[weberlin]

Ash, sorry if my response came off like a personal attack. I think you have misguided presumptions about what kind of lifestyle we’re entitled to in this country. However, I do not think you are whining.

Enron_by_the_sea has some good insights about the affects of WWI and WWII.

Also, the Social Security programs and corporate pension programs that are just now starting to break were in full swing in the 50s. It’s pretty easy to take a cut of the baby-boomers wages to subsidize retirees, as long as the workforce is growing rapidly.

[weberlin]

Ash, sorry if my response came off like a personal attack. I think you have misguided presumptions about what kind of lifestyle we’re entitled to in this country. However, I do not think you are whining.

Enron_by_the_sea has some good insights about the affects of WWI and WWII.

Also, the Social Security programs and corporate pension programs that are just now starting to break were in full swing in the 50s. It’s pretty easy to take a cut of the baby-boomers wages to subsidize retirees, as long as the workforce is growing rapidly.

[weberlin]

Ash, sorry if my response came off like a personal attack. I think you have misguided presumptions about what kind of lifestyle we’re entitled to in this country. However, I do not think you are whining.

Enron_by_the_sea has some good insights about the affects of WWI and WWII.

Also, the Social Security programs and corporate pension programs that are just now starting to break were in full swing in the 50s. It’s pretty easy to take a cut of the baby-boomers wages to subsidize retirees, as long as the workforce is growing rapidly.

[weberlin]

Ash, sorry if my response came off like a personal attack. I think you have misguided presumptions about what kind of lifestyle we’re entitled to in this country. However, I do not think you are whining.

Enron_by_the_sea has some good insights about the affects of WWI and WWII.

Also, the Social Security programs and corporate pension programs that are just now starting to break were in full swing in the 50s. It’s pretty easy to take a cut of the baby-boomers wages to subsidize retirees, as long as the workforce is growing rapidly.

[weberlin]

Ash, sorry if my response came off like a personal attack. I think you have misguided presumptions about what kind of lifestyle we’re entitled to in this country. However, I do not think you are whining.

Enron_by_the_sea has some good insights about the affects of WWI and WWII.

Also, the Social Security programs and corporate pension programs that are just now starting to break were in full swing in the 50s. It’s pretty easy to take a cut of the baby-boomers wages to subsidize retirees, as long as the workforce is growing rapidly.

[weberlin]

[quote=Ash Housewares]
The problem with the hedonics argument is that there is no logical endpoint to the extrapolation. People who use this argument say we have to have two incomes to make ends meet today because we have bigger houses, nicer cars, televisions in every room and cell phones that allow us to talk to anyone at anytime.

This fails because people in the 1950s somehow got by with one income despite having new technologies that people 50 years earlier could only dream of. So why did they get to enjoy the good life with new, amazing gadgets while have a stay at home wife?

To me this discrepancy gives weight to the “globalization is killing the middle class” argument.[/quote]

Ash, your argument highlights everything that’s wrong with the mindset of today’s average American citizen. You assume that you are entitled to a very comfortable lifestyle filled with food, toys and entertainment.

If a human being has food in his stomach, a warm place to rest at night(a home), and clothing on his back, he is taken care of. Anything beyond that is icing on the cake. Take a step back and look at how the vast majority of the Earth’s human population lives now, and has lived for the past 2000 years. We’re pretty darn lucky.

Why are we entitled to a ‘middle class’ lifestyle’?

[weberlin]

[quote=Ash Housewares]
The problem with the hedonics argument is that there is no logical endpoint to the extrapolation. People who use this argument say we have to have two incomes to make ends meet today because we have bigger houses, nicer cars, televisions in every room and cell phones that allow us to talk to anyone at anytime.

This fails because people in the 1950s somehow got by with one income despite having new technologies that people 50 years earlier could only dream of. So why did they get to enjoy the good life with new, amazing gadgets while have a stay at home wife?

To me this discrepancy gives weight to the “globalization is killing the middle class” argument.[/quote]

Ash, your argument highlights everything that’s wrong with the mindset of today’s average American citizen. You assume that you are entitled to a very comfortable lifestyle filled with food, toys and entertainment.

If a human being has food in his stomach, a warm place to rest at night(a home), and clothing on his back, he is taken care of. Anything beyond that is icing on the cake. Take a step back and look at how the vast majority of the Earth’s human population lives now, and has lived for the past 2000 years. We’re pretty darn lucky.

Why are we entitled to a ‘middle class’ lifestyle’?

[weberlin]

[quote=Ash Housewares]
The problem with the hedonics argument is that there is no logical endpoint to the extrapolation. People who use this argument say we have to have two incomes to make ends meet today because we have bigger houses, nicer cars, televisions in every room and cell phones that allow us to talk to anyone at anytime.

This fails because people in the 1950s somehow got by with one income despite having new technologies that people 50 years earlier could only dream of. So why did they get to enjoy the good life with new, amazing gadgets while have a stay at home wife?

To me this discrepancy gives weight to the “globalization is killing the middle class” argument.[/quote]

Ash, your argument highlights everything that’s wrong with the mindset of today’s average American citizen. You assume that you are entitled to a very comfortable lifestyle filled with food, toys and entertainment.

If a human being has food in his stomach, a warm place to rest at night(a home), and clothing on his back, he is taken care of. Anything beyond that is icing on the cake. Take a step back and look at how the vast majority of the Earth’s human population lives now, and has lived for the past 2000 years. We’re pretty darn lucky.

Why are we entitled to a ‘middle class’ lifestyle’?

[weberlin]

[quote=Ash Housewares]
The problem with the hedonics argument is that there is no logical endpoint to the extrapolation. People who use this argument say we have to have two incomes to make ends meet today because we have bigger houses, nicer cars, televisions in every room and cell phones that allow us to talk to anyone at anytime.

This fails because people in the 1950s somehow got by with one income despite having new technologies that people 50 years earlier could only dream of. So why did they get to enjoy the good life with new, amazing gadgets while have a stay at home wife?

To me this discrepancy gives weight to the “globalization is killing the middle class” argument.[/quote]

Ash, your argument highlights everything that’s wrong with the mindset of today’s average American citizen. You assume that you are entitled to a very comfortable lifestyle filled with food, toys and entertainment.

If a human being has food in his stomach, a warm place to rest at night(a home), and clothing on his back, he is taken care of. Anything beyond that is icing on the cake. Take a step back and look at how the vast majority of the Earth’s human population lives now, and has lived for the past 2000 years. We’re pretty darn lucky.

Why are we entitled to a ‘middle class’ lifestyle’?

[weberlin]

[quote=Ash Housewares]
The problem with the hedonics argument is that there is no logical endpoint to the extrapolation. People who use this argument say we have to have two incomes to make ends meet today because we have bigger houses, nicer cars, televisions in every room and cell phones that allow us to talk to anyone at anytime.

This fails because people in the 1950s somehow got by with one income despite having new technologies that people 50 years earlier could only dream of. So why did they get to enjoy the good life with new, amazing gadgets while have a stay at home wife?

To me this discrepancy gives weight to the “globalization is killing the middle class” argument.[/quote]

Ash, your argument highlights everything that’s wrong with the mindset of today’s average American citizen. You assume that you are entitled to a very comfortable lifestyle filled with food, toys and entertainment.

If a human being has food in his stomach, a warm place to rest at night(a home), and clothing on his back, he is taken care of. Anything beyond that is icing on the cake. Take a step back and look at how the vast majority of the Earth’s human population lives now, and has lived for the past 2000 years. We’re pretty darn lucky.

Why are we entitled to a ‘middle class’ lifestyle’?

[weberlin]

NSR = NewToSanDiego? Spelling error or am I missing an inside joke?

If it’s the latter please explain, otherwise…meh.

[weberlin]

NSR = NewToSanDiego? Spelling error or am I missing an inside joke?

If it’s the latter please explain, otherwise…meh.

[weberlin]

NSR = NewToSanDiego? Spelling error or am I missing an inside joke?

If it’s the latter please explain, otherwise…meh.

[weberlin]

NSR = NewToSanDiego? Spelling error or am I missing an inside joke?

If it’s the latter please explain, otherwise…meh.

[weberlin]

NSR = NewToSanDiego? Spelling error or am I missing an inside joke?

If it’s the latter please explain, otherwise…meh.

[Author]

Posts