Hmmm, exactly who was President during this period? What were the policies which caused this?
Hmmmm...
''These were boom times, but it was boom times if you had money to invest, if you had a graduate degree in technology, if you were particularly well-educated and well-skilled,''
Those market forces are a bit@h...
Jim never shied away from hard work.
Neither did the horse in Animal Farm.
Whether it's a lack of job retraining opportunities, or generational attitude, or simply personality, he has never contemplated a career change.
Don't worry, the Liberal politicians will string you along with promises, and pick you up from the soup kitchen in the get-out-the-vote van.
So if you don't increase your skill level, you stay at the same income....shocking.
During the past 25+ years, that guy couldn't go back to school and get a Bachelor's degree??? And a woman who has multiple years experience as a secretary couldn't find another secretarial job???
The author probably searched a good, long time to find these people...
I'm not sympathetic, and there is something obviously missing from this portrait of despair.
When you're taking 50 percent pay reductions, it's time to think about finishing that Associates degree, opening your own business, or doing just about anything other than what is clearly not working.
Dad looks like a slacker to me.
--------------------------
This has been a typical broad occurrence across the country and if anything is understated here. The people at the top 15% of incomes write the articles praising the economy while brokering its decline. The people at the median level and below take the beating and have had no representation in anything since Ross Perot in '92.
The economy began to flatten in the last quarter of '88 and has never fully recovered.
Typical - liberal - horseshit - drama...
And the writer of this piece is probably a freshly graduated 26 y/o with a post-grad degree from an ivy league school (tuition paid by you and I of course) who's buffing up her credentials for a future in left wing politics.
Oh, and what's the deal with "less than $25,000" in credit card debt? Ya mean, like, $24,000 in credit card debt?
Meanwhile, our budding Diane Sawyer tilts her head -- in soft focus lense -- and empathisizes with these assholes.
I think I'm going to puke.
This isn't an article about poverty, its an article about covetousness, entitlement and a lack of thrift. It's a shame that the reporter has the gaul to write this.
There's your problem right there. That is a staggering level of credit card debt. If the interest rate is around 12% (as most of them are), that is $3,000 in interest every year. So even if these people are paying $500 a month (a hefty payment for a family making less than $30,000 a year), they will spend six months a year just keeping up with the interest. It could well take decades to pay this down even if they ripped up their credit cards and vowed to never use them again. "Easy credit" is the real bane of the working class. If you get yourself into debt with credit cards, you will simply never get ahead.
As for the 401(k), I do not understand. This guy was making over $60,000 a year and "$7,000 to 8,000" is all he has to show for it? He must have been contributing a very small amount. I have been contributing at least 10% of my pay to my 401(k) since 1985 and even with the recent losses, the balance is so high I am embarrassed to even mention it here. I just hope it means something when I turn 59 1/2 and can finally make use of it.
I live in Massachusetts and while there is no doubt there are families having it tough (there always are anyhow), it is still hard getting a seat in a restaurant on a Friday night and just about all the shows are always sold out. Real estate prices are still sky high. I don't see a "bust" situation at all (even though I might get laid off next week and then I might have a different opinion!).
Thank you!
In essence, the false sense of security rife with lies and deceptions passed off by the Clinton administration, created the atmosphere for this phony economic boom.
I took those kind of jobs when I was a teenager and never expected to be in them more than a few months. These are low-skill, entry-level jobs. Of course your income will not rise if you choose to make a career out of it! You are supposed to use these jobs to move on to bigger and better things. In fact, this article talks about this Jim Spencer "rising from the stock room to supervisor." Well I bet he never would have made the $60,000 if he stayed in the stockroom.
BTW since when was there a recession in 1989?
Oh that's right, this is the home of the Dukakis "Massachusetts Miracle." Right. The left can't win for losing in this pathetic mellerdrammer.
Geez, I'm scratching my head. All that comes to me is that the 80's were the "decade of greed," a view the Boston Globe (or "glob") did not dissent from.
My advice to all: you'd better be saving every dime you can. Your job may be next.
I guess Massachusetts' brand of Bolshevism isn't working then.
why does the government (ala the general public footing the bill, usually the more affluent) always have to try solve *the problems*? does government ever even really solve these *problems* successfully?
if one thing lead me to be conservative after being a rioting liberal for so long it was this: government solving people's personal problems, and people expecting it. people need to solve their own problems. "government programs" are just politicians creating voting constituencies; and for the conspiracy theorist, a way for commies to slow capitalist economies. i get really tired of people who say "it's all i've known" championed by some power-hungry politician all too willing to dive deep into my pocketbook to help out these unfortunate souls.