i’ve noticed more millennial articles on washington post, but there’s a very common theme, it’s all people born in the early 1980′s. definitions of millennials vary by institution, it seems like millennials should be born in the middle part of the 1980′s at the earliest.
A person born in 1985 was 16 when 9/11 happened, they weren’t old enough to experience the cold war mentality and only knew about the brief era of peace and prosperity in the 1990′s. The sudden change into the war on terror was not something they knew about or grew up with.Whereas someone born in 1980 had grown up through 11 years of the cold war, admittedly as it was winding down. further, they were 20 when 9/11 happened and better able to process what was happening than a teenager or younger could (although everyone experienced it in different ways).
More importantly however was that a person born in 1985 was only 23 when the Great Recession hit. they probably only had a little work experience and lots of debt if they went to college. in fact, it gets worse the younger a person was, someone born in 1990 either had to try to find work as hundreds of thousands of them vanished in 2008 or went to college and then tried to find a job in the molasses recovery with little work experience, but a lot of debt.
Someone born in 1980 meanwhile would have been 28 when the recession happened, with lots of time to get a degree if they wanted and build up a resume and work experience. they might have lost more because they had more to lose, but with a stronger resume the recovery would have been easier, at least on the aggregate. to say nothing of how much cheaper college was in the 90s.
certainly people in the early 1980′s had trouble in the next 30 years, but no where near as much as those born in the later 80′s and early 90′s.
According to the survey, 63 percent of Americans said they had come to rely upon the familiar sense of dread that came from knowing the country was quickly losing its place as an economic superpower, while 71 percent described finding a kind of tranquility in the steady, predictable cuts to local, state, and federal funding.
In addition, 80 percent reported they had been tightening their belts for so long, the thought of loosening them again after all this time just felt unnatural.
Labour didn't cause the financial crash of 2008...
Just putting this out there because I’ve seen a few people mention that “labour ruined the country with the recession, they caused the long standing problems of poverty etc”
Labour happened to be in power when the economy went to shit.
I study Accounting and Finance, I know exactly how the recession happened, something which the majority of people don’t care to learn or try to understand.
So here’s the deal; the reason the economy fell apart in 2008 was the USA’s financial sector. In America mortgage brokers and firms began granting mortgages to people with no proof of income or ability to repay loans worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, because they could sell on the debt to other companies for a profit because housing was seen as a market that could not fail. But then the borrowers admitted to not being able to payback the debt. Thousands of people had this happen at the same time.
This caused companies to flood the housing market with cheap properties in an attempt to get any money back from the mortgage. People were made homeless and bankrupt because of Bankers greed. Not the government.
This practice, which originated in USA, was passed over to the UK on a smaller scale, but still had a huge effect as not only did we have to deal with our housing market crash but with the financial repercussions the USA had on the international financial markets.
Labour didn’t do this.
Tony Blair didn’t do this.
Bankers did it. Bankers are still being reckless and risking this happening again.
It has fuck-all to do with government.
EDIT 1: I have just been made aware of the fact that the reason Bankers and finance workers could do this in the USA was due to the deregulation put in place by the USAs Republican Party (i think that’s the right name?) so I guess they are technically to blame as well!
EDIT 2: I have been informed by someone much more qualified than me that there are inaccuracies here, and I do apologise! I’m just learning myself, I have a whole year of international finance to go, so I’m not saying this is definitive. It’s just what I’ve been taught so far, It’s always good to research and educate yourself so if you like this, read up on it, let me know if you find anything contradicting or interesting! Thanks to the anon for letting me know, the moment my exams are done I’m definitely going to read up more on this.
In 1974, an obscure economist scribbled some thoughts on a napkin that served as the engine for the most influential presidency of the past three and a half decades and the most unequal economy America has experienced since the Great Depression.
The napkin notes – written by Arthur Laffer and later embraced by Ronald Reagan – contained a figure illustrating the logic of “supply-side” economics, which translates to lowering taxes and regulations on corporations and the affluent to stimulate growth and have wealth “trickle down” to the rest of society.
I was asleep when I heard the door rattle against the frame. My eyes flashed open and I sprung upright in my under-desk sleep space. Was it all over? Had someone come to work early? I peered over my desk, afraid of what I might see. The morning sun burned through the chicken-scratch graffiti of the office’s front door, spilling across the labyrinth of desks spread out before me. There wasn’t a soul in sight. I breathed a sigh of relief. Probably just paranoia. Or maybe not — a breeze blew the front door against its frame, the pygmy-like rattle of a loose door jamb. It was the same sound I heard moments before and would hear countless times in the future but never quite get used to.
The cost of raising a single child born to an average middle-income family to the age of 18 now hovers around $245,000. Even a low-income family in rural America can expect to pay $145,500 over those 18 years on the road to adulthood.
Why Obama’s Regulators Let Wall Street Bankers Off Easy
If there’s anything more maddening than the sheer scale of the financial fraud that sent America and the rest the planet spiraling into the economic abyss in 2008, it’s the fact that no Wall Street bankers have gone to jail for causing the mess. As in zero, zilch, none at all.
So at his farewell party last month to celebrate a lengthy career at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)—the US regulatory agency that supposedly keeps Wall Street in check—James Kidney, a trial attorney who had been hamstrung for years by indifferent bosses, broke his silence and went off on an awesome rant about how no one in the financial sector fears the body supposedly policing their behavior. The SEC, in essence, is a joke.
Describing it as “an agency that polices the broken windows on the street level and rarely goes to the penthouse floors,” Kidney told an audience of fellow employees that they had dropped the ball because of a revolving door of corruption between the SEC and Wall Street megabanks. “I have had bosses, and bosses of my bosses, whose names we all know, who made little secret that they were here to punch their ticket. They mouthed serious regard for the mission of the Commission, but their actions were tentative and fearful in many instances,” he said.
Flaherty went into Deficit before the last recession
In politics, memories are short. But let’s remember this - after 8 straight Liberal surpluses in which $80 billion in debt was repaid, Stephen Harper allowed his finance minister, Jim Flaherty, to take Canada back into deficitbefore - not after - the last recession, and the government has been in deficit ever since, despite their brazen lies to the contrary. The fact is, Harper’s government couldn’t balance the books even in the good economic times.
How bad was it? Jim Flaherty was the biggest spending finance minister in the history of our confederation before the 2008 recession hit. You can watch him admit in the House of Commons here.
These are the facts - two recessions, eight straight deficits, record debt, 11 year low for the loonie, lowest growth since the Great Depression and the lowest job creation rate since the 1960s. And Harper wants us to stick with the game plan.
In fact, the previous administration created more than three times as many jobs as Harper (3.5 milion), while paying down $80 billion in debt. Compared to the Chretien/Martin administration, Harper comes up 2.5 million jobs and $250 billion dollars short. This is why you have never heard Stephen Harper talk about the financial record of his predecessors.