It’s not just that, it’s Boomers as a generation not saving.
Obviously some did, but most have lived their entire lives paycheck to paycheck and have zero security net. It’s why they’re not retiring like other generations, it’s not a choice, they just can’t ever stop working.
And they can’t recover from any speed bumps they hit. Losing a spouse for those people also means losing an income. And that can mean losing housing.
What is it that half the boomer threads complain that boomers are hoarding all the money in their 401Ks, and the other half say that boomers didn’t save anything?
I guess I’m in the middle. I got a good education paid for by my parents, but nothing after that. I’ve worked decent paying jobs and tried to help our kids. Not rich, but should be able to retire fine.
I agree, but man do they do it. Search Lemmy for this headline (just “Baby boomers are becoming homeless” because there are variations), then skim the comments and imagine they were written about any other demographic. It’s pretty frightening.
And teachers. Every adult millennials dealt with either was literally a Boomer or had enough of their politics to shove their bullshit down our throats our whole lives.
We are angry because it was all self serving lies.
Because only a few of the boomers became ceos, the rest are just “useful idiots” that vote against their own best interests.
A significant amount never planned to retire or else thought OASDI would be all they’d need. By the time they realized they were fucked, it was too late.
It looks to me like boomers’ retirement savings aren’t vastly different from other age ranges. I believe this is 2020 data, so boomers would be 56 to 74.
You, of course, could have taken the thirty seconds to do a search and see if the data I linked is out of bed with the myriad other sources on the subject, and even could have done a reverse image search to see where mine came from, but it’s more fun for you to be dismissive of anyone from an age group you think is less worthy of respect than all the others.
That data is from a TD Ameritrade/Harris poll. I pulled it from this article because I liked the way it’s graphed, but you can find others that say the same thing.
If you think the range of years my birthday falls into is all you need to know about me, we can talk about credentials if you’d like. Personally, I try to be respectful of everyone until they show me that they, as an individual, aren’t deserving respect.
You said boomers saved nothing and lived paycheck to paycheck, and when I pointed you to data showing they’ve saved in the ballpark of the same amount as other ages you say of course they have less because they’re living off of it.
You not only need the basic logic classes, you need to learn civil discourse. Not sure why you need to belittle the people you’re talking with.
By the way, you seem to have the notion that people put retirement savings into an account, like beans in a jar, then they pull those beans out to live off of when they retire. For most middle class folks and above, it doesn’t usually work that way. They invest their savings in stocks or other investments and try to get it up to a point where they can mostly live off of the returns on those investments (plus social security and whatever else). The goal being not to have to draw much from the investments themselves, so just because people have been retired a while it doesn’t mean they necessarily have less saved than when they first retired. Obviously not everyone can do that - it’s much harder when your paycheck barely covers your expenses - but it’s a pretty common strategy.
So personal attacks are the only mode of discussion and debate you know, I guess. Seems like a miserable way to go through life. What am I doing to annoy you? Responding to your comments?
I have a good relationship with my kids, thanks. Our youngest is 25, getting her PhD. The other two are late 30s and doing well.
I really don’t know what issue you have with me, or if it’s really just because my birthday falls into a range that you find abhorrent. Aside from the year I chose to be born, I’ve voted for progressive policies, I give to charity, we’ve helped our kids as much as we’re able including paying for education and letting them live at home as long as they wanted, I work a meaningful job, and I’ve saved a responsible amount so we shouldn’t be a burden when I retire in a year or two. I know tons of people my age who can say the same things. I’m sorry if your experiences with older folks have left you with so much animosity or if you just live off of stereotypes.
It absolutely does that. Try selling on Amazon. It’s like a sellers concentration camp. You have zero control.
Also:
Usury should be extended to retail because it is highway robbery how HVAC companies put a 75% up-charge on their equipment because we need A/C. That’s robbery.
To be fair, it's hell for buyers and employees too. We're all suffering together.
Hmm, should I buy from NGHINXY, Feelssoft, or KlaPow today? Ten thousand 5-star reviews must mean they're all good. Or maybe I'll get a counterfeit SD card. Or some expired OTC medication. So many mediocre choices from the American internet's largest trash merchant!
3/4 of the HVAC places here won’t actually sell you parts. They list parts on their sites, but when you call, they say, “We don’t sell parts, but we’re happy to come out and repair your A/C or furnace.”
Important consequence of this in the context of elementary schools: most little boys don’t lift up the seat when they pee and their aim is atrocious. At my kids’ school, the gender neutral bathrooms are the toilets of last resort.
It’s pretty insane how nuts these people are. They’re willing to throw away their lives, maybe even kill others because their glorious leader is getting in trouble.
No, im someone that never uses amazon and has never had a problem getting anything from other retailers. Yall are the ones came in assuming no one could compete because their prices are too low, but turns out theyre too high.
First they set them low and take a loss while they undercut their competitors. Then, when the competition goes out of business, they can jack their prices way up. And at that point it’s much more difficult for someone to start a new business and compete with the behemoth that is Amazon.
I’m not quite sure you are thinking of a monopoly in the way everyone else is. They don’t mean Amazon controls literally everything but it’s a big enough piece of online retail that price ranges are controlled by Amazon. They also take a high percentage of all transactions through their website.
A monopoly means you have low competition for a product or service, so customers have to use you. Amazon is shitty, ive boycotted them for a long time, but they dont have any monopolies, people just dont have standards. Theres readily available alternatives for everything they offer.
Its like im watching a bunch of cardiac patients suing KFC for all the buckets of fried chicken they willingly ate.
Remember that AZ takes a percentage cut of each sale and is also able to ship cheaper than basically anyone because of their position in the market. So imagine you have a product, and in order to make a profit from said product you have to charge $x. But in order to profit after Amazon’s fees you have to charge $x + $y on Amazon’s platform. So that’s where the “prices too high” cones from. If your product does well on amazon they’ll make their own version and sell it for less than $x. Now you get less sales on AZ and you can’t go back to selling on your own site because you can’t compete with your higher shipping costs, plus AZ can run at a loss on the product they copied from you until you’re out of business… This is where the “prices too low” comes from; the price AZ can offer is too low for you to compete with. After you go out of business, AZ can charge whatever they want. So you see “prices too high” again.
When you start selling a new product you take on risk because there might not be a sustainable market for it. AZ never has to take this risk, but they can reap the rewards from your risk if it does well.
Because AZ represents almost 40% of the ecommerce market, because no other company is as horizontally and vertically integrated, because no other company has the same stranglehold on third party sellers. I’m not defending the practices of other retailers; that isn’t what this lawsuit is about. It’s the practices COMBINED with the unique position that AZ holds where they control so, soooooo much more than any other retailer. Honestly AZ is like textbook monopolistic and if you still can’t see how that’s a bad thing I can’t really help you any more.
I’ll give an anecdote that I experienced just now. I bought a computer component, but I had to dig through the “other buying options” to find it on Amazon. The default recommended listing had a price of $207, delivered to me by 2 October. The listing I eventually found was priced at $206, delivered by 28 September. So it cost less and would arrive sooner, the only difference is that it was a third-party seller and not Amazon.
Amazon sells many items I sell in my brick and mortar shop for less than I can purchase them from distributors. Many times at not much more than my distributors pay. This causes me to either not be able to sell the items, or sell at a loss.
Amazon, like Walmart, targets smaller retailers with undercutting prices. The difference is Walmart does it on a local store by store basis and Amazon goes after entire sections of online sales.
The company keeps prices higher by deterring online sellers who offer cheaper alternatives by burying their results on its platform making them “invisible,” the FTC claimed. Amazon made it expensive for sellers to sell products on other platforms when they are part of its fulfillment service, which then makes it tougher for these businesses to compete against the retailer.
The regulator also accused Amazon of “deliberately” flooding a customer’s search results with ads that make it a less pleasant experience when they search for products on the platform. The company also elevated its own products over others that might be of better quality in its search results and charges sellers fees that are about 50 percent of their revenues, the FTC alleged.
I took 10 seconds to look more into it for you. You’re asking a lot of questions that can be easily answered by reading about it
So are most gender neutral bathrooms at businesses. I bet most of the conservatives don’t care if they are, and if asked would still oppose them on principle (even if they don’t actually notice when they use them at businesses)
Those are not painless methods and they hearken to a sense of vengeance, not justice. If someone is truly so irredeemable that we cannot re-educate them to learn to be good citizens or at least non-offending citizens, then we should remove them from the ability to cause further harm. But we are not in the business of causing suffering, at least not on paper we’re not. So we should give the person a civilized death with no pain, as causing pain is not justice, it’s vengeance.
Removing them painlessly if they’re not able to be rehabilitated, definitely what I would call justice.
Hanging, shooting, whichever other painful or ‘old world justice’ method, I’m hesitant to call that justice because it causes pain and suffering needlessly. Criminals treat people less than people. People must treat criminals like people, or we’re all criminals.
Removal being life in prison? I think that’s whay you meant, so let me know if i misread thay.
That’s not what I think justice is because prison is about reform and not punishment. If you’re punishing them, okay, then that’s a whole other topic. But if your intent is to reform, and they’re too old to serve the sentence designed for reform or they’re deemed mentally unfit to be capable of reforming (usually in the case of extremely violent but low intelligent individuals), then the existing prison system we have in the US would be cruel to just cage someone who can’t change. The conditions US prisoners endure, especially when it comes to inmates on death row, is abysmal. Giving them the opportunity to take their own life without pain or suffering is my main “preference”, allowing death row inmates to just sit and rot in those conditions sounds worse than death. Of course, I’d leave that opinion up to the inmates though.
I’m in full agreement that laws are not 100% fairly and correctly applied, so my preference would be to allow painless suicide as “time served” for death row. Stay as long as you think you’re innocent, and hopefully we fix the conditions so they don’t want to take their life regardless of innocence due to the psychological damage they might receive.
But I’m all in agreement when it comes to reducing the cost. I don’t love the death penalty, I think it should be reserved for absolutely impossible cases, but it should be cheaper.
I mean, I only believe in execution for people who are genuinely beyond help, extreme psychological damage or deficiencies, and that’s because I don’t believe in life incarceration either.
If someone can be reformed, reform them. If they can’t, caging them like animals for the last of their days is almost worse than the death penalty for me too. A man who is sentenced to die in prison for his crimes due to the years he’s sentenced, he should be able to opt out and go for the painless death. No forcing, no incentive, no coercion, death with dignity.
Honestly, with some prison reform I don’t think we’d need 40-50 year life sentences as often because people could actually change. For those that can’t, or who are too old to be able to change before their time served, the right to end it peacefully is something I think we all owe each other.
Personally If there’s no chance someone will ever be released, I find that almost more cruel then a painless execution. As long as it’s 100% without a doubt guilty I support this method of execution.
People would choose life in prison because deaths scares them, but spending 25-50 years in a box sounds worse to me than death does. Not only that, they have 25+ years to likely just wait to develop cancer and spend another 1-5 years dying slowly and painfully.
This isn’t more intricate, it’s significantly more efficient and foolproof. There are so many ways that hanging someone or shooting them can go wrong, it’s unnecessarily complicated.
Very hard to prove even with a preponderance of evidence that you got it from work and not, say, going to 7-11 like these many receipts we found in discovery. Nurses largely didn't and don't get to claim it as work related.
Fully agree, these companies need broken up into baby bells and they need to be prevented from joining back up together like AT&T did every time they were broke up. Fining 1% of profits as a punishment is not enough to prevent these practices
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.