Originally posted by inimalist
lol, ya, that almost certainly was me you were stepping over at one point. On the flip side, my finger dexterity is stupid-amazing. I also probably got carpal tunnel syndrome 🙂I'll try to keep it in relation to the thread though...
So like, raves were full of drugged up people who professed nothing but peace and love for eachother. Lots of people really thought it was a movement, like something that was going to change the world. The term PLUR was thrown around, as if the people who got high and felt the togetherness that MDMA brings were really peaceful, loving, united and respectful, but in the end, it was a scene that was just as clique-y as all the others.
There is no real substance to these counter-culture movements, and when the drugs ware off, we are all still these lonely people looking for social acceptance. There was no real social or political organization behind the movement, which a lot of people thought there would be.
(Related to the thread but interesting🙂
On that, the UK basically banned "raves" because the drugs associated with it, with some calling it the "new hippie drug scene". This is what was behind The Prodigy's Album "Music for the Jilted Generation" With a specific example of "Their Law" being a direct reference and "middle finger" to the new laws about raves. You probably already know this but some of those techno heads in their late 30s will tell you how much like "hippies" they were, sticking it to the man in the underground scene.
I do not see them becoming the baby boomers of the UK, in the next 20 years, however. But some like to identify as the hippies of the US's 60s and 70s.
More directly on topic, I had an argument with one of my history professors about SS and Medicare.
Here is the response to the Prof. about it:
...I do not like social security in that, I am forced to pay for others.Here are my reasons:
1. I shouldn't have to pay another's retirement when it wasn't my fault other's didn't handle their retirement options as well. This was the only point I got to mention, of which, you had sharp reprimand and criticisms towards. Understandable, if that was my only reason. However, that reason is my right and I still hold it has acceptable justification, especially when taken in consort with my other two reasons.
2. Social Security should be in the hands of the private sector. Instead of 1 pool, 20 or more pools, with which to invest in. This would grant more control over investment, with an increased risk. This would also give the government the ability to set regulations for the private sector, while increasing the efficiency with which retirement funds are handled as the commercial sectors would be required to meet specific securities requirements. This point would actually take 20-30 pages to explain in more depth, but we don't have the time for that. This is still a social option, but it is not socialist entirely. It still promotes a social cooperation among individuals, but it empowers the people with more retirement liberties with only a little government control involved. Because retirement investment is "mandatory" now, I would assume it would be required that an individual have selected a retirement organization, with which to pool their money, still holding the same sense of security that SS has as far as "all encompassing" goes, but with increased efficiency and Return of Investment. The cost would be less, per person, with an increase in ROI. With regulations in place, it would be much more difficult for the organizations to fall under, losing thousands of customers their retirements, however, it is not impossible for them to fail. This would be a drawback. This brings me to the next point.
3. The current SS system is about to fail. Why am I doomed to pay thousands of dollars each year to both Medicare and SS when I will not benefit from them at all? I could have used those thousands of dollars over my short working career to invest, more effectively, in my own retirement that is far more likely to be around than SS or Medicare. [This point is overwhelmingly true. I forgot how many thousands of dollars I've had to invest, thus far, but I could have invested all of that into my 401k portfolio, I would be much further along towards my retirement goal.]
This is not to say that I have doomed Medicare and SS to fail. If massive reforms take place and those systems evolve into something more stable and beneficial to my generation, I will gladly throw out the above 3 points in favor of the reformed systems. However, in private hands, each system could run more efficiently.
(For this, we can use my retirement options.)
She said my perspective was very selfish, naive, and closed-minded. But why is she not the selfish, naive, and closed minded person? I understand that it will affect her generation if we cut it off, now, before it was too late. But wasn't that rather naive to not invest in her own retirement options IN ADDITION to her SS? Didn't she know that SS was never a "this is all you need" option? It was never a "all you need" option, ever, and was only to function as an assistance program, not a system that replaces your entire retirement. And from what older folks tell me, the original SS system in place was setup the way I outlined: private investment into retirement plans, but it was required.
So why the change? These older folks (they can be found at McDonald's every early morning from about 6-9...yes, I'm serious.) tell me that they were pissed when the government changed the system to a more social system. They are one generation older than the baby boomers so they think differently. These old folks are the "Greatest Generation" on through the "Silent Generation." One of my college books call these people the "traditionalists." They are sometimes referred to as the "we" generation to show a contrast to the "whining baby boomers" that are called the "me" generation.
Anyway, I like the traditionalists much more than the Baby Boomers. That professor of mine thinks she's entitled to my money for another 15 years, knowing full well that the system will fail while she is still alive and won't be there when it's time for me to retire in 2040. She doesn't care. Yet I'm the one that is naive, closed minded, and selfish, right?
Meanwhile, I'm investing in my own retirement in addition to pissing away thousands of dollars a year into SS and medicare/medicaid. My 401K retirement, at current investment, will see a bit over $7 million. That number may seem huge, but you have to factor in inflation. That money equates to something like 2 million (I don't remember...the formula is somewhere and I can't be arsed to find it.) Again, that may seem like a lot of money, but it's not: I will probably not be able to live off the interest from that money (if i take into account inflation and standard of living, the money I would get from interest would not be enough and I would have to dip into that pool of money just to live.).
They say that, now, you have to have $2 million to retire. What will it be in 2040? I don't even want to think about that.
That means I will have to invest much more aggressively in my retirement when I am done with school. But why? I could be done with this thing if I could just invest all my SS and Medicare and Medicaid money, now, and not have to worry about what I lack in my investment retirement.
Look at the best CD rates online and you'll find stuff as high as 1.85% APY (You do not want to do any sort of risky investing after you retire so things like Municipal Bonds and CDs are cool.) Apply that to $2 million. That's only $37,000 a year.
Apply it to $7 million: $129,500. But, with inflation, that number is much less by 2040. It would be comparable to the $2 million...if I remember. (If someone can find that formula, I'd be much obliged...it should be under investment formulas somewhere.)
If you own your home and your cars, right now, $37,000 might be do-able for most of America, right? That's just not the case. Factor in the ever increasing medical insurance, car insurance, home owners insurance, bla bla bla bla. Then factor in inflation, and that's poor. So even debt free, it would be difficult for a couple to live off of $37,000 a year. (Assuming that SS and Medicare do not exist...which is what I'm having to look forward to.)
Just checked the retirement calculator from Yahoo. I'll have to have over $10 million saved!!!!!!!!! I have to bump up retirement in order to get there.
Keep in mind, give me my SS, Medicare/Medicaid money, and that's not a problem. 😐
P.S. I never sent that e-mail, above, to her. I figure I'll just let it slide.