Who can tell me sth about the American Dream

[elSicomoro]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

But isn't that what it's ALWAYS required??

Probably...but folks tend to overlook the latter two.

[Clodfobble]

In our parents' generation, a young man of average intelligence with just a high school diploma could get a job in a factory, move up if he wanted, support his family and retire from that same job when he was 55. That, I would say, is what most of us see as the "American Dream." Was that socialism? Today, the factory jobs are in China, the average person changes jobs every few years and many of us probably won't get to retire until we're 70 (if then).

Ok wait. First of all, your statistics are way off. From the Employee Benefit Research Institute: "According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the period 1950–1955, the median age of retirement was 66.9 for men and 67.7 for women. By the period 1990–1995, it was 62.7 for men and 62.6 for women. The median retirement age is projected in to be 61.7 for men and 61.2 for women during 2000–2005."

Second of all, I agree that the average person nowadays does change jobs much more frequently than in the past. But that doesn't mean that it's more difficult to be successful or support your family in that type of economy. It just requires a different mindset. I have numerous friends of average intelligence who graduated high school 6-10 years ago and did not go to college. The ones who worked hard are very successful today. One of them has moved her way up from cashier to HR Administrator, in 6 years at the same grocery store. Her husband approached a small construction company and worked for a year for very little money on the understanding that he wanted to learn everything there was to learn--then he left to start his own contracting company, and now the two of them live in a house worth more than $300K. Neither one of them went to college, and neither one of them is a genius by any means. But they worked hard and took opportunities where they were.

[garnet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble
Ok wait. First of all, your statistics are way off. From the [URL=http://www.ebri.org/facts/0701fact.htm

Employee Benefit Research Institute[/url]: "According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the period 1950–1955, the median age of retirement was 66.9 for men and 67.7 for women. By the period 1990–1995, it was 62.7 for men and 62.6 for women. The median retirement age is projected in to be 61.7 for men and 61.2 for women during 2000–2005."

I'm not sure how old you are, but my parents did not retire in 1950-55....

Ok, I'll give you that I'm 5-6 years off. I might add that for the years you are quoting people get something called Social Security when they retire. My particular demographic will not retire for another 25-30 years. With the large number of baby boomers retiring shortly, will I ever see any of the money I've put into the system? Probably not. Will I most likely have to work longer than age 62 (the average age of today's retireee) because of this? yes, probably.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by garnet

Will I most likely have to work longer than age 62 (the average age of today's retireee) because of this? yes, probably.

not if you are doing what you are supposed to do and saving and investing for your retirement years. the people who didn't save and invest rarely get a comfortable retirement at any age, during any time period.

so on that note, what are you doing to prepare for your retirement?

[lookout123]

What segment of our society gives the least and takes the most? It is not the poor of our country, but the wealthy with their endless tax breaks and insider deals and their condos in Aspen and their expensive gas guzzeling cars and their exclusive gated communities.

what dollar amount did the people you are ranting against here pay into the tax coffers last year?

this is nothing but a rant against people who have what you don't. when there is talk of a tax system overhaul such as a flat tax that would cause the wealthy to pay more - who lobbies against it. it isn't the wealthy. it is the blue collar folks who are being advised by their labor organizations and their local politicians who are being paid by lobbiests for cpa and attorney groups that rally against it.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by lookout123

when there is talk of a tax system overhaul such as a flat tax that would cause the wealthy to pay more - who lobbies against it. it isn't the wealthy.

Nobody ever talks about a flat tax that would cause the wealthy to pay more. When a flat tax is talked about (in politics), it is pushed by the obscenely wealthy, like Forbes, because the way it would be formulated would drastically decrease their tax liability, and they wouldn't even have to cheat with accountants or donate to charity to do it.

Originally Posted by lookout123

what dollar amount did the people you are ranting against here pay into the tax coffers last year?

this is nothing but a rant against people who have what you don't. when there is talk of a tax system overhaul such as a flat tax that would cause the wealthy to pay more - who lobbies against it. it isn't the wealthy. it is the blue collar folks who are being advised by their labor organizations and their local politicians who are being paid by lobbiests for cpa and attorney groups that rally against it.

I can't give you the particular statistic you asked for, but I can give you the following:
Over the past three years, special interest groups pushed through Congress $2 trillion dollars in tax cuts – almost all tilted towards the wealthiest people in the country. These include:
Cuts in taxes on the largest incomes.
Cuts in taxes on investment income.
And cuts in taxes on huge inheritances.
More than half of the benefits are going to the wealthiest one percent.

Last May Congress approved new tax credits for children. Not for poor
children, however. But for families earning as much as $309,000 a
year—families that already enjoy significant benefits from earlier tax cuts.

My source for the above is the same one I cited earlier.

Your assertion that the blue collar worker has opposed attempts to set a flat rate tax in the past, if true, only goes to prove my point that we have all allowed ourselves to become brainwashed to all common sense and the reality of what's really happening in this country.

[garnet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

not if you are doing what you are supposed to do and saving and investing for your retirement years. the people who didn't save and invest rarely get a comfortable retirement at any age, during any time period.

so on that note, what are you doing to prepare for your retirement?

I put money from every paycheck into a 401k, just like I should. Is that the answer you're looking for? The money I put into Social Secuity will be spent by the time I retire. I'm not relying on it, trust me.

You seem to ignore the fact that people retiring today have their savings PLUS social security. My mom has a bit of savings, and gets something like $1,200 a month in SS. She's not hurting. Calculate that $1,200 into 2035 dollars and see how much that is that people my age won't be getting.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by garnet

Calculate that $1,200 into 2035 dollars and see how much that is that people my age won't be getting.

and that is ok. social security wasn't meant to last forever and it wasn't meant to pay as many people as it does for as long as it does.
they are going to have to raise the ss eligibility age to even give it a chance at surviving but good luck to the politician who puts his name on that bill.

I put money from every paycheck into a 401k, just like I should. Is that the answer you're looking for?

believe it or not - not every comment is intended to draw you into a fight. it was simply a question. your 401K and your Roth are the cornerstones of your retirement. if you are not taking full advantage of these options you are really missing the boat. yes, i understand that budget constraints do exist. but if at all possible everyone should fund these 2 items at least, even if only $25 monthly goes into the Roth to start. planning for your retirement is more about habit than it is dollar amounts.

[Clodfobble]

As an afterthought, garnet, I have a question: Why is it that a modern manager of a Jack-in-the-Box must drink himself into a stupor over the suckiness of his job, but a factory worker 50 years ago must have been doing a jig over the opportunity to grind steel all day?

[garnet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

As an afterthought, garnet, I have a question: Why is it that a modern manager of a Jack-in-the-Box must drink himself into a stupor over the suckiness of his job, but a factory worker 50 years ago must have been doing a jig over the opportunity to grind steel all day?

What happened to you? Such hostility.

[Clodfobble]

What happened to you? Such hostility.

Um, nothing happened to me. I didn't intend for that phrase to be read with any hostility at all. I guess I should use more emoticons. But it's a serious question--why do you see the modern grunt worker as "miserable" but the grunt worker from the past was satisfied? I'd be curious to see an inflation-adjusted comparison of their earnings, I bet they weren't too disparate.

[alphageek31337]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

What happened to you? Such hostility.

Um, nothing happened to me. I didn't intend for that phrase to be read with any hostility at all. I guess I should use more emoticons. But it's a serious question--why do you see the modern grunt worker as "miserable" but the grunt worker from the past was satisfied? I'd be curious to see an inflation-adjusted comparison of their earnings, I bet they weren't too disparate.

The grunt worker from the past is satisfied because he worked for a company that worked for him. I'm flipping through an old sociology text, and the phrase is Social Contract...it's what Henry Ford meant when he reasoned that his workers would buy his automobiles if he made sure they could afford them. It's what Ken Lay violated when he raped so many people of their retirement savings. It's the idea that someone can start working for a company in the mail room at 16 years old, stick with that same company all his life, and retire comfortably from a good position. It's a faith that the people you work for are looking out for your best interests, and not just how to squeeze every last drop of productivity out of you while paying you just enough to make sure that you can't get a better deal elsewhere. It's common fucking decency amongst employers, and it disappeared somewhere in the 80s.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

What happened to you? Such hostility.

Um, nothing happened to me. I didn't intend for that phrase to be read with any hostility at all. I guess I should use more emoticons. But it's a serious question--why do you see the modern grunt worker as "miserable" but the grunt worker from the past was satisfied? I'd be curious to see an inflation-adjusted comparison of their earnings, I bet they weren't too disparate.

My question to you is what makes you think that the grunt worker of the past was delirious with joy at the beginning of every new 10 hour work day? Ever read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair?

[echo]

oh.my God.I just want to learn sth more about the American Dream cause I am not an American ,and I often met this word when I read books on American culture or background.I didn't expect to bring about a debate or argument among you on such a topic.Anyway,thank you all very much,I like the atmosphere here