Yes, we can all complain about the Jєωs, etc. but usury is one of those evils like vaccines, public school or TV -- each individual can choose to opt out if he so desires.

In that respect it's much better than those evils that are thrust upon EVERYONE, which we can't do anything about -- wars, pollution, GMO crops, the Chastisement, Crisis in the Church, etc.

Sure, it's hard to buy a house with cash -- but a person could pick a cheaper/smaller house and owe much less -- even pay the house off in a 5 or 7 years instead of 30. You pay less interest on $85,000 than you do on $180,000.

Not being deep in debt is one of those "values" people used to have back in the 1940's and such. So yes, old people today are more likely to not be deep in debt. They're more likely to do without than go into hock for something.

Personally, I can relate. I share those values. I'd rather drive an old $1,000 car than go into debt for a nicer one. Sure, my wheels don't shine, but I haven't had a car payment since 2000. And that's true even though I'm married with 4 young children who need booster seats/car seats that take up a bunch of space.

The US pension system, medicare, social security, etc, has always been a ponzi scheme.  The money of younger people is transferred to the old.  They get raises as the dollar devalues, young people don't.

I suppose some people take the anti-borrowing position to the extreme of avoiding medical bills.

I know of a woman, one of my mother's good friends, a woman who left the convent around Vatican II to marry, she didn't want to spend $20,000 for another round of chemotherapy and she died soon thereafter.

$20,000 is nothing what it used to be, but some people are willing to die (or have other people die) for it.

Do you really believe that is the reason for the disparity doubling since 2005?

What has really happened is that the government has ensured the security of the older generation by incurring massive debts (at least up until now) but they're kicking the younger generation to the curb.

Just in:  Nail Hit Squarely on Head.

The AARP got organized and promised to deliver votes to whatever politician would drop major moolah into their laps. They're no different than the military-contractor lobby or the big bank lobby or the ghetto-welfare lobby. They took money out of the pockets of the working stiff and gave it to the ones who made the most noise, all to buy votes and keep the campaign contributions rolling in. The Republicans did it, and the Democrats did it.

And now, the country is broke, and these same selfish old farts are telling the kids they raised with no moral values and no religious faith and no jobs, to "bite the bullet" and "tighten the belt."

Hypocrites!  :really-mad2:

Quote from: Matthew

Not being deep in debt is one of those "values" people used to have back in the 1940's and such. So yes, old people today are more likely to not be deep in debt. They're more likely to do without than go into hock for something.

Personally, I can relate. I share those values. I'd rather drive an old $1,000 car than go into debt for a nicer one. Sure, my wheels don't shine, but I haven't had a car payment since 2000. And that's true even though I'm married with 4 young children who need booster seats/car seats that take up a bunch of space.

Sorry Matt- this may apply to some people in this country, but not to most. People had those "values" because they could afford to have them. Not anymore. Don't get me wrong, I'm not about buying more than I can afford. I have minimal debt, but affording a house in this country is almost impossible; don't get me wrong, I could buy a home much closer to work- but I'm not about to have my family into that kind of neighborhood- especially when I have only women at home for now (that is, no son... yet).

Home ownership (and being truly debt free) is so much harder for my generation than it was for my parents (and their parents). It was affordable; it isn't anymore. I think many had those "values" because credit was so much harder to come by, amongst other things, plus they'd just gotten out of the depression and knew how to do without also (which, is a great thing)

So while I do think there are many today who let themselves be put into debt needlessly (because of materialism and Americanism), I don't think the "values" of people would have changed so drastically, if it wasn't for the banksters making it near impossible for people to be slaves either.

I do not have very much time, as I am very busy, but I wanted to comment on this thread before it is buried.

It seems to me that the US government and the principles championed by the society which grew up within the past one hundred years, especially the so-called "Greatest" generation (which really seems like it was the worst -- besides their terribly-raised, spoiled children, that is) is politically and economically ordered such that it is almost impossible not to become integrated into the system of credit and debt.  Want to own land away from the city ?  You have to live in the city in order to get the sort of job that pays enough to buy it.  Want to have self-sufficient agriculture on that land ?  The most fertile land has been occupied and basically destroyed by farmers who couldn't resist the temptation to mechanise and industrialise their operations -- or else they felt they had to in order to compete with their neighbours, who themselves cashed out in order to compete with mass agribusiness firms.  Want to have access to supplies and repairs ?  You have to be within close proximity to the big chain stores, since all of the small shops were run out of business.  Want to get the sort of job that pays what you need to get out of the system ?  You have to pass through the education system first.  Want to get married and have a family ?  Your potential in-laws all think of you as deranged and suspicious because of your plans; if they are Catholics, however, they most likely already made the moral compromises you plan to avoid.

In the old days, Christians believed that it was sinful to go into debt and that all debt incurred put the debtor under the moral obligation to make due reparation.  I think cases of extremity made it no longer sinful, but it was still dangerous and had to be paid back (but I will have to look into this).  Now, did people in the US ever, as a general rule, hold that incurring debt was sinful ?  It seems to me that they never did except in certain areas and ethnic minorities.  The Church classically preached against debt, but in the US, the bishops winked at almost all of the Protestant ethusiasms of their flocks, even aping Protestant institutions and goals (mass education, joining the middle class, involving oneself in industrial enterprises, joining the Protestant political squabbles without making the crucial reservations of Catholic principle, &c.).  

So, were the "values" that Matthew mentions ever actually held by the citizens of the US government ?  I don't know; I haven't researched the issue.  I strongly doubt it though, given the way Protestants operate and have operated on this continent.  For them, killing the Indians and the wild animals, ploughing the ancient sod of the prairies, and poisoning all of the rivers with industrial waste was considered "progress" and "civilization."  For them, the erection of a public school and a Protestant meeting house were the crucial steps in forming new towns where they settled -- after all, people needed to be educated individuals who could vote and live in nuclear family units (in "dignity," according to Jefferson, who saw the villages in France and despised them as artifices to shackle the people in the country to "Popery," the Mass, and other "superstitions").  For them, the railroad and going to college and the advances of scientific agronomy are greater accomplishments than the love of poverty, a vibrant interior life, sincere obedience, or a hatred for sin and heresy.  For them, being a member of the middle class is considered being a "success"; indeed, the amassing of wealth was considered a sign that one has God's blessing, whereas one's poverty was proof of one's wickedness.

It should be kept in mind that, for almost every age of the Church's history, Christians championed about the exact opposite of almost all of these points of Protestantism.  In the US, because of the federal departments that directly stem from this diabolical Protestant mentality -- the education system, the tax system, the various incentives and programs, the transportation networks, subsidy programs, agricultural regulations, and medical and professional boards, water policies, &c. -- the entire culture and economy are pregnant with a general spirit that is directly opposed to the Catholic spirit.

It is almost impossible to avoid being overshadowed by this evil cloud unless one is willing to make heroic sacrifices in the creation or assumption of a family economy that is entirely separate from it.  It can't just be supplemental or a different flavour; the next generation won't be able to persevere just based on their parents' example.  One must begin with the roots; either make new ones or get new ones.  And the family economy is not enough; one has to do the same thing with culture.  Otherwise, Catholics will continue to be manipulated into taking on debt, and they will drown in it, both economically and culturally.

I agree with s2srea, Pere Joseph, and St. Jude Thaddeus (who could disagree with our family's patron?).

I would also reiterate that much blame can be placed at the feet of the Church for neglecting to preach against usury.

Probably a lot of the shift can be attributed to demographics.  The oldest baby boomers were 60 in 2005 and now they are 66.  So 2 years of baby boomers are now being counted in the 65 and older category.

What does the median income of the two groups have to do with people being baby boomers or not?

Also it is no secret that the US is producing fewer and fewer babies.

How does the relative size of the two groups (the baby boomers are responsible for the smaller size of the 21-34 group) affect the median incomes of the two?  Did you read the article?

 In addition the article was only comparing head-of-households and I think it is a known fact that people in general are getting married later in life especially the wealthier folks.

Single people are heads of their households.  You need to explain how these "observations" you're making have an relevance on the study.

 I wonder how many of the 35 and under head-of-households were blue collar folks?

What does that have to do with the median net worth?  Half the old people have net worths of more than $170,000, half the younger people have less than $3662, a paltry sum that will barely last a person a couple months of subsistence.

 I think the study is trying to exploit generational tensions in order to destabilize the country further.  

The people who have destabilized the country are the generations that have driven it to bankruptcy, all the while ensuring their own security on the backs of the younger people.  The disparity has doubled since 2005 because the young people are being squeezed with unemployment while the old people are being maintained by the government.  Money makes people arrogant.  Especially money from the government that is guaranteed and that younger workers today pay to support the older people.

There are probably plenty of 22-34 year-olds who are doing quite well who do not register in the study because they do not have head-of-household status.  

You mean they are living at home?

Therefore I think the study is pretty much useless and says nothing significant about the very real problems that the US is facing now.

It says nothing about the struggles of younger people and the relative government ensured security of the older people?  That's absurd.

 

Maybe it was funded by George Soros hoping to rally his fading Occupy Wall Street troops?

Baseless speculation.

Some people obviously don't have a problem with the younger generation being squeezed while the older generation indignantly carps about it as though they aren't the one's in large part responsible for the decline of the country.