<p>
</p>
<p>When? I think no such thing, or else I wouldn’t have worked for him.</p>
<p>And by “your generation of voters”, I basically meant anyone over early/mid-30s. So, tens of millions at least.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know how else to read it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you are talking about voting age citizens, and arbitrarily slice it there, you may be correct. It is definitely not hundreds of millions. I suspect if you slice it around 40 the numbers are pretty close above and below. What I also believe is that in typical elections the turnout among under 35 voters is low, and an increase of 10% would make a significant difference.</p>
<p>And BTW, I’m pretty sure this has been true forever. Youthful voters always feel they are powerless, and they often don’t turn out to vote.</p>
<p>The first thing you quoted was about voting. It had nothing to do with working for a candidate so I still don’t understand how you got that out of it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So now you are saying that if you work for a candidate you can do something about it? You can solve the problems by getting involved? Okay. I agree with you.</p>
<p>And because you can have an effect you have to include yourself in the blame for anything that continues to happen today, the same way you hold prior generations responsible for their government’s actions. At some pioint governmental policies become just as much your responsibility as mine.</p>
<p>I still think anyone can make at least some difference by voting and helpng to turn out voters. I guess you disagree. I’m going to continue to vote, even though my candidates often lose.</p>
<p>I never said any of that. And I don’t believe almost anything in that post. Other than at some point it will become our problem. It already is, but ok. </p>
<p>Your first and last lines directly contradict each other. You first said I believe you can solve problems by getting involved and then you said I disagree that a difference can be made by getting involved. </p>
<p>This is getting no where. I’m not sure what is being missed but I’m not going to continue this because honestly, I’m a bit lost. So have a great day, bover :)</p>
<p>^^^
I never wrote this. I said you disagree that you can make a difference through voting. You made the distinction between voting and getting involved working for a candidate, not me. When you wrote this-</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
What I wrote was that it will sometime becomne your responsibility as well. Maybe you can tell me when anything the government is currently doing becomes your responsibility in the same way you are holding your parents genration responsible for the past. Oh, wait, you’re done responding. </p>
<p>Sorry you can’t follow it.</p>
<p>romani, you ought to realize that there are many of us out here who did NOT vote for the people who chose to conduct two wars on a credit card, irresponsibly cut taxes, attempt to eviscerate financial and environmental regulation, put in place a Medicare drug program that was a sweetheart deal for big pharma, etc, etc. There are plenty of us who have worked for civil rights for all Americans, protested against wars, recycled, avoided gas guzzlers and turned down the thermostat, volunteered in YOUR schools, tried to buy American rather than support the shipping of jobs overseas, held jobs, paid taxes, raised children, and been involved in our communities. Don’t forget that Jimmy Carter had solar panels installed on the White House, and Ronald Reagan had them removed. I, for one, don’t accept one iota of blame for the nation’s current financial troubles. I vote in every election, and I never cast a vote for those who have landed us in this situation. </p>
<p>Also consider that since 2001 there has been an even more concerted effort than usual to manipulate the public through fear. Maybe things aren’t quite as dire as you think.</p>
<p>Sigh. </p>
<p>I’m not trying to blame anyone. I don’t like fingerpointing because it gets nothing accomplished. We are being left a mess. ** I DO NOT BLAME ANYONE **. Blame gets us nowhere. I wish we would accept the fact that we are currently in a mess and work to fix that rather than trying to figure out whose fault it is that we got here. I apologize if anything I said sounded like blame. That was not my intention. </p>
<p>I don’t know how else to explain it. I give up.</p>
<p>Romani- I agree 100 percent with your last post. We may disagree slightly on the degree of “mess” we’re in but otherwise I’m completely on board with that post. Only took about 20 posts to dscover we are generally in violentg agreement.</p>
<p>Great post Consolation (#207), I dont think people recognize the current mess we are in has mainly to do with unfunded war for the last decade. I could be wrong but I believe it is the only time in the history of this country that taxes were not raised to fund combat. They were lowered instead, no wonder we are in so much debt. Of course the poor bank practices play into this as well.
Instead of complaining about the past generations we should complain about war funding
</p>
<p>I think that it’s important to recognize the difference between anecdotes and data. “I did this” “My wife did that” My parents did this" “I don’t have a smart phone” - all interesting, and all valuable in terms of explaining your own perspective, but not very helpful in terms of assessing objective truths. Everyone knows a spoiled kid or adult; everyone knows someone who triumphed over adversity. Interesting, but not particularly significant.</p>
<p>This is data: A young Californian in the late 60’s - early 70’s could attend a first rate University, and over 7 years obtain a bachelors degree and a professional degree, for a tuition cost equal to about 2100 hours of work at minimum wage - that’s about 6 hours a week. Working 20 hours a week during the school year with a summer job could actually cover cost of living and the cost of an education. </p>
<p>For a young Californian to pay the UC tuition today to earn the same degrees he or she would have to work 26,000 hours at current minimum wage over that 7 year period - which is simply not possible. That’s not one person’s story or one family’s story, that’s a fact of life facing thousands of young people every year. I’m sure there are lots of regular posters here on CC who are only too familiar with the dismal facts of economic life for the educationally aspirational in the 21st century.</p>
<p>So students have to take out loans. (Financial advisers caution families against spending their savings on college - better to save it for retirement, since the kids will have years to pay off those loans.) Four years (or more) later those young people enter the workforce, saddled with tens of thousands of dollars of debt. I have a hard time squaring that with young people being “coddled.”</p>
<p>Our parents paid it forward for us, on a society-wide basis. We haven’t done the same. We’re in no position to criticize the younger generations. We’re the ones who were coddled.</p>
<p>Thank you for saying it so well, kluge.</p>
<p>Kluge-
So what? UC College tuition is one data point. I wouldn’t presume to criticize the current kids for being coddled, but neither would I condemn the baby boom gneration which instuted the first real environmental rules, started Medicare and brought about huge advabcements in civil rights. Maybe you haven’t paid ot forward but I assure you many of our generation have in many ways.I took out loans and paid for m education and now am paying for my kid’s education. And you can still get a decent education through community college and state schools (no UC) without going into lifelong debt.</p>
<p>BTW - if you criticize with a broad brush it only takes one contrary example to negate your universal declaration. Again, nice of you to admit you were coddled and entitled. You don’t speak for everyone.</p>
<p>Well said, kluge. CA is in the same situation as MI in regards to tuition and such. We’re two of the highest tuition states. You guys at least have a higher minimum wage and a slightly less sucky economy 
(not that it means much of anything in the grand scheme of things).</p>
<p>It seems to me that it’s the top one percent that are coddled, with the ability to influence legislation at the federal, state and local level; pick up sweetheart contacts from government agencies; and pay less in overall taxes than the peons who work for them.</p>
<p>While they’re robbing the rest of us blind, we only see ever-scarcer opportunities for both the old (lost home equity, lost corporate pensions, zilch return on savings) and the young (poor job opportunities, unpaid internships, sky-high college debt).</p>
<p>I would respond to post 216, but my gag reflex is stopping me.</p>
<p>LoremIpsum: Spot on. I’d also add declining wages, skyrocketing healthcare costs and a much higher overall cost of living relative to income.</p>
<p>I do not believe the current situation at UC schools can be laid directly at the feet of the coddled baby boom. There are multiple reasons for increases in UC tuition including increased demand for higher education in general. But since we are now required tp priduce data studies (in keeping with the kluge and annasdad policies) I will need to research the timeline in ther growth of UC tuition as well as thw average student debt burden before commenting further.</p>
<p>Okay, from this site and a few others, average total college debt around 27K
[Average</a> student loan debt tops $25,000 - Nov. 3, 2011](<a href=“http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/03/pf/student_loan_debt/index.htm]Average”>Average student loan debt tops $25,000 - Nov. 3, 2011)</p>
<p>About the price of a new car. Not great. Not tragic. </p>
<p>From this site COA for UC around 28K (off campus housing - I split the difference) for CA resident
[University</a> of California - What does UC cost?](<a href=“http://universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/paying-for-uc/cost/index.html]University”>http://universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/paying-for-uc/cost/index.html)</p>
<p>From my Cass and Birnbaum, COA in early 70s - around $3700 total for Ca resident</p>
<p>Minimum wage CA 1970 - $1.65
Minimum wage CA now - $8</p>
<p>[History</a> of California Minimum Wage](<a href=“http://www.dir.ca.gov/iwc/MinimumWageHistory.htm]History”>History of California Minimum Wage)</p>
<p>I’m sure the 1.65 bought more in 1970, but I sure didn’t feel coddled working for that wage.</p>
<p>So 2242 hours at min wage in 1970 - more than full time to pay the COA
Or 3.500 hours at min wage today - significantly more than full time</p>
<p>But if you attend CC first for two years or can live at home you can make the relative numbers almost equal.</p>
<p>THese UC tuition increases are relatively new - fees only went over 10K in 2010,
and were under 5K in 2003. So it was still relatively cheap to attend for anyone who has graduated recently. </p>
<p>But I’ll concede it’s worse/ harder now to afford UC in state.
I still feel that it’s hardly indicative of an uncaring, coddled baby boom generation. It’s tough, but not the end of the world. Yet. That’s why people should look forward and not back.</p>