politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Social Security Insolvent in less than 10 years:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/05/insolvency-on-horizon-for-social-security-medicare-soon-expert-says.html
Ofcourse Social Security will never 'truly' be insolvent, legally speaking inflows will just divided to outflows. Payouts are already pretty low since CPI has been mucked with over the years.
Pensions are rare simply because union participation is down, and it saves a lot of money for businesses. As this article states that process started in 1980... when you know, millenials started being born:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/07/success/pensions-retirement-savings-explained/index.html
And finally, stats from the Federal Reserve itself: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/#quarter:135;series:Net%20worth;demographic:age;population:all;units:levels;range:2008.2,2023.2
As you can see, being under 40 kinda sucks, and the oldest millenials are about 43. Keep in mind that "millenial" is a bit subjective, the oldest "millenial" could be 38 as well.
The comment above isn't "bait", it's objective reality for many Americans.
No one in their right mind would argue that millennials are struggling. The way the average wage across the world has been driven down is abhorrent. Now show me how this is the fault of boomers.
This is what I wrote in another post:
Everything regarding boomers and wealth accumulation is nothing more than culture wars and a race to the bottom. The real enemy are those that have manipulated politics to allow them to abuse labour laws and taxes. We should not be looking at why some have did well in life, we should be looking at why some are not. It should not be a race to the bottom, it should be about getting more for for those who deserve it.
No one pushing these culture wars like to highlight just how tax systems have changed in the last 80 years.
All the while governments across the world have added loopholes to facilitate tax evasion on a massive scale.
Median earnings have gone up 2% in real terms since 1980. But the disparity between those who have and have not has changed in favour of the richest. The poorest are now much worse off than they have been since the 80s, and the richer are vastly richer.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/185369/median-hourly-earnings-of-wage-and-salary-workers/
Your problem is not with a Pseudo-generation, it is with the way the system runs. Everything is stacked against those without money.
Fun fact related to that bottom number, the one where the amount of wealth we own has remained more or less constant for decades: the amount of wealth we create has tripled since 1960, per capita, constant dollars.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NYGDPPCAPKDUSA
The model is only working for the few. The last 15 years has seen a tipping point where people are struggling as bad as the poor in the Victorian era. the worst of it is that they do not even feel guilty about it. Some want to double down even more.
Social security has been 10-15 years away from being insolvent for 80 years. It will always be 10-15 years away from being insolvent because of the way it's calculated.
When the CBO or whoever scores it they can predict certain things like the number of recipients, the size of their payments, and inflation. They aren't allowed to take into account things that Congress may (but definitely will) do in the future, like raising the cap on social security taxes roughly with inflation. It went up from $160200 in 2023 to $168600 in 2024. This is a rare bipartisan, uncontroversial thing. Congress almost always follows the SSA recommendation exactly.
It would be more accurate to say "if the social security cap stays at $168600 for 10 years, social security will be insolvent."
The people pushing this bullshit know it's bullshit. They do it to make people think they'll never get social security so they can get enough voters on board with killing it, like they've been trying to do for 88 years.
Don't fall for it.
I wish I could have put you a thousand times. In my opinion the cap shouldn't exist at all.
If you switch that last Fed graph to show the percentage of total wealth instead (which accounts for inflation), the under 40 category is actually at it's highest level since 2013. It looks like it hit all-time low around 2010 at 4.8% and has steadily increased since, at the expense of the 40-54 demo.
I wonder if agreeing to pay a bunch of tax money into the system and then hoping and praying the government would pay us back in a fair and well managed way was actually a good idea.
not when the system (whatever it may be) is not actually controlled by us