OT: Hurricanes Lounge XLV: Y2K Twenty-Four Years Later

[hockeynjune]

Going to the game tonight. Hope I don’t get shot.

 

[Svechhammer]

And, all my Boomer friends paid back their student loans.

In 1975, the cost to go to UNC as an in-state student was $256 per year, and $1,800 out of state, with an additional $200 in fees attached to it. Adjusting for inflation, that's $1,500 in state, $10k out of state, with about $1k per year in fees.

The current cost of tuition at UNC is $7,000 for in state students and $40k for out of state students with an additional $1,700 tacked on in fees.

The average cost of a salary for a 4 year degree in 1980 was $15k, or about $57k in 2024 prices.
The average cost of a salary for a 4 year degree in 2024 is $43k.

The inflation corrected salaries for college graduates has actually fallen since the Boomers graduated while tuition for that degree has spiked 4x. So I don't really care that the Boomer generation paid back their debts. You have no idea what kids nowadays have to deal with. Their textbooks cost more than your education did.

 

[MinJaBen]

The conservative/anti-government politicians have for decades been doing this:

And a major note on this — the public sector is currently making the same changes, one institution at a time. For example, State of NC is gradually eliminating pensions in favor of a version of 401K matching.

The whole argument for going into the public sector used to be, you’ll make less money but the benefits partially make up for it in time, so it makes sense to commit and be a 30-year teacher or cop or whatever. That dynamic is being chipped away, one benefit at a time, to a point where there will soon be no incentive at all to take those jobs, and especially no incentive to make a career of them. This will be especially the case in sectors like public education which are explicit targets for de-funding and dismantlement.

The effect of this shift is enormous and will have multi-generational impacts on the economy and quality of life. Not simply that the institutions themselves are crumbling, but also that an entire sector of the workforce will shift out of stable, career-oriented, retirement-motivated long term employment. Everyone likes to complain about public workers but we are choosing to hurtle toward a reality where there will be no incentive at all to be a teacher or cop or social worker — and therefore the people in those jobs will be taking them as a last resort before unemployment. And anyone remaining in those roles long-term will be wildly behind the curve for retirement. Which means they’ll be a whole new class of people living hand-to-mouth on dwindling social security checks.

We’re talking about a big portion of the population here… over 13% of the workforce, with public education being the largest sector of the workforce by a huge margin. This is a catastrophe that’s just kind of festering under our noses because it’s happening in super-slow-mo, one policy update at a time.

So they can sow distrust in education and other government programs so their voters will believe their lies and do this:

I live amongst it and see the commentary and complaining about assistance, services ( or lack there of) on the daily and am often left aghast at the level of ignorance by some of these folks who probably are going to learn a hard lesson soon. I know people vote for all kinds of reasons but some of the cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics to validate the recent choice has been kind of soul crushing to me.

If this is true..I guess the FAFO phase has started early:

It is a long game that has really worked well for them. They now have a bi-polar population of voters: one larger poll of the mostly less educated and paycheck-to-paycheck that can be persuaded into voting against their own self interest through lies, and the much smaller population of voters that runs for political office or finances those running and gains from their policies.

Meanwhile, the centrists have had to make nice with the leftists, but can't always keep their coalition together and thus lose elections like in 2010, which became pivotal due to the adjustments to districts the 10 year census demands.

And if Project 2025 is fulfilled through legislation in a fully Republican government, it will only get worse.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

Frankly, if even half the things from Project 2025 are implemented, it's going to be disastrous for most Americans. Though if the other side wanted to sway voters, they should have hammered the "Ban pornography" portion of it. I'm sure that would have changed some alliagences

 

[tarheelhockey]

To paraphrase @Boom Boom Apathy this is absolute bullshit. Okay, I guess not paraphrase, merely to quote.

Obviously every demographic is diverse with a range of beliefs and behaviors, and it’s unfair to just sweepingly say “you did this” to a generation.

But the source of the issue is the demographic bubble that literally defines the Boomers as a generation. This was their lifetime project to be concerned with, especially since they have had overwhelming political influence for most of their lives. The last time the solvency issue was addressed was in 1983, when a different generation was in power. To get to 2024 and have taken exactly zero action on it is worthy of scorn from the people who will have to live with the consequences.

And, all my Boomer friends paid back their student loans. The billions and billions of dollars being steered toward student loan forgiveness could have either been used to cut the deficit, implement favorable programs, or help shore up social security and medicare. So cry me a f***ing river.....

The total amount of federal loan forgiveness is $175 billion. The SS shortfall is $100 billion for this year alone. Yes you could take that $175M and cover social security for this and part of next year, but then what? SS is going to need many trillions of dollars to fix, and that’s not going to come from the logic of redirecting funds — it’s going to come from either reducing the benefits which we are owed from our investment in the program, or by raising taxes.

A big part of the problem is that benefit reduction won’t actually solve the solvency problem, just delay it by slowing down the erosion of the trust fund. In the long run, a full solution really has to involve raising taxes. But politically tax increases won’t fly in present-day America, especially not payroll tax increases which the Republicans will step in front of a train to prevent. So the insolvency issue will get worse, even in a best case scenario, because we don’t have the political will to save the system. That’s fine if you’re 65 right now, because stopgap measures will carry you through to the grave. If you’re under 40, you’re really screwed by this. You are paying 6.2% of every paycheck to fund someone else’s retirement. Again it’s very hard to ask a Millennial not to feel resentment toward the Boomers over this, as one group is very clearly profiting at the expense of the other.

Regarding loan forgiveness — that $175B (a small remainder of the original plan which was shot down by the Supreme Court) is for people who were scammed or screwed over by shady schools, who are on total permanent disability, or who have been in public service fields for a long time while making consistent payments. In other words, it’s a safety net for people who have no path to pay off mounting long-term interest even after they’ve paid back the original principal of the loan. This is one way that they’re trying to plug the holes and prevent workers from leaving public service (see discussion upthread), veterans ending up homeless, and other systematic failures that cannot be directly addressed because Congress keeps making things worse instead of better.

 

[hockeynjune]

Frankly, if even half the things from Project 2025 are implemented, it's going to be disastrous for most Americans. Though if the other side wanted to sway voters, they should have hammered the "Ban pornography" portion of it. I'm sure that would have changed some alliagences

I don’t think enough people read that. They will start that operation day one.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Obviously every demographic is diverse with a range of beliefs and behaviors, and it’s unfair to just sweepingly say “you did this” to a generation.

But the source of the issue is the demographic bubble that literally defines the Boomers as a generation. This was their lifetime project to be concerned with, especially since they have had overwhelming political influence for most of their lives. The last time the solvency issue was addressed was in 1983, when a different generation was in power. To get to 2024 and have taken exactly zero action on it is worthy of scorn from the people who will have to live with the consequences.

% added to the national debt by president.

791%. FDR
789%: Wilson
161%: Reagan
73%: GW Bush - Year 1 of a baby boomer, born 1946
64%: Obama - Baby Boomer
42%: GHW Bush
34%: Nixon
33%: Trump - Year 1 of a baby boomer, born 1946
29%: Carter

3 of them are baby boomers, and 2 of them, just barely by 1 year. To blame baby boomers for a problem that started long before they were "in power" and continued on (and will continue on), is ridiculous. In fact, many of the people in power during this stretch, like Nancy Pelosi, Newt Gingrich, Mitch McConnell, etc.. are not even baby boomers. The ONLY president since LBJ to have a balanced budget was a baby boomer, Bill Clinton.

I have no issue blaming politicians for not addressing the issue. That's 100% fair and I fully agree with you, but to blame a particular segment of the population as a whole is absurd, especially when that population paid the vast majority of federal taxes over that stretch. Even today, baby boomers still pay 51% of federal taxes and Millenials pay about 7-8%.

A big part of the problem is that benefit reduction won’t actually solve the solvency problem, just delay it by slowing down the erosion of the trust fund. In the long run, a full solution really has to involve raising taxes. But politically tax increases won’t fly in present-day America, especially not payroll tax increases which the Republicans will step in front of a train to prevent. So the insolvency issue will get worse, even in a best case scenario, because we don’t have the political will to save the system.

100% agree. Doing the right thing = getting voted out of office next time so they continue to kick the can down the road.

That’s fine if you’re 65 right now, because stopgap measures will carry you through to the grave. If you’re under 40, you’re really screwed by this. You are paying 6.2% of every paycheck to fund someone else’s retirement. Again it’s very hard to ask a Millennial not to feel resentment toward the Boomers over this, as one group is very clearly profiting at the expense of the other.

That view is very misguided because that 65 year old funded their own retirement. They aren't "profiting" at someone else's expense.

For example, a husband and wife that had good jobs for 35-40 years and are now 65 years old, will have contributed about $400,000 to social security (6.2% from them, 6.2% from their employer). What you are suggesting is that that couple is somehow now being "funded" by someone else just because the government mismanaged money. And because the government mismanaged the money, they should be punished so a millennial doesn't have to contribute to social security?

As I mentioned in a post a day or two ago, if the Government had just given me the 12.4% (6.2% from me, 6.2% from my employer) for me to invest, I'd have 30-40% more than what I will ever get out of Social Security when I turn 67. The fact that the government doesn't know how to manage money isn't the fault of a person who is 65. Having resentment towards them is no different than blaming a poor person for being poor and having to be on welfare. Or, in your example, a person needing student loan forgiveness that others' tax dollars would be funding.

The fact of the matter is, we all pay taxes that fund things that don't pertain to us or that we may not benefit from. Whether it be social security, student loan forgiveness, medicaid, welfare, FEMA, Education, subsidies, etc.. Picking one of those out and blaming a demographic for

 

[NotOpie]

True, but in fairness, the government was instrumental in creating the student loan problem, which most people fail to recognize.

Agree 100%. And it got worse when the Obama administration led a takeover of the federally guaranteed student loan program, essentially having the government administer the program. It was sold as cutting out the "middleman", but in reality, it created an additional bureaucracy. As a "side benefit" it allowed the payments and interest to be booked as "revenues" which masked additional deficits.

The student loan program (as well as the calls from Congress and the White House over the last few decades that "everybody deserves/needs a college education) is the single largest factor leading to inflation of college tuition and associated costs.

I know a bit about this as I've been on the business side of higher education for over 30 years (meaning I sell services and technology to colleges and universities).

Today:
Tuition/Room+Board: $33,123

Again, you're absolutely correct. However, I would point out that there are other paths (especially in NC) besides the more expensive private college path or college in some of the more expensive states. In state residents of NC would pay $7,516 for tuition and fees and about $11,541 for room and board (total of $19,057). Or even more affordably, students could go to community college for their 1st 2 years, get an associate's degree, graduate with something like a 2.0 and they are guaranteed acceptance into almost any of the 16 4-year UNC system institutions. For example Wake Tech costs $1,775 a semester (15 credit hours) tuition and fees. Virginia and Pennsylvania have similar articulation agreements with their community college systems (albeit with higher tuition costs).

Now we have it especially good here in NC when it comes to cost of higher education. My point is that there are a number of paths to get the degree, some of which do not require being buried in debt. But as I said, the government itself is the prime instigator of the inflation in the cost of a college education.

You have no idea what kids nowadays have to deal with. Their textbooks cost more than your education did.

Context is everything. You're point that I was responding to was essentially, "....Boomers are selfish shits who don't care about the generations that follow". As BBA pointed out, not only did Boomers care, they were instrumental in shepherding through extensive social change and implementation of caring, supportive social programs.

That is the context of pointing out that each and every generation has responsibility for various successes and failures. If not for Boomers many of the technological advances don't happen either (okay, not all of those are wins ).

Finally, I have 5 kids in my family, 2 of which completed college. I scrimped and saved so that I could put any that wanted to go to college, through college. My parents did the same with the caveat that if you f*** up, you're on your own. Well, I got kicked out of college my freshman year and ended up paying for my college education....and yes, I had student loans. And yes, i realize that back in the stone age when I went to school college was more affordable.

So yes, I know exactly what "kids these days" are going through and/or have gone through. No doubt about it, their lives are significantly more complex and likely stressful.

I was using student loans as an example. But the student loan forgiveness/curing cancer narrative is ridiculous on its face. Comparing government forgiveness of an obligation of a portion of society to something that all of society benefits from is nonsensical. The government funds the National Center for Cancer Research to the tune of about $7.2 billion. As Tarheel pointed out, student loan forgiveness to date costs the taxpayer over $175 million. One benefits all of society, one doesn't.

Regardless, we will never see eye to eye on this so, I'll move on.

 

[DaveG]

100% agree. Doing the right thing = getting voted out of office next time so they continue to kick the can down the road.

Yep the last time that someone tried to do something about it was Bush after re-election in 2004. And the Republicans got absolutely DECIMATED as a result of a proposal that would have helped a LOT. Loss of 6 senate seats, 6 governorships, 31 house seats, and all that was BEFORE the 2008 crash.

 

[Derailed75]

I don’t think enough people read that. They will start that operation day one.

Im wondering which tinfoil hat wearing Youtube media guy you are getting this from.

Heres some quotes from Trump about Project2025

"I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them."


"I have nothing to do with Project 2025," he said. "I haven't read it. I don't want to read it, purposely. I'm not going to read it."
In response to Dans' exit from Project 2025, Trump's campaign said the initiative "had nothing to do with the campaign, did not speak for the campaign, and should not be associated with the campaign or the president in any way."

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

On a side note @NotOpie , I'm still a few years away from even being able to take SS at 62, but every time I do the math, I don't see why anyone would take it at 67 or 70. If I took it at 62 and ignored any investment I could get by investing that money and compared that to taking it at 67, it would take until age 83 before taking it at 67 would be more beneficial (in total) than taking it at 62. Online, it always says about 79 years old, but I see 83 in my spreadsheet.

Even by age 90, the total amount paid over that entire timeframe by taking it at 67 would only be 8% higher.

Have you done this analysis? If so, does it show something similar?

 

[hockeynjune]

Im wondering which tinfoil hat wearing Youtube media guy you are getting this from.

Heres some quotes from Trump about Project2025

"I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them."


"I have nothing to do with Project 2025," he said. "I haven't read it. I don't want to read it, purposely. I'm not going to read it."
In response to Dans' exit from Project 2025, Trump's campaign said the initiative "had nothing to do with the campaign, did not speak for the campaign, and should not be associated with the campaign or the president in any way."

Stay tuned

 

[MinJaBen]

Im wondering which tinfoil hat wearing Youtube media guy you are getting this from.

Heres some quotes from Trump about Project2025

"I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them."


"I have nothing to do with Project 2025," he said. "I haven't read it. I don't want to read it, purposely. I'm not going to read it."
In response to Dans' exit from Project 2025, Trump's campaign said the initiative "had nothing to do with the campaign, did not speak for the campaign, and should not be associated with the campaign or the president in any way."

There are plenty of situations where he has outright lied About things he’s said on camera, so I am not sure this the proof you think it is.

 

[Derailed75]

Stay tuned

Look, hes already been in office. During his first tenure he did not raid schools and deport every Hispanic he found, he did not crash the economy, he did not destroy the Constitution and make himself a dictator, he did however have the economy humming along pretty well until Covid.

Basically, he was a loudmouth blowhard on social media, and his image sucked because of it. He ended up be a decent President, nothing special. He was nothing close to the monster the media made him out to be, and certainly not worth all the celebrity tears he has caused the last 2 days.

There are plenty of situations where he has outright lied About things he’s said on camera, so I am not sure this the proof you think it is.

And thats different from all other politicians how?

 

[hockeynjune]

Look, hes already been in office. During his first tenure he did not raid schools and deport every Hispanic he found, he did not crash the economy, he did not destroy the Constitution and make himself a dictator, he did however have the economy humming along pretty well until Covid.

Basically, he was a loudmouth blowhard on social media, and his image sucked because of it. He ended up be a decent President, nothing special. He was nothing close to the monster the media made him out to be, and certainly not worth all the celebrity tears he has caused the last 2 days.


And thats different from all other politicians how?

I’m not going to argue with you on this. I will end with this. He has tools and resources he did not have last time.

 

[Derailed75]

I’m not going to argue with you on this. I will end with this. He has tools and resources he did not have last time.

Yeah we are pushing it and going to get deleted or banned.

Have a good one.

Go Canes!

 

[Blueline Bomber]

I think it’s quite possible that Trump had never heard of Project 2025. He doesn’t seem to have a firm grasp about much of his policies (the tariff plan, for example)

But I know his VP choice played a big part in getting 2025 off the ground. I know that the founders of the project have stated that he is intimately involved in getting it up and running.

The only reason his campaign distanced themselves from the Project is because it was all out in the open for anyone to read and anyone who DID read it realized what a terrible idea it is to implement.

Now I guess we’ll see if voters are going to get what they voted for.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Sounds like they made an arrest in the car shooting incidents in Raleigh/Cary.

 

[MinJaBen]

And thats different from all other politicians how?

You were not quoting all other politicians, that is what is relevant. And you were quoting him to refute someone else’s comments as some sort of proof, that is what is different.

 

[tarheelhockey]

% added to the national debt by president.

791%. FDR
789%: Wilson
161%: Reagan
73%: GW Bush - Year 1 of a baby boomer, born 1946
64%: Obama - Baby Boomer
42%: GHW Bush
34%: Nixon
33%: Trump - Year 1 of a baby boomer, born 1946
29%: Carter

3 of them are baby boomers, and 2 of them, just barely by 1 year. To blame baby boomers for a problem that started long before they were "in power" and continued on (and will continue on), is ridiculous. In fact, many of the people in power during this stretch, like Nancy Pelosi, Newt Gingrich, Mitch McConnell, etc.. are not even baby boomers. The ONLY president since LBJ to have a balanced budget was a baby boomer, Bill Clinton.

So give the Boomers their laurels on balanced budget and debt reduction. I don’t see where anyone criticized them on those topics (though granted there has been some back-and-forth that I haven’t read in this thread)

I have no issue blaming politicians for not addressing the issue. That's 100% fair and I fully agree with you, but to blame a particular segment of the population as a whole is absurd, especially when that population paid the vast majority of federal taxes over that stretch. Even today, baby boomers still pay 51% of federal taxes and Millenials pay about 7-8%.

That’s why I led with “it’s unfair to just sweepingly say “you did this” to a generation”.

But there’s also just the simple reality behind why Boomers are paying half of federal taxes — they’re the baby boom, the largest generation of native born Americans, and are also now holding the greatest share of wealth (52%, so their tax burden is disproportionately low in that respect). They should be paying the largest share of taxes, otherwise our tax pyramid would be upside down!

100% agree. Doing the right thing = getting voted out of office next time so they continue to kick the can down the road.

Yep. The problem is that we want to blame politicians, but politicians are doing what people (meaning not just voters, but also lobbyists and donors) tell them to do. It’s not like 100 people sat down in Washington and cooked up a bad plan. It’s that 100 people in Washington do bad things because America as a whole wants them to do bad things. It’s becoming clear that politicians are just a face for a problem that goes down into our roots.

That view is very misguided because that 65 year old funded their own retirement. They aren't "profiting" at someone else's expense.

For example, a husband and wife that had good jobs for 35-40 years and are now 65 years old, will have contributed about $400,000 to social security (6.2% from them, 6.2% from their employer). What you are suggesting is that that couple is somehow now being "funded" by someone else just because the government mismanaged money. And because the government mismanaged the money, they should be punished so a millennial doesn't have to contribute to social security?

To the first paragraph — they did literally fund their own retirement. The problem is that, generationally, they haven’t taken any responsibility for maintaining the system itself. After the last solvency crisis in ‘83, the leadership of the prior generation raised taxes and reduced benefits so that a massive trust fund built up to finance the Boomers’ retirement 3-4 decades later. Rather than make similar adjustments on behalf of the upcoming generations, the following 40 years have consisted of simply spending the trust fund down. Is this the fault of any particular Boomer, or solely the fault of Boomers to the exclusion of anyone else? Of course not. But it’s just a reality that this problem centers around the Boomers and they have as a cohort spent their lives exercising their political will to prevent themselves from bearing any burden in preventing the collapse of the system.

To the bolded — huh? Who’s suggesting that Millennials shouldn’t have to contribute? The question is how do we save the system so Millennials aren’t just throwing their money down a hole and never getting it back?

Or, in your example, a person needing student loan forgiveness that others' tax dollars would be funding.

To be clear though, little actual money is being spent on loan forgiveness. What’s left of that program is mainly aimed at stopping the compounding of interest on loans which have been already been paid back in principal. It’s a matter of stopping people from paying compound interest for decades — not a government expenditure but a cutoff of income from a lending practice which was not a major issue until the cost of education rose. That cutoff will of course reduce the amount of tax dollars available, but that is not the same thing as spending tax money.

The rest goes toward negating loans which which were taken as a result of fraud (in other words, loans which should never have existed in the first place) and toward benefits for teachers, veterans, and the totally/permanently disabled. Yes, dollars go into the pockets of those people but things like veterans benefits and restitution to fraud victims should not be politically controversial.

 

[skipnjump]

Sounds like they made an arrest in the car shooting incidents in Raleigh/Cary.

I'm watching local coverage right now

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

Most who “hate” socialism couldn’t define it correctly.

Most of its biggest supporters probably can’t either lol.