Support NeoGAF

[ronito]

I run into this all the time, even with people in their late 20s and 30s.

"Man I'm broke! I wish I had more money"

Then they pick up their smartphone, text friends about going out to the bars for drinks and go buy new clothes.

I know, talk about the entitlement age.
I mean they "things" and "clothes" and "means of communications".
God, what's next? "Food", "Education", *gasp* "healthcare"?!

 

[diffusionx]

Let me ask you this. How do you start paying for a house if you don't even save money on the basics? $30 a month might not seem much, but then you start adding other things like eating out, paying for a cell phone plan, going out for parties on the weekend, and racking up debt, the money really can add up to hundreds to thousands a month.

Except you're not talking about hundreds to thousands a month. You're talking about $30 a month on a friggin cell phone or internet, like it's just the normal thing to sit and stare at a wall all night until you can buy a house.

If you have $30,000 of student loan debt, and can't find a job that pays more than $12 an hour, buying a house is the last thing on your mind. In that case, hell why not go out and get a cell phone or buy some beers. You're screwed anyway.

Like I said, the worst type of moralizing.

 

[RDreamer]

I run into this all the time, even with people in their late 20s and 30s.

"Man I'm broke! I wish I had more money"

Then they pick up their smartphone, text friends about going out to the bars for drinks and go buy new clothes.

You realize everyone does this. This isn't a generational thing. This isn't a middle income thing or a poor thing. It's all relative. Even people with amazing cars and great houses will say to themselves that they're broke or wish they had money. This really doesn't have much to do with the conversation.

And I love that people still use smartphones as scary expensive items. I'm pretty sure you can get smartphones for free with a ton of plans now. They're no longer a luxury item.

 

[fallagin]

In order of importance on things you spend money on:

Food
Housing
Transportation

Two of the things you mentioned I consider super important. Of course, you need clothes as well just for the indecency laws. Phones, not so much.

But internet doesn't fall into any of the categories above.

Why would you need any of those things? Like I said you can wear leaves, walk to work and live in a cardboard box. You can pick food out of a trash can if you want food.

Kids these days, so entitled.

 

[WanderingWind]

At some point, y'all have to realize when somebody is just being stubborn to be stubborn. There is no changing his mind or any real discussion beyond what's already happening on that front.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Except you're not talking about hundreds to thousands a month. You're talking about $30 a month on a friggin cell phone or internet, like it's just the normal thing to sit and stare at a wall all night until you can buy a house.

If you have $30,000 of student loan debt, and can't find a job that pays more than $12 an hour, buying a house is the last thing on your mind. In that case, hell why not go out and get a cell phone or buy some beers. You're screwed anyway.

Like I said, the worst type of moralizing.

I don't think it's "moralising" to say that we spend far more money on things that would have been deemed luxuries a decade or two ago. Whether that should stop you doing it might step in to moralising, but as an explanation for what's occuring, it's just basic maths.

 

[RDreamer]

This is where you are wrong.

In order of importance on things you spend money on:

Food
Housing
Transportation

Two of the things you mentioned I consider super important. Of course, you need clothes as well just for the indecency laws. Phones, not so much.

But internet doesn't fall into any of the categories above.

This is a useless way of putting things. Completely useless. By ranking them in importance and talking of internet as useless you're sort of implying that you should throw money you would pay into the internet into those three categories instead. Well, paying $30 more a month in housing doesn't get you jack shit more. It's unimportant and useless in a lot of cases. Far more useless than the internet. Same with transportation. Same with food. You can shave $10 per month from each of those categories just by being thrifty and looking for decent deals and then you have internet. Or if you can shave that off is it still unimportant to have the internet?

I don't think it's "moralising" to say that we spend far more money on things that would have been deemed luxuries a decade or two ago. Whether that should stop you doing it might step in to moralising, but as an explanation for what's occuring, it's just basic maths.

We actually aren't, really, depending on how you count these things. Yes a cell phone in particular would be a luxury years ago, but times change. Communication with the outside world like employers and friends would not be a luxury years ago. The mode of communication has changed, and even in some cases been made much cheaper despite the tech getting better. This doesn't mean you're living high on the hog if you have a damned cell phone.

Look at my post on the previous page for some examples. In most cases we are spending less on 'luxuries' in a modern family than in one in the 70s. We're just getting fucked over in other ways.

 

[CrocMother]

What you own Isn't a good indicator of wealth. Smart phones, tvs etc are cheaper than ever.

It's your savings, and how much debt you have. This is where the younger generation is struggling. And it's not credit card debt from excess spending that's doing the most damage to the younger generation, it's student and medical debt. Stuff you can't really blame someone for.

 

[fallagin]

I don't think it's "moralising" to say that we spend far more money on things that would have been deemed luxuries a decade or two ago. Whether that should stop you doing it might step in to moralising, but as an explanation for what's occuring, it's just basic maths.

That has nothing to do with the fact that we have half the purchasing power of the previous generation. It's merely a subterfuge to talk about irresponsible spending.

 

[diffusionx]

I don't think it's "moralising" to say that we spend far more money on things that would have been deemed luxuries a decade or two ago. Whether that should stop you doing it might step in to moralising, but as an explanation for what's occuring, it's just basic maths.

Except we don't! Look at what RDreamer posted before. Food and clothes are cheaper than they used to be, while housing, gas, healthcare, education, and automobiles are WAYYYYY more expensive. That is what has happened. People spend less on food and more on schooling. Less on clothes and more on rent.

Do you think your parents didn't go out to a bar once in a while? Of course they did. Thing is - they had better jobs and more stable incomes. That's the problem.

iPhones and computers and TVs are way cheaper than their closest relatives were 30 years ago. Like I said, it's the one benefit of globalization.

 

[Jobiensis]

Do people really pay $30/month for a smart phone plan? Verizon must be raping me. I'm not sure I'd consider it a necessity, but some form of internet access is.

It's your savings, and how much debt you have. This is where the younger generation is struggling. And it's not credit card debt from excess spending that's doing the most damage to the younger generation, it's student and medical debt. Stuff you can't really blame someone for.

Education - They are getting art degrees, they deserve to be poor.

Medical - Walk it off

Spoiler

I'm kidding, I agree but expand it one more: healthcare, retirement and education

 

[3N16MA]

How many of our parents or grandparents had $20,000+ of student loans to repay in their early 20's?

 

[entremet]

Do people really pay $30/month for a smart phone plan? Verizon must be raping me. I'm not sure I'd consider it a necessity, but some form of internet access is.

Well it should be 30 dollars for data, on top of your regular cell service.

 

[dave is ok]

I found my flatscreen TV in the trash. True story

 

[RDreamer]

Well it should be 30 dollars for data, on top of your regular cell service.

That's just unlimited or really high data plans. A lot of people can get away with probably $10 or $15 in data service.

 

[sans_pants]

Do people really pay $30/month for a smart phone plan? Verizon must be raping me. I'm not sure I'd consider it a necessity, but some form of internet access is.

you can get prepaid for like 35 a month

 

[speculawyer]

I run into this all the time, even with people in their late 20s and 30s.

"Man I'm broke! I wish I had more money"

Then they pick up their smartphone, text friends about going out to the bars for drinks and go buy new clothes.

Do you really believe an anecdote invalidates massive piles of objective data?

From your posts . . . yes you probably do.

 

[Kinitari]

Do people really pay $30/month for a smart phone plan? Verizon must be raping me. I'm not sure I'd consider it a necessity, but some form of internet access is.

Windmobile.ca
Teksavvy.ca

That's my phone and internet

 

[ronito]

See? This is what's wrong here. We can't discuss any wealth disparity issues because we get hung up on talking about cellphones instead of the actual problem. Which is exactly what I'd want if I were rich.

 

[Jimothy]

I run into this all the time, even with people in their late 20s and 30s.

"Man I'm broke! I wish I had more money"

Then they pick up their smartphone, text friends about going out to the bars for drinks and go buy new clothes.

Yeah, they really should spend more time studying progressive taxation.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

It is kind of amazing how it always comes back to cell phones. It's like the new refrigerator for out-of-touch bootstrappers.

 

[Guevara]

See? This is what's wrong here. We can't discuss any wealth disparity issues because we get hung up on talking about cellphones instead of the actual problem. Which is exactly what I'd want if I were rich.

Yes, get the poors to fight with each other. PS: anyone dependent on wages is only one hospital bill or job loss away from being poor.

 

[ronito]

Yeah, they really should spend more time studying progressive taxation.

 

[FLEABttn]

So how many times do you check your 401k? Every day?

How often do you shop online? Every day? If you do, then no wonder you have no money. Then you turn around and complain that only the rich have all the wealth. I wonder why. You go online every day and spend your money to buy stuff that the rich turn out and they become richer.

There are these things called newspapers if you really want to keep current. Plus, internet at work or watch the evening news with the old rabbit ears on TV.

And if gas is too much for you to drive to the library, then go green and bike it, skate it, or walk it. To me, it just seems like spending $20-$40 a month just cause you don't want to spend .50 - $1.00 of gas to drive to the library seems silly. Unless your library was 20-40 miles away, then you have a point.

Money isn't a problem to me and you're being particularly obtuse about the necessity of the internet. Especially given that the internet isn't a necessity in your eyes but a television or newspaper is. Or how the internet isn't needed for shopping but I assume the roads you take to B&M's are.

 

[Zhengi]

Some of you guys are hilarious. You're talking about the NEED of the internet as if you are going to die without it. Freaking first world problems and all that.

You can't live without food, you can't live without housing, and you can't live without transportation. That's why I rank those as more important than the internet.

Nothing you guys have mentioned in regards to using the internet is a necessity.

 

[entremet]

Some of you guys are hilarious. You're talking about the NEED of the internet as if you are going to die without it. Freaking first world problems and all that.

You can't live without food, you can't live without housing, and you can't live without transportation. That's why I rank those as more important than the internet.

Nothing you guys have mentioned in regards to using the internet is a necessity.

You don't need light either. You can always read by candlelight. But let's face internet costs are not a big issue here, so I don't why you're beating the point to death.

 

[fallagin]

Some of you guys are hilarious. You're talking about the NEED of the internet as if you are going to die without it. Freaking first world problems and all that.

You can't live without food, you can't live without housing, and you can't live without transportation. That's why I rank those as more important than the internet.

Nothing you guys have mentioned in regards to using the internet is a necessity.

I assume you are posting from the library right now?

 

[ronito]

Some of you guys are hilarious. You're talking about the NEED of the internet as if you are going to die without it. Freaking first world problems and all that.

You can't live without food, you can't live without housing, and you can't live without transportation. That's why I rank those as more important than the internet.

Nothing you guys have mentioned in regards to using the internet is a necessity.

I work on computer systems. Without the internet. I can't buy food. Without it I can't get housing. Without it I can't pay for transportation.

 

[Feroce2]

Some of you guys are hilarious. You're talking about the NEED of the internet as if you are going to die without it. Freaking first world problems and all that.

You can't live without food, you can't live without housing, and you can't live without transportation. That's why I rank those as more important than the internet.

Nothing you guys have mentioned in regards to using the internet is a necessity.

It's inaccurate saying the Internet is a luxury when a lot of important services are switching online. It would cost more to go to the bank thirty minutes away then view all my statements online or do my transactions.

But the Internet and cellphones aren't the problem. The problem is the economy and how society is pressuring younger generations to make due with significantly less than they had to.

 

[fallagin]

According to our Zhengi here, we don't need to have any form of communications in this world. Our bosses will never have to reach us, we'll never get important emails or messages. We never need to network with anyone to gain a better lot. We don't need to look for jobs or submit resumes. All we need is a dark room to sit in.

 

[apesh1t]

According to our Zhenghi here, we don't need to have any form of communications in this world. Our bosses will never have to reach us, we'll never get important emails or messages. We never need to network with anyone to gain a better lot. We don't need to look for jobs or submit resumes. All we need is a dark room to sit in.

Who said anything about a room? I swear, you materialistic assholes act like you're too good for an open field.

 

[faceless007]

My great-grandparents didn't have reliable electricity.

I wonder if they complained about how spoiled my grandparents were because their house did.

 

[Kinitari]

Some of you guys are hilarious. You're talking about the NEED of the internet as if you are going to die without it. Freaking first world problems and all that.

You can't live without food, you can't live without housing, and you can't live without transportation. That's why I rank those as more important than the internet.

Nothing you guys have mentioned in regards to using the internet is a necessity.

You're absolutely ridiculous. Admitting when you're wrong is a virtue.

 

[Davidion]

Some of you guys are hilarious. You're talking about the NEED of the internet as if you are going to die without it. Freaking first world problems and all that.

You can't live without food, you can't live without housing, and you can't live without transportation. That's why I rank those as more important than the internet.

Nothing you guys have mentioned in regards to using the internet is a necessity.

Shut up. The underlying premise for your arguments is rooted the asinine assumption that the basic needs for humans in society should somehow not extend beyond getting nourished and not dying.

The internet is at its core a fundamental paradigm shift in how information is transferred between humans, and the idea that you think it's "not needed" betrays a bewildering lack of understanding of basic human social needs that exist within a modern social structure. It's laughable that you and the other nimrods in this thread are arguing that it's a "luxury", because what defines a luxury is dynamic based on changing social interpretations which has long invalidated yours.

You can very well live without housing and transportation. We can all move to the caves and subsist on weeds and river water. That you think newspapers are an adequate source of information means you either have no concept of how the role of information impact the way society works or are completely blind to the necessity of consumer technology to the competitiveness of even lower and middle class persons in today's labor and knowledge market.

I disagree with the sentiment expressed earlier that there's no point addressing opinions like yours because minds won't be changed. On the contrary, whether they are trolls or genuine, these "opinions" are worth addressing, mocking, and stomped into the ground over and over again until it's made abundantly clear how intellectually embarrassing and unbefitting of an educated adult they actually are.

 

[LevelNth]

The concept of 'first-world problems' or parents/grandparents that were content with much less is idiotic and irrelevant.

We as a society have busted our asses and combined to create a world that is beyond what came before it, and this should be celebrated and triumphed, not scorned and solely used as a reason to promote laziness or greed constantly.

In turn, that society is still in need of continuing improvements because it can always be better, it can always become stronger.

Anyone who discusses ANYTHING other than this is just treading water for no reason whatsoever, and wasting time.

 

[Dali]

I wonder if unprecedented, monstrous amounts of student loan debt has anything to do with it.

Probably. In both cases shown in the snippet in the OP the people have post graduate degrees but aren't making the money that is the reason most people (in the job market) use to justify that post grad expense. Whats the point of a masters (if your goal is to increase earning potential) if you'll be upside down on the investment for 10 to 20 years? You can carry that logic to bachelor's degrees as well. If you're spending $80,000 on an art degree you're kind of defeating the purpose of getting a degree if you're just going to be a barista.

 

[Bgamer90]

Also, it's not like a STEM degree guarantees much either nowadays. It's a much bigger problem than just the type of degree people are getting.

I can't specifically say what I do as my job (security reasons); all I can say is that I do computer work for a bank company (while doing video editing on the side).

I got a B.A. in Communication (my interests in media, visual design, and journalism wrapped into one) and I work alongside a decent number of people in STEM fields... some with masters.

I'm doing fine; especially since I graduated debt free but a decent number of my co-workers who are in their 20's are in a LOT of debt.

Overall, many 20-somethings are in the same situation; regardless of degree.

 

[nib95]

People who blame this solely on the youth being lazy are being naive. I was speaking to my father about this and he was saying how back in his day it was much easier to make and save money, even on lesser labour jobs. Even if you look at the statistics, rent for example, used to take up considerably less a proportion of one's wages than it does today. Today in the city or parts closer to it, rent can take up as much as half of one's rent or worse. I believe the average is now climbing towards 1/3rd of the average UK renters monthly wages going on rent. Similar with costs across the board. The rate of inflation has gone up at a much higher rate than the growth in wages.

Then you have the huge increase in University costs and fee's, student loans, difficulty with mortgages etc etc. It's no wonder really.

 

[BreakyBoy]

Shut up. [snipped]

My goodness. That was immensely satisfying to read. Bravo.

 

[Jimothy]

Shut up. The underlying premise for your arguments is rooted the asinine assumption that the basic needs for humans in society should somehow not extend beyond getting nourished and not dying.

The internet is at its core a fundamental paradigm shift in how information is transferred between humans, and the idea that you think it's "not needed" betrays a bewildering lack of understanding of basic human social needs that exist within a modern social structure. It's laughable that you and the other nimrods in this thread are arguing that it's a "luxury", because what defines a luxury is dynamic based on changing social interpretations which has long invalidated yours.

You can very well live without housing and transportation. We can all move to the caves and subsist on weeds and river water. That you think newspapers are an adequate source of information means you either have no concept of how the role of information impact the way society works or are completely blind to the necessity of consumer technology to the competitiveness of even lower and middle class persons in today's labor and knowledge market.

I disagree with the sentiment expressed earlier that there's no point addressing opinions like yours because minds won't be changed. On the contrary, whether they are trolls or genuine, these "opinions" are worth addressing, mocking, and stomped into the ground over and over again until it's made abundantly clear how intellectually embarrassing and unbefitting of an educated adult they actually are.

Great post.

 

[nib95]

Shut up. The underlying premise for your arguments is rooted the asinine assumption that the basic needs for humans in society should somehow not extend beyond getting nourished and not dying.

The internet is at its core a fundamental paradigm shift in how information is transferred between humans, and the idea that you think it's "not needed" betrays a bewildering lack of understanding of basic human social needs that exist within a modern social structure. It's laughable that you and the other nimrods in this thread are arguing that it's a "luxury", because what defines a luxury is dynamic based on changing social interpretations which has long invalidated yours.

You can very well live without housing and transportation. We can all move to the caves and subsist on weeds and river water. That you think newspapers are an adequate source of information means you either have no concept of how the role of information impact the way society works or are completely blind to the necessity of consumer technology to the competitiveness of even lower and middle class persons in today's labor and knowledge market.

I disagree with the sentiment expressed earlier that there's no point addressing opinions like yours because minds won't be changed. On the contrary, whether they are trolls or genuine, these "opinions" are worth addressing, mocking, and stomped into the ground over and over again until it's made abundantly clear how intellectually embarrassing and unbefitting of an educated adult they actually are.

Holy crap, it's like poetry lol. The opening line is unnecessary, but the rest is magnifique!

 

[Kyzer]

this is a legitimate flaw of an over-evolved and unchecked capitalist system. its gotten to the point where individuals dont even have as much freedom to attain because there is no pie left.

 

[Zippedpinhead]

Except for finding a job, no one has come up with a good reason as to why the internet is necessary. Why would you need it after you find a job?

I think that is reason enough. I am of the firm belief that you should always be looking for the bigger, better job. Especially in this economy, you can no longer be confident that your job is secure.

Obviously, you feel that the internet is a luxury and not a requirement for modern living. I feel that the continuing personal education (a requirement for most job promotions and in finding new jobs) is another good reason to spend that $240-480 dollars a year.

I will leave entertainment out of the equation, because I agree with you that a library is a great and free alternative for "inside" entertainment.

 

[Zhengi]

Shut up. The underlying premise for your arguments is rooted the asinine assumption that the basic needs for humans in society should somehow not extend beyond getting nourished and not dying.

The internet is at its core a fundamental paradigm shift in how information is transferred between humans, and the idea that you think it's "not needed" betrays a bewildering lack of understanding of basic human social needs that exist within a modern social structure. It's laughable that you and the other nimrods in this thread are arguing that it's a "luxury", because what defines a luxury is dynamic based on changing social interpretations which has long invalidated yours.

You can very well live without housing and transportation. We can all move to the caves and subsist on weeds and river water. That you think newspapers are an adequate source of information means you either have no concept of how the role of information impact the way society works or are completely blind to the necessity of consumer technology to the competitiveness of even lower and middle class persons in today's labor and knowledge market.

I disagree with the sentiment expressed earlier that there's no point addressing opinions like yours because minds won't be changed. On the contrary, whether they are trolls or genuine, these "opinions" are worth addressing, mocking, and stomped into the ground over and over again until it's made abundantly clear how intellectually embarrassing and unbefitting of an educated adult they actually are.

If you're going to argue something, at least read what I'm arguing about. I'm not saying we don't need internet. I'm saying, do you really need internet at home? Those are two separate arguments. Society needs internet to function, I get that, but for most people, the internet is not as important a need as some of you are making it out to be. I mentioned before that if you are making a living off the internet, then that is a good reason to have it at home. Everything else is superfluous.

Like I said, none of you have said anything about the NEED for internet at home. Yes, it is convenient having it because it keeps you connected to your bills and such, but those can still be addressed the old fashion way like mailing out checks. The post office and its workers would actually appreciate that. Most people who have the internet use it for entertainment purposes like Facebook and Youtube. Let's face it, ultimately, when it comes to expenses that are not necessary, I would say internet at home is one of them.

 

[Enron]

Productivity does not simply mean "good work ethic". Technology is largely responsible for those productivity gains.

Even with stagnated wages, its not to the point where all of the money is being sucked up by the rich. I mean, look around you. The people like the article is describing, people who have "good jobs" and retirement plans but yet no savings - look at these younger people you know around you that are in the same sort of situation and look at the things they do. So much spending, not a lot of saving.

Prior to 2008, we were buying things left and right on cheap credit. Living way beyond our means. Spending far too much and not saving enough. Buying too much home, too much car, etc. than what we could really afford, living high on the hog so to speak when we really shouldn't have.

You can't simply blame all of the savings rate issues on stagnant wages, more wealth concentrated at the top.

The savings rate from 1995 onward dipped down from 6% to 2/3% by the early 00s, in the middle of an economic boom. Americans were simply spending the fuck out of their money. Then along comes 2008, and all of a sudden we return to reasonable personal savings rates. Although this has since declined with the upswing in the economy since...

 

[DUFFMCWALIN]

Of course, everybody wants cool flashy stuff and phones that rub their balls and make them pancakes

Also income has not gone up in proportion with the cost of living and how much schooling cost compared when my parents went to school therefore putting almost everyone in some form of debt.

 

[RDreamer]

Productivity does not simply mean "good work ethic". Technology is largely responsible for those productivity gains.

Even with stagnated wages, its not to the point where all of the money is being sucked up by the rich. I mean, look around you. The people like the article is describing, people who have "good jobs" and retirement plans but yet no savings - look at these younger people you know around you that are in the same sort of situation and look at the things they do. So much spending, not a lot of saving.

Prior to 2008, we were buying things left and right on cheap credit. Living way beyond our means. Spending far too much and not saving enough. Buying too much home, too much car, etc. than what we could really afford, living high on the hog so to speak when we really shouldn't have.

You can't simply blame all of the savings rate issues on stagnant wages, more wealth concentrated at the top.

The savings rate from 1995 onward dipped down from 6% to 2/3% by the early 00s, in the middle of an economic boom. Americans were simply spending the fuck out of their money. Then along comes 2008, and all of a sudden we return to reasonable personal savings rates. Although this has since declined with the upswing in the economy since...

Yes, yes, look at all these anecdotes I have. Look at them! I can barely contain all these silly anecdotes. Your data means nothing if my intuition and anecdotes conflict!

 

[Baraka in the White House]

Productivity does not simply mean "good work ethic". Technology is largely responsible for those productivity gains.

Even with stagnated wages, its not to the point where all of the money is being sucked up by the rich. I mean, look around you. The people like the article is describing, people who have "good jobs" and retirement plans but yet no savings - look at these younger people you know around you that are in the same sort of situation and look at the things they do. So much spending, not a lot of saving.

Prior to 2008, we were buying things left and right on cheap credit. Living way beyond our means. Spending far too much and not saving enough. Buying too much home, too much car, etc. than what we could really afford, living high on the hog so to speak when we really shouldn't have.

You can't simply blame all of the savings rate issues on stagnant wages, more wealth concentrated at the top.

The savings rate from 1995 onward dipped down from 6% to 2/3% by the early 00s, in the middle of an economic boom. Americans were simply spending the fuck out of their money. Then along comes 2008, and all of a sudden we return to reasonable personal savings rates. Although this has since declined with the upswing in the economy since...

Stagnant wages aren't the only factor at play here. The cost of non-discretionary items increasing steadily while wages failed to even keep up with inflation can't be ignored. People didn't start using credit for just sports cars and foosball tables.

 

[LevelNth]

Productivity does not simply mean "good work ethic". Technology is largely responsible for those productivity gains.

Even with stagnated wages, its not to the point where all of the money is being sucked up by the rich. I mean, look around you. The people like the article is describing, people who have "good jobs" and retirement plans but yet no savings - look at these younger people you know around you that are in the same sort of situation and look at the things they do. So much spending, not a lot of saving.

Prior to 2008, we were buying things left and right on cheap credit. Living way beyond our means. Spending far too much and not saving enough. Buying too much home, too much car, etc. than what we could really afford, living high on the hog so to speak when we really shouldn't have.

You can't simply blame all of the savings rate issues on stagnant wages, more wealth concentrated at the top.

The savings rate from 1995 onward dipped down from 6% to 2/3% by the early 00s, in the middle of an economic boom. Americans were simply spending the fuck out of their money. Then along comes 2008, and all of a sudden we return to reasonable personal savings rates. Although this has since declined with the upswing in the economy since...

Here's the issue: that level of spending has become the foundation of the economy. It is a vicious circle that cannot be so easily slipped away from.

If everyone stops spending so much and putting more and more cash away, the economy will suffer. Greatly.

 

[ronito]

Productivity does not simply mean "good work ethic". Technology is largely responsible for those productivity gains.

Even with stagnated wages, its not to the point where all of the money is being sucked up by the rich. I mean, look around you. The people like the article is describing, people who have "good jobs" and retirement plans but yet no savings - look at these younger people you know around you that are in the same sort of situation and look at the things they do. So much spending, not a lot of saving.

Prior to 2008, we were buying things left and right on cheap credit. Living way beyond our means. Spending far too much and not saving enough. Buying too much home, too much car, etc. than what we could really afford, living high on the hog so to speak when we really shouldn't have.

You can't simply blame all of the savings rate issues on stagnant wages, more wealth concentrated at the top.

The savings rate from 1995 onward dipped down from 6% to 2/3% by the early 00s, in the middle of an economic boom. Americans were simply spending the fuck out of their money. Then along comes 2008, and all of a sudden we return to reasonable personal savings rates. Although this has since declined with the upswing in the economy since...

I don't get it. You start off saying that productivity != work ethic but then ignore that Americans work longer hours and take less vacation than ever.

Then blame "too much car" and "too much house", try to have a job in San Francisco. Good luck not spending "too much on a house"

Yeah personal responsibility went out the window when corporate responsibility did. And yes personal savings have rebounded a bit. But, many don't save because there's not much left to.
Also as pointed out spending is the basis of our economy. Take too many players out of the game the whole thing slows down. We need to get out of that.