Why are Millennials more...Liberal?

[Ns1]

cuz we can't relate to stuff like this

"Frozen," the hit Disney animated musical about a girl who tries to save her kingdom and her ice-powered sister, has become the latest Hollywood movie to rile conservative commentators, with one pastor criticizing the film for indoctrinating homosexuality and bestiality in children.

On the talk show Generations Radio, Kevin Swanson and his co-host, Steve Vaughn, took Disney to task for "leading the charge" in promoting a "pro-homosexual" agenda in "Frozen."

Swanson and Vaughn referred to posts by Steven D. Greydanus for the National Catholic Register and Gina Luttrell for the liberal PolicyMic -- the former of which critiques "Frozen's" alleged gay message (the commentators agree with this one) and the latter of which celebrates the movie's progressiveness (the commentators use as further evidence of the film's messaging). Neither Swanson nor Vaughn has seen the movie.


http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...agenda-20140312,0,5118956.story#ixzz2vnOpAHRH

 

[Jhhnn]

While the baby boomers spent their whole lives piggybacking off the accomplishments of their parents and then secured the best pensions in the history of humanity by selling off America to foreign interests and leaving the future generations with crumbling infrastructure and in debt slavery.

I believe it was the generation ahead of us who did that. Boomers were not yet at the age & state of wealth to influence that when it started. The oldest Boomers were only 34 years of age when Reagan was elected. It's been Boomers & Gen-Xers who have provided well for their seniors ever since.

 

[blankslate]

The "They are poorer than their predecessor generations at the same point in their life cycles....." answers much. If one is succeeding, then ceding the fruits of one's labors to government looks increasingly like a bad idea. If one is failing, then ceding the fruits of one's labors to government in return for virtually anything looks like a winning proposition.

I disagree. It's a matter of how has the ladder become harder to climb. In previous generations after the Great Depression the number of steps between the top and the bottom, in terms of income inequality wasn't as great as it is now in the U.S.

So how did that happen? Of course people with different views will look for different answers.

It's not a matter "how do I go about bringing the top of the ladder down to me?" it's more a matter of "how did the top get so much higher than the bottom or the middle?"

Income inequality levels for when millennials are starting out is higher now than it has been for the previous generations questioned in the Pew Poll in the OP. At least according to an article from Pew that references a Berkeley study on the income gap between the very top and the rest.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...n-rise-for-decades-is-now-highest-since-1928/

Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at UC-Berkeley, has been doing just that for years. And according to his research, U.S. income inequality has been increasing steadily since the 1970s, and now has reached levels not seen since 1928.

In 1928, the top 1% of families received 23.9% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90% received 50.7%. But the Depression and World War II dramatically reshaped the nation’s income distribution: By 1944 the top 1%’s share was down to 11.3%, while the bottom 90% were receiving 67.5%, levels that would remain more or less constant for the next three decades.

But starting in the mid- to late 1970s, the uppermost tier’s income share began rising dramatically, while that of the bottom 90% started to fall. The top 1% took heavy hits from the dot-com crash and the Great Recession but recovered fairly quickly: Saez’s preliminary estimates for 2012 (which will be updated next month) have that group receiving nearly 22.5% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90%’s share is below 50% for the first time ever (49.6%, to be precise).

People will give out different reasons for the widening of that gap according to their inclinations. There is data, however, to say that it does exist, has increased in recent decades. That growing difference since the 70's may have given generations previous to Millennials a slight advantage at least.







.....

 

[Pray To Jesus]

LOL That is almost profound.

The "They are poorer than their predecessor generations at the same point in their life cycles....." answers much. If one is succeeding, then ceding the fruits of one's labors to government looks increasingly like a bad idea. If one is failing, then ceding the fruits of one's labors to government in return for virtually anything looks like a winning proposition.

They don't understand that Progressivism causes each generation to be poorer than the last.

 

[Jhhnn]

Math explains it all, Blankslate. At 7%, average market returns, money doubles in 10 years, and doubles every 10 years there after. Over the span of 40 years, investors have 16X the money they started with, which is a whole different kind of curve than the one wages have followed. When investment income is taxed at lower rates, or escapes taxation entirely, the problem is compounded.

Many of the strictures of the New Deal, now abandoned for the most part, served to diminish that effect somewhat.

 

[Incorruptible]

Math explains it all, Blankslate. At 7%, average market returns, money doubles in 10 years, and doubles every 10 years there after. Over the span of 40 years, investors have 16X the money they started with, which is a whole different kind of curve than the one wages have followed. When investment income is taxed at lower rates, or escapes taxation entirely, the problem is compounded.

Many of the strictures of the New Deal, now abandoned for the most part, served to diminish that effect somewhat.

The New Deal never should have been enacted.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

That simply means that I am not credulous.

Oh, wow.

 

[Vic]

The New Deal never should have been enacted.

If it hadn't, we likely would have lost WWII.

 

[Incorruptible]

If it hadn't, we likely would have lost WWII.

No, The new deal only caused more problems and the US would have won without it.

 

[SaurusX]

Math explains it all, Blankslate. At 7%, average market returns, money doubles in 10 years, and doubles every 10 years there after. Over the span of 40 years, investors have 16X the money they started with, which is a whole different kind of curve than the one wages have followed. When investment income is taxed at lower rates, or escapes taxation entirely, the problem is compounded.

Many of the strictures of the New Deal, now abandoned for the most part, served to diminish that effect somewhat.

1.07^40=14.97. So almost 15 times the start amount.

 

[Vic]

No, The new deal only caused more problems and the US would have won without it.

I guess you don't know your history very well then. It was America's infrastructure that won the war. Much of that infrastructure, in particular the power grid, was built by the New Deal.

Edit : for example, the Manhattan project could not have been carried through without the TVA and BPA.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I guess you don't know your history very well then. It was America's infrastructure that won the war. Much of that infrastructure, in particular the power grid, was built by the New Deal.

Edit : for example, the Manhattan project could not have been carried through without the TVA and BPA.

Hell go real simply the federal highways, leave that up to states? its a 4 lane highway in some states then it bottle necks near the governors 2nd cousins gas station, then it goes into another state where the road simply ends because they ran out of money to complete it.

 

[werepossum]

I disagree. It's a matter of how has the ladder become harder to climb. In previous generations after the Great Depression the number of steps between the top and the bottom, in terms of income inequality wasn't as great as it is now in the U.S.

So how did that happen? Of course people with different views will look for different answers.

It's not a matter "how do I go about bringing the top of the ladder down to me?" it's more a matter of "how did the top get so much higher than the bottom or the middle?"

Income inequality levels for when millennials are starting out is higher now than it has been for the previous generations questioned in the Pew Poll in the OP. At least according to an article from Pew that references a Berkeley study on the income gap between the very top and the rest.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...n-rise-for-decades-is-now-highest-since-1928/

People will give out different reasons for the widening of that gap according to their inclinations. There is data, however, to say that it does exist, has increased in recent decades. That growing difference since the 70's may have given generations previous to Millennials a slight advantage at least.
.....

Good point. Loss of manufacturing and increased automation took out a lot of good-paying jobs, pushing those people down the economic ladder. But it's pretty much the same point as mine, just one specific reason why they are less prosperous.

They don't understand that Progressivism causes each generation to be poorer than the last.

That and outsourcing.

I guess you don't know your history very well then. It was America's infrastructure that won the war. Much of that infrastructure, in particular the power grid, was built by the New Deal.

Edit : for example, the Manhattan project could not have been carried through without the TVA and BPA.

Yeah . . . I'm really not thinking that Social Security and rural electrification had much to do with our victory. The vast majority of manufacturing infrastructure we used pre-existed the New Deal, and for projects like the Manhattan Project new infrastructure had to be created specifically for those projects. Certainly without TVA location in Tennessee would not have been possible, but the majority of TVA's hydro and coal plants of the war era were commissioned in the late thirties specifically for the war build-up, and primarily for the new industry of aluminum manufacturing. TVA's main mandate in the early thirties was flood control (the Tennessee was the nation's most destructive river in flooding) and maintaining navigability, with electrical power generation a tertiary concern.

 

[bradly1101]

It's obvious that humans are evolving.

 

[werepossum]

It's obvious that humans are evolving.

Evolving to be more dependent? Wouldn't that be devolving?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Evolving to be more dependent? Wouldn't that be devolving?

Not sure if serous...

 

[werepossum]

Not sure if serous...

Serious as a heart attack on Obamacare, dude. More liberal = more progressive = more dependent on government = less capable of self support and independent thought. Imagine a spider with all the freedoms and terrors inherent in being a free creature. Now imagine that spider evolving into a tick, dependent on its host for its sustenance. Is that evolution, or devolution?

 

[Jhhnn]

Evolving to be more dependent? Wouldn't that be devolving?

Interdependent. We always have been, other than in Ayn Rand novels & some Western Movies.

It's even more pronounced the more specialized skill sets become.

 

[Jhhnn]

Serious as a heart attack on Obamacare, dude. More liberal = more progressive = more dependent on government = less capable of self support and independent thought. Imagine a spider with all the freedoms and terrors inherent in being a free creature. Now imagine that spider evolving into a tick, dependent on its host for its sustenance. Is that evolution, or devolution?

I'm trying to imagine that making sense.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Evolving to be more dependent? Wouldn't that be devolving?

We evolved to be more dependent on each other millions of years ago when our primate ancestors took to living in groups as a means to increase survival. The entirety of human culture is a product of our intellect, which is related to our large brains, which could never have evolved if we weren't a communal species that could defend an expectant mother for the gestation time of a fetus with an enormous cranium and the subsequent long childhood and maturation process. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool conservative will realize that there is an interdependence inherent in our system, that he could not live without people to build his house, build his car, extract his oil, make his gun, whatever. It doesn't have to be government, obviously, but framing interdependence as weakness or "devolution" is just nonsense.

 

[Jhhnn]

We evolved to be more dependent on each other millions of years ago when our primate ancestors took to living in groups as a means to increase survival. The entirety of human culture is a product of our intellect, which is related to our large brains, which could never have evolved if we weren't a communal species that could defend an expectant mother for the gestation time of a fetus with an enormous cranium and the subsequent long childhood and maturation process. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool conservative will realize that there is an interdependence inherent in our system, that he could not live without people to build his house, build his car, extract his oil, make his gun, whatever. It doesn't have to be government, obviously, but framing interdependence as weakness or "devolution" is just nonsense.

"Independence" is a highly romanticized & idealized concept on the American Right.

I figure it's about the Wealthy depending on the rest of us, and us not being able to depend on them at all.

 

[Zaap]

Evolving to be more dependent? Wouldn't that be devolving?

Just check the answers you get to that question.

You're not going to get those that want more than anything to devolve (themselves and everyone else along with them) into total dependency on their precious government to do a 180 on that.

It's like expecting Idiocracy to reverse itself.

 

[OverVolt]

I believe it was the generation ahead of us who did that. Boomers were not yet at the age & state of wealth to influence that when it started. The oldest Boomers were only 34 years of age when Reagan was elected. It's been Boomers & Gen-Xers who have provided well for their seniors ever since.

I can agree with this its just that the Boomers now expect the same in kind but there aren't enough Gen-X'ers and Older Gen Y to support that kind of retirement lifestyle, period. Regardless of whatever accounting and economic wizardry the problem is there aren't enough people working and creating wealth to sustain the sheer number of people retiring with the same lifestyles as they had in the past.

Considering that boomers are still in all the positions of power they are trying their damned hardest to get it at the expense of everyone else. Don't know who will win yet in the long run. That is still up in the air.

But that is the question. Will the younger crowd get the American dream they were promised or will the boomers get the retirement they were promised? Playing out over the next 20 years.

Demographics are so predictable, we really wasted those prime years of the boomers. No one knows what to do about it.

I'm surprised how many people have their head in the sand on how demographics and retirement will affect the economy going forward. Its probably the single most important factor. Boomers are afraid to peek at what the future has in store for them, just praying the stock market goes up. Young people are so far from thinking about retirement they haven't got a clue.

 

[Jaskalas]

Why are Millennials more...Liberal?
...
Any thoughts?

Said "old" people of any future generation... ever.

 

[unokitty]

Serious as a heart attack on Obamacare, dude. More liberal = more progressive = more dependent on government = less capable of self support and independent thought. Imagine a spider with all the freedoms and terrors inherent in being a free creature. Now imagine that spider evolving into a tick, dependent on its host for its sustenance. Is that evolution, or devolution?

Rising Share of Young Adults Live in Their Parents’ Home

In 2012, 36% of the nation’s young adults ages 18 to 31—the so-called Millennial generation—were living in their parents’ home, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. This is the highest share in at least four decades and represents a slow but steady increase...

The men of the Millennial generation are more likely than the women to be living with their parents—40% versus 32%—continuing a long-term gender gap in the share of young adults who do so.

Dependent? A generation that is setting the record for refusing to leave their parent's home, dependent?

Uno