Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dennis Andress

What if you were 20 something in today's world?

Recommended Posts

Dennis Andress

I grew up in the sixties and seventies. I think the first thing I remember of television was Kennedy's funeral. I joined the Air Force a year after Vietnam ended. Nam, Kent State, student riots, and the cold war shaped my generation, shaped my values too. Trying times, yet we we went to the moon.

 

What if you were fresh out of school and faced with today's world: national debt, housing beyond reach, a much narrower range of in demand employment skills.

The arms race of the cold war sucked, but we stuck it out and ended it. Try doing that with the debt.

Housing costs will likely be forever driven by population density.

All those manufacturing jobs that once fueled the economy are not coming back.

And space is the forgotten frontier...

 

What would your values be? Better yet, what would form your values?

Would you be bitter at those older than you who you perceive as having it better? (We surmounted our problems, no one is even working on fixing today's)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
szurszewski

Google the SNL skit “Millenial Millions”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrduck

If I could be 20 again,and know what I know now,............

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
elkroeger

Of course I wasn't there, but my grandparents were young adults, or children during the depression.  They seemed to be able to buy their houses and raise a family on one income.  But Grandma (both of them) did a LOT of bartering, and selling goods and services out of the house.  Nobody spent money on a washer/dryer, dishwasher, motorcycles, cable (or even a TV!), cell phones, riding mower, sprinkler system, central air...  There was one car for the whole family.  It was 2wd, topped out around 60, froze up at 32 degrees, and didn't budge in the winter unless you had chains.  No airbags, seatbelts, padded dash, crumple zones or collapsible steering wheel.  Grandma walked a mile each way, to catch the bus once a week to fetch groceries (cart in tow).  Family "pets" included chickens, goats, ducks, cows, sheep, etc. that were bred to make more, and eventually turned up on the dinner table.  All the kids were born in the back bedroom, and there was inadequate healthcare (even when they could afford it), so relatively simple stuff would kill you.  There's probably still some extensive cabinetry in the cellar - made from scavenged orange crates, and used to store home-canned goods from the garden.  Same goes for the screen door - made from scrap wood, by Grampa himself.  Until the day he died, my Grampa would say everything that really NEEDED saying over the phone, and hang up inside of 30 seconds (remember when you paid through the nose for long distance?).  Speaking of phones, you had to sit within a 5 foot circle in the kitchen, and check that one of your 5 neighbors wasn't already using the line.

 

I recall that my great aunt lived by herself in a one-bedroom house built by her husband, and at the age of 90, she would hop up and shove a bunch of wood in the stove so she could offer you some tea. 

 

I had it easy.  I just had to walk 5 miles uphill both ways barefoot in the snow to go to school.  And I was happy to be there!  (Mostly because it was cold out, and if I didn't make it my old man would take me out behind the woodpile.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill_Walker

My values if I were 20 now would be what they are now at 60: Capitalism has been allowed to run amok and screw over the people and the environment.  It desperately needs to be re-regulated.  We need some good old-fashioned Teddy Roosevelt-style trust-busting, because corporations that are too big have too much influence over government, which is supposed to work for US.  We need to get money out of politics.  Money is not speech, and corporations are not people.

 

Dennis, you neglected to mention climate change as one of the issues.  Never mind 20, how about 16?  Teen activist's strong words for world leaders at Davos

 

World "leaders" should be expecting young citizens with pitchforks.  And they'll deserve what they get.

  • Like 4
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RightSpin

If I were 20 right now, I'd be shaking my head at the "advice" and "doom and gloom" all these geezers are trying to sell me.  We should never be telling our young folks that they can't do something, or that opportunity is not within their reach.  Personally, I'd bristle at most of the comments above...much like I did thirty years ago, and go do my own thing in spite of them.  Our kids will be just fine.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patallaire

If I were 20 again I would want to know what path to take to get on the Capitalist train.  Why fight something that has momentum and if you catch it can propel you upwards.  I would also tell my 20 year old self to save much more money then they think they can or need.  Compounding works best when time is your friend.  I would also suggest that reading is fundamental to growth.  Read a lot, it is the only way to expand your mind.  I would also suggest that setting goals and measuring yourself against those goals creates discipline.  That discipline will help when Life takes an unexpected twist. 

I am positive that we can all pontificate on many should have/could have/would have.  It is the fundamentals that build character. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
realshelby

My Son is a 20 something. Seems easy to say he has it easier than I did. But I don't think that is true. When in school I worried about being drafted. Worried about the Russians dropping the A bomb on us. Worried about running out of gasoline and oil ( remember the early 70's),  didn't go to college because I needed to go to work to get out of where I grew up......

 

There is still plenty to worry about as far as wars. Sorry, conflicts. Terrorism is a real thing, once you have lived through 9/11 and what followed. The social/peer pressure that I thought was bad in my younger days is MANY times worse today. And it doesn't seem to get better once you leave school. College? Yes, he went but has not finished. Has quite a good job that has what should be a good future. He is lucky, for most cannot begin to hope to work at a job that pays what I was making in my 20's ( take into account the difference in time ). Nor can most hope to retire from one or two companies they have worked for many years. There are no more retirement pensions. What few companies that offer Health Care also take a good chunk of money from you to subsidize it. So there are many that go without insurance. They are young, what could possibly happen? I know he worries about global warming, I think he is going to see that the forecasts of it are true. Politics? They all think there is no hope. All politicians are bought and paid for. Only interested in supporting the corporation or church they are funded by.  

 

His friends come over. I listen to what they talk about. Very little talk about getting married ( he is 26 ) among any of them. They don't want marriage and children, and the reason may come as a shock. They don't want to worry about trying to support them. Try buying some land and or a home with the income they average. 

 

If I were 20 something today I would do pretty much what I did in my 20's. Find a job that paid well. Travel to it if required. Put money in the bank every paycheck. Live below your means. That eliminates half of what people worry about just by doing that!

 

I do think this generation may not equal what my generation done as far as material gains. But I hope they can hold the United States of America together better than how it is operating now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeB60

I was not that insightful in my 20s.  My worries included money for tires, gas, beer, and women.  Oh yeah, trying to make it to formation on time to avoid the wrath of my team and squad leader then once I got promoted to NCO,  making sure my guys were squared away so I didn't suffer the wrath of the platoon sergeant and first sergeant.  Once I got married at 25, we had just enough to get by from paycheck to paycheck.  Don't suspect that would be much different now it I chose the same path.    

Cant afford housing, move to Alabama.  Ive got a home with 2500sf on a acre that was just under 200k.   We even have a few manufacturing jobs thanks to Mercedes, Hyundai, Airbus, Toyota, Honda, and their suppliers.  They still build boats and ships in Mobile.  Tech jobs aplenty in Huntsville. I also hear that playing football for the University of Alabama football team pays well and they will move your family from Hawaii to Alabaster! 

 

The environment, at least in the United States is better that it was in my 20s for sure.  In the 60s Nashville was shrouded in a grey haze and the Cumberland River was a flowing cesspool.  Fairly certain the fish in the local lakes would glow in the dark.  We used to change the oil in our bikes at the quarter car wash and just dumped it down the drain.  No oil skimmers at the wash rack, we used dry cleaning solvent to break down the grease and oil on our vehicles and dumped the residue in the storm sewer.  DoD recycles everything now and will hold Soldiers personally libel for negligence (although Ive never seen that happen) when it comes to environmental compliance.   Are there still issues?  Yep but we have made some progress.     

 

The federal government is a complete train wreck, when I was 20 at least there was some token effort to get things done, unlike today were the parties are so polarized nothing happens. 

 

Times change, not sure its complete doom and gloom for today's 20 somethings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patallaire
15 hours ago, Bill_Walker said:

: Capitalism has been allowed to run amok and screw over the people and the environment.  It desperately needs to be re-regulated.  

 

 

Capitalism is actually an economic way of life, it is about the creation and distribution of economic goods and services. not about moral or social outcomes. It becomes a social system because it fosters the interaction of humans on many levels.

The morality manifests itself through these voluntary interactions. People, like you, buy, sell and invest create as they chose, no government should deem these interactions as mandates. The decisions to participate are the consumers and theirs alone.

The entire premise is based on a rule of law, not commands.  This rule requires some modicum of honesty with each other to continue.  When you bought your motorcycles, for example, you agreed to the price, the value, the level of service you would engage in with the vendor, the quality of their product, all choices made by you.  The vendor agreed to those services as well as what profit margin he needed to agree to that transaction.  That is Capitalism.  It doesn't promise to enrich everyone, while it actually does, but it promises to boost economic productivity, which in your motorcycle purchases, as an example it has done.  Production people made the bike, salaries were earned, sales tax was paid, clothing bought, service people continued to sell parts and services,  sales people became enriched, restaurant owners, hotel owners, oil producers, gasoline producers, etc.,   all capitalized as a result of Capitalism and as a result of your transaction. Capitalism doesn't guarantee any result, so when people create wealth as a result of their participation in a Capitalist leaning society it is because they took the risk to get there,  not because they were given anything.  Socialism promotes that the rich give up wealth to support those who don't have wealth.  That hasn't worked anywhere, look at Venezuela, Cuba, Russia etc. .  Some are better at it than others, celebrate your freedoms, celebrate your choices and celebrate that you are an active participant.   

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TEWKS

Phil has a pretty good way of explaining it. :thumbsup: Oh yeah, he has one on the wall also.:whistle:

 

Pat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skywagon

I graduated college in the 70's.  I had a ton of school debt for the time.  Got a job at a fortune 10.  Total outgo of student loans, rent, car payment, etc...greater than income. Everyone who sent me a credit card then I used to the max. I had a job better than most of my friends. Vietnam called...then they said never mind   A year afterwards my future wife graduated and we got married.  Our combined income had us slightly in the more income than outgo....  Two years later we tried to buy our first starter track home...It was a mere 18% mortgage at the time.  We struggled, we worked hard, we paid all debt in full.  It took 7 years to pay off my student loans.

 

We made a pledge...when the debt is over...and it did end...if we can't pay cash, we won't buy it.  We drove the wheels off our cars, took cheap and small vacations, and we were very happy.  Of course over the years our income grew substantially but we never ever lived above our means...still don't and we could live far far in excess of what we do.

 

Morals wise... I would hope they would be the same.  Respect for people, authority, family, friends, THE FLAG, etc.  Proud for my country, frustrated by taxes, frustrated by partisan views, etc.

 

Work hard, be morally grounded, be kind, help those who need help because you choose to.  Be a role model for youth.  Hold them to high standards and don't give time outs when naughty.  

 

Silly me...I think I would be the same and do it all the same way again....  not on board at all with the entitlement systems...everyone's rights should receive (insert your favorite) paid for by a few, consumed by many..  Capitalism Good....Income leveling and entitlement bad.  I grew up dirt poor and now I am not..not because someone entitled me.  No participation trophies.  Rant over.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul De

Hmm, if I were 20 now, I guess my values would be the same today as then.  I'd be wondering where all the hot women were hanging out and be off to the chase.  The rest I'd sort out as need be and 40 years from now be about in the same place I am today.  Save for maybe a future pandemic unthinkable in the 1970's that takes out 1/3 of the global population and spoils all my plans!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dennis Andress

The is 20 something me:

Ya'll did work hard and made the best of it you could, For me, the debt and the cost of entitlements will always be here, soaking away my reward for working hard. I think I'll vote for the politician promising the most money instead.

 

... and while I'm here

Lighten up Bill, that attitude isn't helping.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Red

Values are formed primarily from your parents and school mates.  So right there, as a hypothetical 20 something, I'm going to be way different.  I'm 66, so today's 20's grew up raised by the generation that my generation raised.  May the supreme being help us!  While some things are different, many are the same.  We lived with income inequality but nobody talked about it until Johnson's war on poverty.  So that issue and value is the same.  The rising post war economy was raising most boats and our economic futures looked bright.  That's mostly different today.  Today's 20's are the first generation since the depression that are staring an an economic situation that may be equal or less than their parents.  Having said that, my parents generation abhored debt.  My generation less so.  We took on some debt, but still lived below our means and largely 'saved up' for amenities.  Our parents taught us to shun handouts.  The 20's are all about debt.  For them it's about how-much-per-month not what will something cost.  they don't seem to see value in going without some things to create an economic cushion.  That makes their safety net nearly non existent.  Many 20's feel it is the government's job to provide their safety net since they 'can't'.  I'm sure that creates some sense of vulnerability and insecurity that perhaps my generation did not have.   My generation recognized the previous generation unwitting disregard for the environment and many made an effort to make things better.  On that front, nothing has changed.  My material generation leaves an even more challenging environmental situation to fix.  So, fixing the environmental choices of the past seems to be a continuing value.   My generation lived with the real threat of armageddon by nuclear war.  That subsided with the break up of the Soviet Union and signing of the SALT treaty.  That threat may be making a reappearance.   One value of today's 20's that jumps out at me is their near lack of desire to join organizations that meet and work in real time to do civic activities.  In my small town if you are a 60 or older you are or have been a member of a fraternal/soriatal organization,  a veterans group, volunteer amublance/fire dept., delivered meals on wheels, lead a boy/girl scout group, been a coach for youth sports, ect.  That has pretty much come to a halt.  Those activities enabled and fostered a sense of community.  It humanized us.  We found we had differences with others that we could live with because we had so many more similarities.  Those volunteers are aging out.  Some of those activities will just go away and some will be taken on by government and add to the tax burden of the 44% of households that pay income tax.  The assumption of the duties of helping others by government is leading to the tendency of 20's to a socialist rather than a capitalist society.  Why get your hands dirty or waste your precious time helping others when government will do it and others will pay for it?  (soapbox)  The lack of meaningful person to person social interaction, working on a common goal, interacting anonymously on social media about issues and people has definately changed the values of the 20's from my generation.        

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lawnchairboy

capitalism sucks.  I'm going to go ride my BMW now.

 

:4607:

 

  capitalism has lifted more people from poverty than anything in history.  government just jacks up markets they try and "help".  CRA, ACA, student loan marketing. 

 

taken together, CRA and ACA will be looked at in economic history as the number 1 and 2 disasters of our time, behind both idiot parties and their incessant deficit spending.  

 

that is all.

 

:wave:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tallman

First off. I'd VOTE a lot more than 20 somethings vote today.

My age bracket votes 2-3-4x as much.

I did back when I was 20 also.

And I'd try to convince folks to work fast to dismantle the 2 party "system" that guarantees;

war, division,  profiteering, corruption, influence "marketing",  while providing enough to enought to tolerate

the destruction of our resources, ourt planet, and our way of life.

This time I'd buy Apple instead of Dell.

And keep my '66 VW window van with sliding roof...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Living the Dream

If I had the same Mother,......I'd be the same 20 year old now as I was then.......it's all about the respect for Mom.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stir
On 2/3/2019 at 1:26 PM, lawnchairboy said:

capitalism sucks.  I'm going to go ride my BMW now.

 

:4607:

 

  capitalism has lifted more people from poverty than anything in history.  government just jacks up markets they try and "help".  CRA, ACA, student loan marketing. 

 

taken together, CRA and ACA will be looked at in economic history as the number 1 and 2 disasters of our time, behind both idiot parties and their incessant deficit spending.  

 

that is all.

 

:wave:


Unfortunately, I think you are wrong.  I think future generations will continue down this path of social equity, high taxes.  We will become like Europe where it is next to impossible to become successful and wealthy on one's skills and merits.  The only ones who had wealth are the old families who have passed it down through generations.  The ability of people in America to execute on a good idea and become wealthy is a great testament to capitalism.  Under socialism, the technical progress we have made, the cell phones, the computers, advances in cars would not be possible.  The best you can hope for is free medical, consisting of someone to bandage or stitch you and .15 cent rice and beans.  The equality is everyone shares equally in the misery...except for those in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stir

Study math harder, play harder, start and max my 401k on day one and avoid dating Suzanne.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul De

Ha- I'm with you on points one through three and thank my lucky stars that I never have dated Suzanne!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bud

I was a dumb as a rock at 20.  If I were 20 again I would still be dumb as a rock. Experience only comes with age. Wisdom may or may not also accrue. 

 

The concentration of the worlds wealth in a smaller and smaller percentage of the population does not bode well for the world population as a whole.

 

In the US we implement social policy thru taxes. Amazon is a recent prime example. Does Amazon NEED millions and millions of tax breaks to build a new HQ without causing the company to go broke? 

 

A smaller example. Walmart wanted to build a new store between Carbondale and Murphysboro IL. The got a TIF district to fund the price of building the store. Sales tax rate of 10% vs 6.25% for ten years. The customers pay the tax. The extra goes to Walmart. Could they have financed the store without tax breaks? 

 

Are not both of these examples a re-distribution of wealth?

 

Many capitalist complain over any government regulation or oversight, at they same time the use tax laws to increase their own wealth at the expense of tax payers.

 

Unregulated capitalism is unhealthy for our country or our society. I don't think the strongest supporter would want to back to the days where the coal miners sons had to go to the mines at 11 or 12 years old because the company increased the output requirements on their fathers who would lose their job if the child didn't work as well.

 

https://mashable.com/2015/10/05/child-miners/#9h1Py9FJYOq1

 

 

Edited by Bud
typo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patallaire

Bud, while I understand the position you are trying to establish, you, in my opinion, are only viewing one dimension of the tax reductions.  The residual jobs offered to the population as a result of Amazon's arrival add to the economy.  The people employed eat at restaurants, buy cars, buy gas, buy homes, rent apartments have pets, pay electric bills, buy clothes, hire tradespeople, shop, change jobs, pay real estate taxes, etc. they consume.  So this transfer of wealth that you allude to is in most cases circular with the advantage going to the community. Capitalism is the engine that moves us forward.  Progress would not exist if it were not for capitalism.  Risk, IE: opening a new store, moving a headquarters should have some reward and all the participants who will have a gain as a result of this risk should participate.  Very similar to a professional athlete, Why are they worth the money they command?  First they have a short span of employment, but most importantly to the fans and the employer, they fill the seats which in turn transfers the risk and reward to the employees who serve the food, who park the cars, who sell the memorabilia, to the restaurants surrounding the venue, to the hotels who house both the players and people who see the event.  It is a circle, we all participate in the capitalism.  Embrace it. You have been a beneficiary of it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Antimatter
2 hours ago, Patallaire said:

Bud, while I understand the position you are trying to establish, you, in my opinion, are only viewing one dimension of the tax reductions.  The residual jobs offered to the population as a result of Amazon's arrival add to the economy.  The people employed eat at restaurants, buy cars, buy gas, buy homes, rent apartments have pets, pay electric bills, buy clothes, hire tradespeople, shop, change jobs, pay real estate taxes, etc. they consume.  So this transfer of wealth that you allude to is in most cases circular with the advantage going to the community. Capitalism is the engine that moves us forward.  Progress would not exist if it were not for capitalism.  Risk, IE: opening a new store, moving a headquarters should have some reward and all the participants who will have a gain as a result of this risk should participate.  Very similar to a professional athlete, Why are they worth the money they command?  First they have a short span of employment, but most importantly to the fans and the employer, they fill the seats which in turn transfers the risk and reward to the employees who serve the food, who park the cars, who sell the memorabilia, to the restaurants surrounding the venue, to the hotels who house both the players and people who see the event.  It is a circle, we all participate in the capitalism.  Embrace it. You have been a beneficiary of it.

 

The counter-argument is that we had some of our best growth during the power WW2 period when capitalism (esp. finance) was the most heavily regulated it had been in history.  The deregulation period (1980 onward) represents a great rise in productivity, but a flattening of overall wages for everyone who isn't part of the ownership class.  Furthermore, you could argue that the tax breaks big companies command actually represent anti-capitalism, because they prevent competition from smaller entities.  They also shift the risk of starting a store or a business to the community that hosts them, leading to what we now know as 'make gains private, but make losses public'.  A great many of the financial incentives provided to these companies (Amazon, Walmart) are, in fact, illegal according to anti-trust laws we have on the books, which are simply not enforced.  Amazon, for instance, would not exist if it were not for massive infusions of private equity capital during the first five years of the company, when it was run at a loss.  Smaller competing industries that did not have access to those funds never stood a chance.

We now have an economy that isn't governed by the actual capitalism.  Companies are rewarded with incentives based on their ability to lobby the government, as opposed to building it faster, cheaper, stronger, smaller or more efficiently.  The fact that there is more economic mobility in China, with its highly regulated economy, than in the US speaks volumes to the problems we're facing with our current gilded age.  I find many folks argue that cheap smart phones and TV's mean we have a successful economy, but bear in mind the 40% of our current population can't manage a $400 emergency without going into debt.  As I watch the current political debate, I'm also struck by how many 'successful' people made their fortunes through insider knowledge and a willingness to break laws.   Lord knows the current US banking system seems rife with corruption and criminal activity that goes largely unpunished because the federal government is unwilling to prosecute Wall Street criminals.  And don't get me started on the anti-competition practices of the drug makers in this country.  Filing hundreds of patents so no-one can make a competing drug?  Come on.

So I do support capitalism.  When you're looking to maximize production of widgets (alike products), a capitalist model seems like a good way to go.  We as a country seem to have our best years when the government maximizes investment in infrastructure and future concepts (air travel, the internet, rural electrification, etc), and avoids picking winners and losers through public financing.  What we have now is a system that stifles competition, encourages corruption and illegal practices, and codifies mistreatment of workers to maximize profits.  And it certainly isn't sharing its gains in productivity with the rest of the population.  The fact that the current generation will have a lower standard of living than their parents and a shorter lifespan seems to indicate that something is wrong with the way we're running things.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bud

Pat,

 

I never said I was against capitalism. 

 

I agree with Antimater's post above.

 

The current system will lead to the destruction of the middle class, as wages continue to slide and the top 1% continue to increase their wealth.

 

History has shown that when that happens, it does not bode well.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dennis Andress

Nice to see ya'll have stayed with this while I've been busy. Life's good, just staying focused at work. I thought of starting a new thread, but this'll work: 

 

How would you fix this mess if you had the wisdom of age and the energy of your 20's?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Living the Dream
8 hours ago, Dennis Andress said:

How would you fix this mess if you had the wisdom of age and the energy of your 20's?

 

 

Fix what mess?

 

Climate change,....it's cyclic, the planet isn't forever because the sun isn't forever, it all will eventually die.  It's gonna get hot, it's gonna get cold, that's planetary history.  Are humans causing it to happen faster, debatable, cows need to be in the debate as well.

Politics,....meh, that's been going on since two people disagreed on what a rule should be.  If you have two people then there will be issues that do not get agreed upon.

Gun control,......name me a single criminal that follows the laws of gun control,.........and you can't predict nut cases snapping that have never been reported, we don't have "precogs"

War,...see politics, but those that pray for peace must prepare for war,......and have the biggest guns

Overpopulation (if you believe that), .......quit insisting on people getting vaccinated, disease is a natural thinner......quit researching "how to live longer", let nature take it's course on the human anatomy, put DNR on everyone.

 

Sarcasm,....get it.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Antimatter

Believe it or not, things are getting better IMHO.  The awareness of the casual racism and sexism that used to permeate our society has been a good start.  I'm not sure we can do anything about the climate, and I'm going to be bummed when a lot of the wildlife is gone, but most people are to short-sighted to see the long term effects of their actions.  So, the earth will go through another extinction cycle.  I don't think humanity will die out, but things are going to get worse for many people.  Think civil war in Syria, only on a larger scale caused by food shortages and wild weather.  Gun control may be a moot issue if the younger generation isn't able to afford shooting or ammo during their young adult years.  It will be like motorcycles; a few old guys will own a bunch of them, and no young person participates (or is interested).  War is an ongoing thing that humanity will never eliminate because it's a negative side-effect of our survival instincts.  And there's always some greedy idiot who wants more stuff and convince a bunch of rubes to go and get it for them.  But, I'm hopeful that the value of individual human rights will gradually overcome the philosophy of the divine right of kings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill_Walker
On 2/23/2019 at 5:52 PM, Stir said:

We will become like Europe where it is next to impossible to become successful and wealthy on one's skills and merits.

That's the myth of the "American Dream" that we like to tell ourselves.  In fact, economic mobility (pulling oneself up to a higher economic class) happens more in Europe than it does in the US.

 

In the data shown here from 2011, only four OECD countries have worse economic mobility than the US:
https://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill_Walker
On 3/2/2019 at 5:26 AM, Living the Dream said:

Climate change,....it's cyclic, the planet isn't forever because the sun isn't forever, it all will eventually die.  It's gonna get hot, it's gonna get cold, that's planetary history.  Are humans causing it to happen faster, debatable, cows need to be in the debate as well.

 

No, whether humans are causing our current unprecedented rate of warming is NOT debatable.  The mechanisms are well known to science and it is now a statistical certainty (greater than 95% confidence level, in statistical terms).  And you can't blame it on the cows without blaming it on the humans who are raising those cows, drinking their milk and eating their meat.  Sure, in the long run we're all dead, but wouldn't it be nice if your children and grandchildren could live under the same climatic conditions in which human civilization, and especially agriculture, developed and thrived?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Living the Dream
28 minutes ago, Bill_Walker said:

 

No, whether humans are causing our current unprecedented rate of warming is NOT debatable. 

 

But it is debatable,....because you don't have 100% of the scientific community nor world population believing it,....so, that makes it debatable.

 

Many only believe the "evidence" that supports their opinion.......me, I'm indifferent to climate change, global warming, whatever the catchphrase of the day is. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe Frickin' Friday
10 hours ago, Living the Dream said:

 

But it is debatable,....because you don't have 100% of the scientific community nor world population believing it,....so, that makes it debatable.

 

Many only believe the "evidence" that supports their opinion.......me, I'm indifferent to climate change, global warming, whatever the catchphrase of the day is. 

 

Claiming that climate change is debatable is like claiming that the moon landings are debatable.  Refuting it requires either explaining away mountains of data documenting earth's past and present climate or explaining what's wrong with the climate change models that are predicting problematic temperature rises in the very near future.  Generally speaking, the people out there proclaiming "it's all hooey" or decrying it as some kind of tree-hugger conspiracy are laypersons who haven't really examined the data that's been collected (or the scientific rationale for relying on it) or the analysis of it that's been done by the scientists who live and breathe this stuff; it's anti-intellectualism at its finest.

 

To claim that climate change is cyclic and that the earth has been warm before is to misunderstand or misrepresent the magnitude of what's been happening over the past few millennia and what's been happening since the start of the Industrial Revolution.   Here's a graph that helps make the issue clearer.  Note that over the past 20K years, the temperature has never moved more than 0.5C in any one thousand-year period - and at the bottom of the graph, you can see that the global temperature has increased by 1C in just the last 100 years, and the forecast (assuming inaction) calls for a 3C rise in the next 100 years.  

 

OTOH, how to respond to impending climate change is very much a matter of debate.  There are good reasons to conserve resources, and the disbenefits of criteria atmospheric pollutants like NOx, raw hydrocarbons, mercury and sulfate are important considerations in the discussion of fossil fuels versus renewable energy.  But if staving off temperature change requires reverting to a stone-age lifestyle, then it's probably better to think about adaptation instead of prevention (or some mix of the two).

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Living the Dream
33 minutes ago, Joe Frickin' Friday said:

 

Claiming that climate change is debatable is like claiming that the moon landings are debatable.  Refuting it requires either explaining away mountains of data documenting earth's past and present climate or explaining what's wrong with the climate change models that are predicting problematic temperature rises in the very near future.  Generally speaking, the people out there proclaiming "it's all hooey" or decrying it as some kind of tree-hugger conspiracy are laypersons who haven't really examined the data that's been collected (or the scientific rationale for relying on it) or the analysis of it that's been done by the scientists who live and breathe this stuff; it's anti-intellectualism at its finest.

 

To claim that climate change is cyclic and that the earth has been warm before is to misunderstand or misrepresent the magnitude of what's been happening over the past few millennia and what's been happening since the start of the Industrial Revolution.   Here's a graph that helps make the issue clearer.  Note that over the past 20K years, the temperature has never moved more than 0.5C in any one thousand-year period - and at the bottom of the graph, you can see that the global temperature has increased by 1C in just the last 100 years, and the forecast (assuming inaction) calls for a 3C rise in the next 100 years.  

 

OTOH, how to respond to impending climate change is very much a matter of debate.  There are good reasons to conserve resources, and the disbenefits of criteria atmospheric pollutants like NOx, raw hydrocarbons, mercury and sulfate are important considerations in the discussion of fossil fuels versus renewable energy.  But if staving off temperature change requires reverting to a stone-age lifestyle, then it's probably better to think about adaptation instead of prevention (or some mix of the two).

 

 

 

So, the simple question is this and it needs to be a solid answer, "Do 100% of the climate scientist fully agree that humans are 100% making the changes happen?"  Again, if you do not have 100% agreeing, than it's debatable.  If 5% disagree, it's debatable, if 1% disagree, it's debatable.......that's my point,.....it's simply debatable because you DO NOT have 100% in FULL agreement.........geesh, engineers(I work with them daily)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe Frickin' Friday
18 minutes ago, Living the Dream said:

 

So, the simple question is this and it needs to be a solid answer, "Do 100% of the climate scientist fully agree that humans are 100% making the changes happen?"  Again, if you do not have 100% agreeing, than it's debatable.  If 5% disagree, it's debatable, if 1% disagree, it's debatable.......that's my point,.....it's simply debatable because you DO NOT have 100% in FULL agreement.........geesh, engineers(I work with them daily)

 

If the standard for debatability (is that a word?) is anything less than 100% agreement, then all of existence is debatable - in which case calling a topic "debatable" becomes a meaningless distinction.

 

Perhaps the more useful and important question is this:

At what point do we accept a  body of scientific knowledge as being true with sufficient probability to begin basing policy decisions on it?   

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Living the Dream
36 minutes ago, John Ranalletta said:

From some weekend reading:  Your mileage may vary....

 

Doug: Yeah, this 97% figure keeps popping up. Regrettably, it’s impossible to properly debunk the number in a brief discussion such as we’re now having. I suggest readers simply google “97% of scientists climate claim debunked” and see what they get.

That 97% number was promulgated by an Australian blogger named John Cook in 2013. It’s as ridiculous, but has as much popularity, as Al Gore’s “hockey stick.” Out of hundreds of thousands of papers that have been done on climate, he chose 12,000 and manipulated and subjectively interpreted parts of their abstracts to support his a priori beliefs. Many scientists whose names were used subsequently protested. A subsequent recalculation showed that less than 2% of the papers cited actually believe mankind is mainly responsible for any global warming.

But the usual suspects in politics, the media, and the entertainment business picked up on the terms “97%” and “scientists.” They repeated them as a mantra, and now the public assumes – based on almost nothing but repetition – that anthropogenic global warming [AGW] is a critical danger to life on Earth.

Truth in science isn’t determined by consensus. But, for what it’s worth, another survey was taken in 2009 among 31,000 hard scientists, including 9000 with PhDs, who explicitly stated they believed there was no evidence of significant AGW.

 

...and scientists who don't drink the global warming kool-aid are shunned  

 

here are a lot of scientists who don’t buy the man-made climate change theory. But they’re branded as rogue. And you’ve got the whole thing with John Coleman who co-founded the Weather Channel. He was an outspoken critic of climate change hysteria. He said there was no significant man-made global warming and no reason to fear it in the future. The Weather Channel, the company he co-founded, sent its chief executive on CNN to distance the company from Coleman.

 

You can't point out that some scientist have disagreed with the whole epidemic climate change, you can't point out that some climate scientist have looked at the evidence and stated disagreement, you can't point out that some scientist that devote their life to studying climate change have disagreed with the current trend,......lest ye be called a naysayer.  Say it enough and it becomes true, skew evidence to support your position and it becomes true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bud

And there are those who believe the earth is flat. So there isn't 100% agreement. Guess the earth could be flat??????:dontknow:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Living the Dream
39 minutes ago, Bud said:

And there are those who believe the earth is flat. So there isn't 100% agreement. Guess the earth could be flat??????:dontknow:

 

 

 

And there are more than 3000 architects and engineers that believe 9/11 was a controlled demolition,.......hmmmm, which, if you read through their "evidence", it is actually quite believable.  They'll need more celebrities to pimp their product,......it hasn't caught on yet ;)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bud

I guess the real discussion is "what is the truth?" Do the fact that there are naysayers and outliers change what really happened?

 

How about measles vaccinations being a public health menace?

 

What about the X chem trails in the sky that are "proof" the US government is spraying dangerous chemicals on the public? My niece "knows this is true, she read it on the internet". When presented with a map showing the commercial planes in the air at any different time and the fact that their contrails will cross, she is not convinced. 

 

Using the 100% test, i guess those could be true as well.  :dontknow:

 

We live in an age where politicians and others continue to denigrate science. Particularly when it interferes with their political agenda or causes a problem for their contributor's businesses. And, in our politicized national discourse, the common response to disagreements is "I'm right and you are evil."  As the extremest in both parties continue to drive the narrative, there is no solution in sight.  When agreeing on a position held by the other party is reason enough to have you put on a political hit list, there isn't much hope for any compromise.

 

But then again I'm 72 and an old phart. I could be wrong.:/

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stir
21 hours ago, Bill_Walker said:

That's the myth of the "American Dream" that we like to tell ourselves.  In fact, economic mobility (pulling oneself up to a higher economic class) happens more in Europe than it does in the US.

 

In the data shown here from 2011, only four OECD countries have worse economic mobility than the US:
https://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/


You can quote a third party.  I'm going to go with personal experience.  As a software engineer working in Switzerland, my peers lived 6 to a flat and paid heavy taxes.  None of them had cars as they couldn't afford to maintain them.  They had great health care, the best, and excellent vacation benefits.  But that was it.  Then there was me.  I wrote a quilting program at 28, distributed it and used the proceeds to buy my executive home on Lake Hodges.  I too had great insurance and went on neat vacations.  The difference is, I would not have been able to afford a BMW motorcycle in Zurich. They were $60,000 due to VAT etc.  In the states, $10 k got me a lightly used K1200RS.  I certainly couldn't afford a lake house on Zurich. Those places are reserved for the old families of wealth.  No mere citizen could ever hope for a nice place like that in their lifetime. The difference in the standard of living is striking.  But I'll be sure to forward your study to my buds.  They will feel comforted knowing that my comfort is merely a mirage.  I'm pretty comfortable living my American dream.  Oh, and I pulled myself up from zero.  I paid my own way through college.  I studied a subject and developed skills that someone was willing to pay me handsomely for.  In the states, if you really want to do it, there is opportunity.  In Europe, not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stir
21 hours ago, Bill_Walker said:

 

No, whether humans are causing our current unprecedented rate of warming is NOT debatable.  The mechanisms are well known to science and it is now a statistical certainty (greater than 95% confidence level, in statistical terms).  And you can't blame it on the cows without blaming it on the humans who are raising those cows, drinking their milk and eating their meat.  Sure, in the long run we're all dead, but wouldn't it be nice if your children and grandchildren could live under the same climatic conditions in which human civilization, and especially agriculture, developed and thrived?


Your quote reminds me, I need to get the furnace fixed. It's been damn cold and I'm running out of things to burn.  Did I mention we have two new calves with 1 on the way?  The newest calf, soon to be steer, Bill, is half Dexter half Herford.  Going to be so delicious.  I am hoping that Occasio-Doorstop gets her way and get's commercial cattle banned.  I am going to make a killing when the price for a ribeye sky rockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill_Walker
9 hours ago, John Ranalletta said:

From some weekend reading:  Your mileage may vary....

 

Doug: Yeah, this 97% figure keeps popping up. Regrettably, it’s impossible to properly debunk the number in a brief discussion such as we’re now having. I suggest readers simply google “97% of scientists climate claim debunked” and see what they get.

That 97% number was promulgated by an Australian blogger named John Cook in 2013. It’s as ridiculous, but has as much popularity, as Al Gore’s “hockey stick.” Out of hundreds of thousands of papers that have been done on climate, he chose 12,000 and manipulated and subjectively interpreted parts of their abstracts to support his a priori beliefs. Many scientists whose names were used subsequently protested. A subsequent recalculation showed that less than 2% of the papers cited actually believe mankind is mainly responsible for any global warming.

But the usual suspects in politics, the media, and the entertainment business picked up on the terms “97%” and “scientists.” They repeated them as a mantra, and now the public assumes – based on almost nothing but repetition – that anthropogenic global warming [AGW] is a critical danger to life on Earth.

Truth in science isn’t determined by consensus. But, for what it’s worth, another survey was taken in 2009 among 31,000 hard scientists, including 9000 with PhDs, who explicitly stated they believed there was no evidence of significant AGW.

 

...and scientists who don't drink the global warming kool-aid are shunned  

 

here are a lot of scientists who don’t buy the man-made climate change theory. But they’re branded as rogue. And you’ve got the whole thing with John Coleman who co-founded the Weather Channel. He was an outspoken critic of climate change hysteria. He said there was no significant man-made global warming and no reason to fear it in the future. The Weather Channel, the company he co-founded, sent its chief executive on CNN to distance the company from Coleman.

 

These are all standard climate change denier arguments that have been debunked thousands of times.  But they keep trotting them out as though they actually mean something.  If you hadn't already pre-decided not to believe in it, and were susceptible to actual data and research instead of feelings and anecdotes, you could find those debunkings.

 

For the sake of argument, say you assume that everything you wrote above is true.  Then the question is, why?  What would be the reason for NASA, NOAA, the UN, and all the world's academies of science to concoct this "hoax", and how could they do it with so few people catching on to it?  Note, by the way, that in science, "consensus" does not mean a bunch of people agreed on something.  It means their research results all came to the same conclusions based on the data.  And to run this hoax, thousands of scientists all around the world, any of whom could make their reputation by conclusively proving that climate change isn't happening or that it isn't caused by humans, would have to agree to do the opposite.  They'd have to agree to falsify the surface temperature record, the ocean temperature record, the satellite temperature record, the arctic sea ice extent record, the Greenland ice melt record, the antarctic ice records, the observations of shifting growing seasons and locations, and on and on.  And have nobody blab.  Does that really sound plausible to you?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe Frickin' Friday
20 hours ago, John Ranalletta said:

From the same interview:

 

...The average person has no clue. And yet, there’s now this hysteria around climate change. 

 

Over time, our understanding of the world (and our capabilities for investigating it) has grown more and more complex.  There are now tens of thousands of technical publications on climate change discussing and analyzing every aspect; a great many of them can't be understood without possessing a background in STEM. 

 

Meanwhile, the average person gets their information on complex geopolitical and scientific topics by gazing at a colorful bar graph in USAToday, watching a few minutes of CNN...or, increasingly, by reading apocryphal tales forwarded by their credulous Uncle Carl on Facebook.  Filter bubbles are a major problem these days.  Should we be surprised that most folks are ill-informed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dennis Andress

Why is climate change a political process? Why are political solutions the only answers discussed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Antimatter

The problem has been that market-based solutions don't get any traction from the right side of the aisle.   Brad Delong did an interview where he said the political baton of liberal thought must pass to the far left wing, because the moderate liberals have no-one to form a consensus with, i.e. there are no moderate republicans left in the federal government on topics the relate to the climate, taxes, or health care.  Cap and trade was the original compromise between liberals and conservatives - a market based solution that would let producers and investors work out a way to finance carbon offsets and encourage innovation.  Unfortunately, the GOP made preventing any compromise a top priority during the Obama years, and so we're left with nothing but political solutions.  That's not the best way to do things, but when one side runs to the extreme, it leaves no option but for the other side to do the same.  And that means there's no avenue for a market-based compromise, only political solutions enacted by one side or the other.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill_Walker
11 hours ago, John Ranalletta said:

I have a deeply held and well-proven philosophy of life: Don't believe what people say.  Observe what they do.

 

All the well-heeled warming acolytes want me to shrink my carbon footprint as they burn petrol at alarming rates in their G5s going from warming meeting to warming meeting.

 

Show the way by your actions and I might follow.

 

 

Individual actions don't mean shit on this issue.  If we had all (and I mean ALL, as in every human being in a developed country) started making individual changes about 30 years ago, it MIGHT have been adequate in mitigating warming.  It's way too late for that now.  And no, nobody is asking YOU to reduce your carbon footprint.  That's a strawman argument pushed by the right.  What's needed now is a dramatic change in our systems of energy, transportation, manufacturing, and building.

 

And you still haven't replied to my post asking how you can believe it's a hoax in the face of the overwhelming evidence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Living the Dream
7 hours ago, Bill_Walker said:

Individual actions don't mean shit on this issue.  If we had all (and I mean ALL, as in every human being in a developed country) started making individual changes about 30 years ago, it MIGHT have been adequate in mitigating warming.  It's way too late for that now.  And no, nobody is asking YOU to reduce your carbon footprint.  That's a strawman argument pushed by the right.  What's needed now is a dramatic change in our systems of energy, transportation, manufacturing, and building.

 

And you still haven't replied to my post asking how you can believe it's a hoax in the face of the overwhelming evidence.

 

You can read overwhelming evidence from "experts" from about an event and it's quite believable but doesn't make it actual.    "Overwhelming evidence" has also convicted innocent men and sentenced them to death, so "overwhelming evidence" is not a definitive answer.

 

What "dramatic" change do you think you should infringe on me for your satisfaction that the world will not end and go on forever (it won't)?  If you were king for a day, what changes need to happen right now to ensure this mythical 12 year time limit on change will be effective?

 

Seems to me, over the last forty or so years, changes have been happening, at least in this country.  Plants are forced to scrub their smoke stacks and utilize energy saving processes, emission standards are progressively getting tighter, "green" energy has been explored and on the rise, recycling is being conducted as a normal practice (three bins in damn near every location you go), new construction has to meet energy efficient standards,.....but the problem is, climate people want more. 

 

I'm not a denier (I'm on the cyclic side of the house), but I'm certainly not part of the end is near group.  I have solar on the house, it's not to save the planet, it's to save the almighty dollar and the ROI on that is roughly seven years. 

 

Wouldn't it be funny if the whole climate fiasco fell into the mass delusion category of world events.

image.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
realshelby

You can still stick your head in the sand. We are still free to do that. One persons actions don't matter.....

 

Same argument over motor vehicle pollution in the 60's and 70's. And I mean almost parallel as I recall it. 

 

Sure, we suffered with lower horsepower and more problems with engines for a few years. 

 

BUT.....look where those regulations took us. Really, stop and think about all those arguments presented that all the smog regulations would only be a burden and won't help the environment. 

 

To start with we got rid of Tetraethyl lead in gasoline. Sure, it cause issues at first with older cars. But gasoline quality is significantly better now than then. We had to invent catalytic converters, which were not cheap and didn't last too long with carbureted engines in many cases. 

 

Today, directly due to tough regulations about emissions and fuel mileage, we have 480 horsepower Mustangs, 450 horsepower pickup trucks, 60+ mpg cars, and electric vehicles with 300 mile range. All available to purchase about anywhere. Vehicles lasting 200-300,000 miles where 100,000 was junk in the 70's. 

 

I remember, even in my small town, how car exhaust stunk up main street. Look at the difference when driving in big cities today. 

 

These are absolute differences that you can see yourself. Educated or not. Right or left in beliefs. 

 

Don't be so afraid of change you stick your head in the sand.  We spent a pile of money on the space program. I think we benefited greatly. I personally believe there is a connection between global temperature increase and human activity. I also think the chase for technology to slow that will pay back in other benefits. While my life may not be impacted much, I do care about those that follow me. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dennis Andress

Ya'll need to get together for breakfast and a either a long ride or duelling pistols. Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo were science. Climate change is real, but, more importantly, it is an agenda for politicians, and a funding source for academics.

 

Puget Sound Naval Shipyard is a couple of miles across the Sinclair Inlet from our house. 14,000 people work there. There are typically 2 Nimitz class aircraft carriers and a dozen nuclear subs there. Refocused, that kind of money and manpower could get us to the stars! So, why is regression the only solution proposed for climate change?

 

 

stennis%20at%20night%201-X2.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill_Walker
7 hours ago, Dennis Andress said:

So, why is regression the only solution proposed for climate change?

 

How do you figure that, Dennis?  What do you mean by regression?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill_Walker

@John Ranalletta Yes, money in politics is a huge problem.  But as near as I can tell, conservatives are hugely in favor of it, complaining that any attempt to restrict it is a violation of free speech, while at the same time distrusting a government that depends on campaign contributions.  How about some coherence here?  And, by the way, you perfectly illustrate the problem with climate change: fossil fuel companies have been conducting a FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) campaign on the issue for decades, following the playbook of the tobacco companies, and that includes buying off Congresspeople.  What's more likely, that a few thousand scientists (who are famously independent, BTW, and would like nothing better than to prove somebody else's research wrong) have come up with a hoax to keep their measly research funding going (all of them could make more money in the private sector), or that the most profitable companies in the history of the world would spread lies to protect their profits and the value of their reserves?

 

What's the alternative to having government address the problem?  Republicans in government clearly decided (or their donors decided for them) that their best course of action was to deny the existence of the problem for as long as possible, rather than acknowledge it and have a real debate over acceptable solutions.  There have been many attempts to pass solutions that make use of markets by putting some kind of price on carbon emissions, and Republicans have opposed all of them since about 2007.  As long as it doesn't cost anything to emit CO2, the so-called free market will never have any incentive to address the issue.

 

Here's one list of proposed solutions.  They really don't look so onerous.  https://www.drawdown.org/solutions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...