SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
American greatness was long premised on the common assumption was that each generation would do better than previous one. That is being undermined for the emerging millennial generation.
The problems facing millennials include an economy where job growth has been largely in service and part-time employment, producing lower incomes; the Census bureau estimates they earn, even with a full-time job, $2,000 less in real dollars than the same age group made in 1980. More millennials, notes a recent White House report, face far longer period of unemployment and suffer low rates of labor participation. More than 20 percent of people 18 to 34 live in poverty, up from 14 percent in 1980.
They are also saddled with ever more college debt, with around half of students borrowing for their education during the 2013-14 school year, up from around 30 percent in the mid-1990s. All this at a time when the returns on education seem to be dropping: A millennial with both a college degree and college debt, according to a recent analysis of Federal Reserve data, earns about the same as a boomer without a degree did at the same age.
[...] Like medieval serfs in pre-industrial Europe, America's new generation, particularly in its alpha cities, seems increasingly destined to spend their lives paying off their overlords, and having little to show for it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:38AM
That's bad enough, but apparently the Court-Fool-Acting-President is on board with deregulating everything from building codes to finance laws.
Those laws are part of what got us into this mess. I support Trump's efforts to get us out.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Weasley on Tuesday February 07 2017, @05:41AM
The president lacks the authority to turn the country into a libertarian utopia. He will accomplish little more than deregulating enough to ensure monopolies are maintained, and the rich get richer...just like every other high level politician.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @05:58AM
There's room for doubt, depending on how it turns out.
For example, a lot of the regulations that are currently in place actively support big incumbents, either by assuming their legitimacy or by acting as a barrier to new market entrants.
Case in point, the H1B thing. Mom and Pop aren't complaining, but AlphaGoogle and Microsoft are crying great, salty tears.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday February 07 2017, @07:02PM
There was a law that required financial advisers to act in their clients best interest (and e.g. not knowingly sell them bad mortgage debt as an investment).
Somehow I don't think repealing that benefited the little guy... [forbes.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Tuesday February 07 2017, @07:24AM
That is the libertarian goal. It's just the feeble-minded libertarians who haven't realized it yet.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:28PM
I'd say that's more the goal of right wing authoritarians that have poisoned the concept of libertarianism. I personally think the goals of a sort of individualism like civil libertarianism [wikipedia.org] are fairer and a more honest attempt at creating a utopia for the majority. I don't see how people who fight the tide in support of this can be described as feeble-minded. The feeble-minded are those that fall for the spin of the authoritarian status quo.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:40PM
No, it's not the libertarian goal, but it may well be the Libertarian goal. I haven't followed that party's platform in decades, so I not real sure.
That said, even the libertarian goal isn't workable in a society where you don't know most people you deal with. You need at least a minarchy with well enforced rules. And I happen to favor liberal social policies combined with conservative economic policies. Meaning those with power should be held more tightly to the rules than those lacking power. (Actually, I suspect I'm deluded in thinking of that as an actual conservative position, it probably more reflects my ignorance back when I was a child. I doubt it was ever really in practice.)
For conservative I mean someone who attempts to retain what the see as the good features of the current system. For libertarian I mean someone who proposes lightening some of the constraints imposed by the current systems. These two concepts are inherently at odds with each other, but they aren't directly opposed, and it's possible to support both. I just suspect that my conservatism is based on a deluded ideal of what the system was as I was growing up.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by migz on Tuesday February 07 2017, @07:58AM
Monopolies love regulation. That way they can keep competition out. If the government did not create regulations to keep competition out, how would the monopolies maintain their power?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:54AM
Patents.
I did something. This is my business model. Now, kind sirs, please pass law for me to tell that man down the street that he can't do it too.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:43PM
The clear answer here is that a patent *is* a monopoly and a regulation. The problem being pointed out is actually the selective removal of regulations.
Unfortunately, things are more complex than that. The unselective removal of regulations would also favor the powerful...though not as much as being able to select which regulations got removed.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:05PM
You can maintain monopoly using established market power - no regulation needed. How did you think 20s robber barons come about?
Regulation is not necessarily pro- nor anti-monopolies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @06:16PM
Monopolies love regulation.
Monopolies only love regulation they control. They don't like regulations that stop/break up monopolies. With no regulations, the biggest guy on the block wins the argument and the biggest guy is the monopoly.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:24PM
Uhhhh - wait a second. Which laws, exactly, got us into that mess? Glass-Steagall? Either you are joking, and doing a poor job of it, or you're 'bout dumb as a box of rocks. Glass-Steagall was passed IN RESPONSE TO the housing bubble crash. We crashed and burned because there was little regulation. Selling derivatives of bad mortgages never made sense to anyone, except idiots. The bankers couldn't wait to get rid of those most toxic "investments", so they committed fraud on various groups and people around the world, to get THEM to invest THEIR money, instead of the bank's own money.
Jesus - I certainly hope you're just a poor joke-maker.
(Score: 2) by goody on Tuesday February 07 2017, @09:20PM
Dodd-Frank was passed in response to the housing bubble crash. Glass-Steagall was what was repealed in 1999 prior to the housing bubble crash and contributed to it. But you're essentially right about the laws. Trump wants to repeal Dodd-Frank, which is repeating history all over again, and very stupid.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 08 2017, @01:08AM
Thank you for the correction - I get my own derp for that post, LOL.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08 2017, @01:30AM
Dodd-Frank has introduced so much make-work it might as well be called the Corporate Lawyer Full Employment Bill.
There are better ways of solving the problems at hand.
And besides, Trump doesn't get to repeal anything. It's not a power the president has.