was a recent case, I am inclined to agree with you, but she was widowed in a third world country back in the 60s. I doubt that contraception was widely available or well-known back then.

Losing_the_way

The drop in spending power of that 99% is why the US is sliding into a new depression. The problems of China are even worse.

michaels

There is an economic theory - I thought it was my idea but it turns out someone else won a noble prize for it:

Increasing inequality of income (currently brought about by globalisation) results in a glut of savings as low earners spend all their income to live whereas the high earners earn so much they can not possibly spend it all; the high earners thus save more.

These extra savings drive down interest rates which should drive investment - instead, because of the conspicuos inequality of incomes and lifestyles, actually the low earners borrow to consume.

Borrowing to consume makes little economic sense even at low interest rates. The borrowed spending on consumption mostly returns to the high earners not the low earners and thus the cycle continues.

Of course such a cycle is unsustainable and leads to a credit bust when the low earners can no longer afford to carry on borrowing to finance their lifestyle.

This is what happened in the 20s and led to the 30s crash. The latest crash has seen a double wham-my effect - globalisation has not only led to income distribution becoming increasingly unequal, international mobility has also led to tax competition preventing govts from redressing some of the inequality via progressive taxation.

I think it is an elegant theory - I just wish I had had it first.

Losing_the_way

If you read some of the placards on the site you can see that many of the posters aren't eligible for benefits. Many have paid to get educated to a high level on the promise of a better future. What is wrong and immoral is that encouraging them to delay their entry into the jobs market was only a sick ploy. There must have been many in the States who knew full well that there would never any need or money to support this huge surge of graduates.

The real damage is about to become evident in the next few years. This is only the start, remember that all these debt laden graduates won't be able spend on things that would have created domestic employment.

We've seen the debt bubble now we can see the emergence of the socioeconomic bubble.

TruckerT

Losing_the_way wrote: »

The real damage is about to become evident in the next few years. This is only the start, remember that all these debt laden graduates won't be able spend on things that would have created domestic employment

Omigod, an unemployed intelligentsia...

TruckerT

leveller2911

I must remember not to give my 12 yr old son too much grief over his poor handwriting........

TruckerT

leveller2911 wrote: »

I must remember not to give my 12 yr old son too much grief over his poor handwriting........

Maybe a hammer or a sickle would be more useful than a pen

TruckerT

Herbie_Hancock_I_wish

One of my nephews ha a girl friend just started at university . She calculates a debt of £30,000 , however her degree is in textile design . Can`t see much of a future in that . One of my old customers was a B Tech college , training kids to become sound engineers . As someone who who recorded in many studios through the late 70`s and 80`s , all were owner/ driver studios . So I think that there are going to be a lot of kids hacked off that it is highly unlikely they will find a job in that field .