401K means Wall Street IS Main Street.

Author: Greyparrot

Posts

Total: 89
#61
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
Because a bias does skew the statistics, I'm not denying that, but doesn't make them worthless. It was a fairly large sample size.
Sample size means nothing if the sample isn't random. If I went to republican event and asked how popular left wing policies are, is doesn't matter how many people I ask, the population I am sampling is biased. I will not get a representation of the general population. How you get your sample is critically important. If you don't do it correctly then your results are invalid. 

Perhaps we were having different conversations. I was talking about how millionaires work hard, and they don't just inherit their wealth.
My apologies, perhaps our terminology simply wasn't clear. Someone who works hard making like 60,000 a year for decades and saves up a million dollars could be classed as rich. But they would never be in the top tax brackets. Therefore they were not who I was referring to. A millionaire should have a higher tax rate than someone making 30,000 per year, but it should be lower than someone making hundreds of thousands or more per year. 

Ok, well you are making some claim about them not working. Just because it does happen every once in a while doesn't make it the norm. So, without statistics, I don't see any value in making that claim. Where did you initially get the idea that the rich not working is the norm?
Since we don't have stats either way I think we can drop this point. 

I don't appreciate you trying to use abstract concepts as the basis for an arbitrary increase in taxes on the successful people.
I don't understand why you think this is an abstract concept. A poor person uses a road for their own personal transportation. A rich person would use it to transport products and enhance their business. The rich person is profiting much more from public roads. That is in no way abstract. A poor person getting an education is a good thing. It gives them access to more opportunities. But a rich person uses that education to turn a profit. Do you think any of the richest men in the world could have gotten where they are without an educated work force? How you do build Microsoft if you can't find any workers who know how to program? How do build amazon without workers who can design and build a complicated distribution system. The poor befit from government education, the rich make huge amounts of money off of it. It is pretty straight forward.

I've heard those Nordic countries you guys love so much tax the poor quite aggressively.
And they are still the happiest countries in the world. Their government actually tries to work in their best interest rather than in the best interest of billionaires. 

But restaurants are a great place for TEENS to work. Should there be no jobs for teens?
I don't believe I ever objected to there being separate minimum wages for teenagers and for adults. I'm fine with a teenage minimum wage being a bit lower so that they can gain experience. But adults need to be able to support themselves and potentially a family. It should be illegal for a company to pay people a wage they cannot live off of. 

And you also didn't mention if this wage hike would bring jobs in or ship them out. I'd like your opinion.
Ultimately a minimum wage is a bandaid solution. It is an attempt to prevent souless corporations from paying wages so low that their employees need government help just to survive. I don't believe it is the best way to resolve the issue. Other methods will need to be used to fix the issue. One interesting one I heard was tying the maximum amount a CEO's pay could be to the average pay of the workers at the company. IE if the average pay was 20,000, then the CEO or any execs could not be compensated more than X times more than that. so if the rule were they could only make 20x more than the average then a CEO at a company where the average salary was 20,000 could only be compensated 400,000. I thought that was interesting. It would add a personal motivation for execs to pay their workers a better salary. 

We also need much stronger union laws. Unionized workers make much more than non-unionized ones. We need to strengthen unions so that workers actually have some negotiating power. 
#62
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
Going to an event with people with an obvious stance on the issues would be problematic. They didn't set it up on a site for self-made millionaires. This would be more comparable to an opinion poll. Not necessarily accurate, but it brings up general trends. 

We agree that rich should pay more. You just believe in making it disproportionately more. I don't feel like we will get past that part. Just because someone is successful doesn't mean they got a bunch of help from the government. There are failing businesses with hundreds of publicly educated employees and millionaire proprietors with a few or no employees. You then, are taxing success, rather than actual use of the system.

I would like to know where you got the idea that the rich don't work hard just out of curiosity. I don't care if there are statistics.

Ok, but when the rich businesses use the roads, their vehicles use gas, right? Well, gas taxes go towards maintaining roads. So, therefore, they pay more as they use more. No need to tax them disproportionately more, as they pay proportionately as they use it. And the rich have better houses, so they pay proportionately more in land taxes. These land taxes pay for education. You say that the rich benefit from the education of others. But you must keep in mind the initiative and skill that takes, and by taxing them more, you are increasing their risk. By hiring these people, they are paying payroll taxes. They are once again, paying proportionally. The rich have already funded the education and healthcare, so they shouldn't pay again for hiring the beneficiaries.

And IKEA left because of high taxes in Sweden. I bet the Swedes aren't too happy about that. 

Ok, so teens should have a separate minimum wage. That is better. Are you for a national minimum wage? I like the current system. States and cities can pass laws if they want because they would be more accustomed to the local cost of living. They don't have to pass these laws if they don't want to. That is how it should be.

I don't find unions, at least the way they work now, to be conducive to job creation. The UAW strike was disgusting. People wonder why American cars are performing so poorly that GM needs bailouts. Teachers unions hold our children hostage whenever they want something and are completely against merit based pay. Tenure makes it nearly impossible to fire bad workers. 
Topic's author
#63
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,994
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
We also need much stronger union laws. Unionized workers make much more than non-unionized ones. We need to strengthen unions so that workers actually have some negotiating power. 

Union labor monopolies compete with unskilled labor and use the force of government to steal jobs from them by abolishing right-to-work laws as any monopoly does to destroy the competition.

Why do you hate unskilled, untrained labor so much?

#64
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Now, would you say those unskilled, untrained laborers are rich or poor?
Topic's author
#65
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,994
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
It depends. If they get employment and work hard they can be rich. I know Vietnamese families that bought out the entire fishing industry on the Louisiana gulf coast by living on the boat and working 16 hours a day and saving all the money.

Spending paycheck to paycheck is a cultural thing.
#66
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Damn, it was a rhetorical question lol. Wanted to slam dunk on our boy here.

Yeah, culturally speaking, we Americans suck at saving. Likely due to our toxic consumer culture. Also, it is partially the result of increasing social security benefits. http://www.econ.ucla.edu/mazzocco/doc/SavingRate.pdf

The liberals manufacture yet another crisis only they can fix :/
#67
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
I know Vietnamese families that bought out the entire fishing industry on the Louisiana gulf coast by living on the boat and working 16 hours a day and saving all the money.
That make sense.

EVERYOnE should just do that and buy the entire fishing industry on the Louisiana gulf coast.

Then EVRYONNE can be MILLIONAIRES!!!!
#68
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Lol, dude. He was making a reference to cultural differences in saving. And if you work 16 hours a day and save most of it, you will most likely be pretty successful, assuming you invest in yourself and search for opportunities.
#69
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
 And if you work 16 hours a day and save most of it, you will most likely be pretty successful, assuming you invest in yourself and search for opportunities.
So if you work yourself almost to death for most of your life there is a chance you might be successful. Being able to be successful shouldn't require you to work hundreds of hours a week. That is more like the Chinese sweat shop dream than the american dream. 


Topic's author
#70
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,994
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Stop being so overly dramatic snowflake. People can choose to work harder than you.

#71
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Stop being so overly dramatic snowflake.
This line is just self parody. i point out obvious problems and you cry about snowflakes. 

People can choose to work harder than you.
No one ever said that they shouldn't have that option. But it should not be required for people to work 16 hours a day to be successful. If you can't be successful when working 40 hours a week, then the system is broken. 
Topic's author
#72
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,994
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
No one ever said that they shouldn't have that option. But it should not be required for people to work 16 hours a day to be successful. If you can't be successful when working 40 hours a week, then the system is broken. 

Life isn't fair snowflake.

This line is just self parody. i point out obvious problems and you cry about snowflakes. 

The real parody is when you equate working hard to a death sentence.
#73
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Life isn't fair snowflake.
No it isn't. But as a society we can make it fairer. We can make sure that every person gets healthcare. Every person can live off their job. If you want to work harder and make even more money, great. But no one should have to live in poverty if they are willing to work 40 hours a week. 

The real parody is when you equate working hard to a death sentence.
As usual you missed my point and are making a straw man argument. I said "So if you work yourself almost to death for most of your life there is a chance you might be successful." I never said it was a death sentence. But working 16 hours a day leaves 8 hours for sleep and then you go right back to work. That leave 0 time for friends, family, church, community service, or anything else that gives life meaning. Your entire life would be consumed by work. That is not healthy and i don't think that is anyone's idea of the american dream.
Topic's author
#74
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,994
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
As usual you missed my point and are making a straw man argument. I said "So if you work yourself almost to death for most of your life there is a chance you might be successful." I never said it was a death sentence. But working 16 hours a day leaves 8 hours for sleep and then you go right back to work. That leave 0 time for friends, family, church, community service, or anything else that gives life meaning. Your entire life would be consumed by work. That is not healthy and i don't think that is anyone's idea of the american dream.

It's not your responsibility to dictate to another person what they want to do to pursue their dreams. What hubris.
#75
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
It's not your responsibility to dictate to another person what they want to do to pursue their dreams. What hubris.
I never said that I should. In fact I have said multiple times that if people want to work harder and make more money then that is great. What I have said is that people who are working hard 40 hours a week should be paid a wage they can live on. People should be able to succeed in america while also having time for their friends and family. And right now that is not the case for a larger percentage of the american people. 

The american dream is supposed to be based on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't think most people think working for most of their waking hours is much of a life or that they get alot of happiness from that. 

Topic's author
#76
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,994
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
I don't think most people think working for most of their waking hours is much of a life or that they get alot of happiness from that. 

Again, stop projecting what you think is the meaning of life on to others.

This is pure ivory tower cereal box platitude signaling.
#77
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Again, stop projecting what you think is the meaning of life on to others.
This is pure ivory tower cereal box platitude signaling.
You think that wanting to be able to spend time with your friends, family or doing literally anything other than work is "projecting"? Do you honestly think that most people want to only work, sleep, repeat? if so then I am pretty sure it is you who is projecting. 
#78
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
*Ignored my long post addressed to you earlier*

I am not saying that you need to work 16 hours every day. Most people can't/won't, myself included. I am wording ambiguously because it all depends on personal choice. If you are a big-time accountant that gambles all the time, you will probably be worse off than a factory worker that saves most of his money. So, I said that you will probably be successful because I don't know your spending, saving, and investing habits.

It is the role of the individual to invest in themselves, not the role of the company to invest in you, unless it is worthwhile to them. (Occasionally it is, they send you back to school for an MBA or whatever). If you refuse to look for better jobs because you like being a fry cook, then it is your fault for failing. If you spend most of your money because you have little self control, it is your fault for failing. Not 'rich people', not the company, yours. Take responsibility.
#79
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
It is the role of the individual to invest in themselves, not the role of the company to invest in you, unless it is worthwhile to them. 
This is one of the fundamental misunderstandings the right has with the modern economy. "Investing in yourself" means you need to go to school. Going to school costs 10's of thousands of dollars in many cases. If you have a family or if you aren't rich, then many people simply will never be able to do this. Others will take out 10's of thousands in loans just to find that many employers still won't pay them nearly enough to be worth having taken on that debt. 

It's easy for people over 40 who grew up in a time where you could work a part time job and completely pay for school to be judgey. But in the modern world you are talking about putting yourself into debt for potentially decades to get the kind of jobs that people used to be able to get straight out of high school.

Productivity is massively up. Corporations are making record profits, but wages for workers have remained stagnant for years. The modern economy is broken. People who are trying to move up in the economy understand this. That is why Bernie sanders is massively popular among people under 30. Because they know that the system that previous generations built is screwing them over. 
Topic's author
#80
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,994
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
This is one of the fundamental misunderstandings the right has with the modern economy. "Investing in yourself" means you need to go to school.

No, it is not. You are massively misinformed.
#81
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
No, it is not. You are massively misinformed.
do you really think there are huge numbers of high paying jobs out there that don't require specialize training?


#82
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
You don't need to go to college. You can go to a trade school. We have a shortage of people going into those programs, and these certifications are incredibly cheap. 

The median plumber salary is over $50,000. https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/plumber/salary 

I'm not against government grants, either. As long as they are for a major that will be valuable to the economy.

And taking on a little debt is not the end of the world, as long as you go for a valuable major, like accounting. If you get some degree in the performing arts, you brought that debt on yourself.

Bernie supporters are younger than 30 because people under 30 are generally uninformed in terms of life experience. Many of them don't understand taxes and how businesses operate yet. Many have very little job experience. They just hear about getting free sh*t and want to sign up. Older people are generally conservative because they understand all of that.

Baby Boomers did kind of screw us, I'll give you that. One instance of that:

Letting in a million immigrants each year that compete with us for jobs is likely why wages are stagnant. I think we can stand together a little bit on this. Big corporations lobby for this immigration because it drives wages down. They want low-skill, low-wage workers, which shafts the general public. So, would you agree that we need to severely cut back on immigration? That the immigrants that we do let in should be complements to our native workforce instead of substitutes, economically speaking?
#83
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
You don't need to go to college. You can go to a trade school. We have a shortage of people going into those programs, and these certifications are incredibly cheap. 
There are some paths to getting better jobs that aren't 10's of thousands. But for your example. To become a plumber takes 2 years of college. A quick search tells me that would cost between $2,000-$10,000 for tuition depending on the school. You have to be able to live without significant income for those 2 years. You might be able to do some part time work on the side, but a full time job isn't possible. You are talking about needing thousands for tuition as well as being able to live for 2 years with little to no income. If you don't have family money to get by, you are going to need 10's of thousands in tuition and living expenses that will need to be taken as loans. That is an insurmountable barrier to alot of people.

And taking on a little debt is not the end of the world, as long as you go for a valuable major, like accounting. If you get some degree in the performing arts, you brought that debt on yourself.
If you take on that much debt, you will be paying it off for years, maybe decades. If you have run into any other problems in your life, as alot of people do, then you might never be able to pay that off. The interest could crush you. 

Bernie supporters are younger than 30 because people under 30 are generally uninformed in terms of life experience. Many of them don't understand taxes and how businesses operate yet. Many have very little job experience.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding. People over 50 are most of the way through their working life. They don't want any changes to the system because they are afraid the changes might mess with their plans. People under 30 support change because they have very little opportunity. They are finding it extremely difficult to make any headway. They are finding that employers are offering stagnated wages while the costs of getting those jobs have gone up astronomically. The economy that the previous generations has broken, but they don't want to fix it. That is why so many millennials want fundamental change. Because they are paying the costs for the system previous generations built. 

Letting in a million immigrants each year that compete with us for jobs is likely why wages are stagnant.
This is also a fundamental misunderstanding. Unemployment is low. More workers were needed to grow the economy. wages aren't low because of immigrants. This is a quasi racist right wing talking point to point the blame at politicians instead of corporations. Wages are low because companies are keeping them low. Companies are making record profits with record productivity. But they still refuse to offer competitive wages, except to executives of course. 
#84
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
Don't a lot of unions pay for trade school and then own you for a few years?

I put up a new forum topic. I think it would get bipartisan support and solve the problem of crippling debt. I think you should check it out. 

I find a world in which people to follow your dreams in terms of careers instead of being responsible is why we have a lot of problems. They listen. You think I want to be an accountant? Not really. Now, you have people going into debt getting worthless degrees, and they are being crippled by debt, of course. Teach more fiscal responsibility.

Not sure that you read my entire bottom point. I blamed corporations as well, saying they lobbied Congress for the immigration. I also wasn't being quasi-racist. I don't care where they are coming from. Let me ask you the economic problem about why wages are low:

Corporations can't just say that they will pay a certain amount and we have to take it. There has to be a reason they can keep it so low. Now, let us say you are in a town, trying to hire a fry cook. There are two people that are qualified and looking for that job. The wage would likely be higher than if 100 equally skilled people were looking for that same job. They will undercut each others' wages in order to get the job. The corporation takes the lowest bidder. 

But yes, people from third-world countries have lower standards of working conditions and lower standards for wages than native workers. So, what do you get when you let a lot of them in? Worse working conditions and lower wages, because now we have to compete with people who are fine with that. 
#85
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
I find a world in which people to follow your dreams in terms of careers instead of being responsible is why we have a lot of problems. They listen. You think I want to be an accountant? Not really. Now, you have people going into debt getting worthless degrees, and they are being crippled by debt, of course. Teach more fiscal responsibility.
Your suggestion is to, essentially, teach children not to step in a trap. But the better solution is to just remove the trap. Why allow children to fall into it at all?

Corporations can't just say that they will pay a certain amount and we have to take it. There has to be a reason they can keep it so low. Now, let us say you are in a town, trying to hire a fry cook. There are two people that are qualified and looking for that job. The wage would likely be higher than if 100 equally skilled people were looking for that same job. They will undercut each others' wages in order to get the job. The corporation takes the lowest bidder. 
But you are ignoring the fact that despite the fact that unemployment rates have remained low for years and profits have been increasing, but wages have not risen. Your explanation is a good econ 101 answer. But reality is much more complex than that. Immigration is not the reason wages are stagnant. 

But yes, people from third-world countries have lower standards of working conditions and lower standards for wages than native workers. So, what do you get when you let a lot of them in? Worse working conditions and lower wages, because now we have to compete with people who are fine with that. 
Do you know what happens when you bring in more workers? You expand your market. Every one of those immigrants will need to buy groceries, pay for clothing, housing and all the other things people need to buy. This creates jobs and opportunities. Stopping people from immigrating is a great way to stifle innovation and slow growth. 
#86
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
Because getting rid of the trap imposes severe costs on everyone else.

In terms of how immigration works, it typically helps high earners and medium income earners, while shafting low-skill, low-income workers. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration/ If the immigrants are complements to our workforce, they can be beneficial. If they are substitutes, it clearly does hurt the wages of those they compete with.

That really depends on if you want them "expanding the market." 51% of immigrants are on at least one welfare program, compared to 30% of natives. I don't see that as being helpful. It means we have to tax hard workers more to subsidize this immigration. Groceries stores pay taxes just to end up giving the items to these immigrants through SNAP. https://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2017/aug/14/david-perdue/sen-david-perdue-half-immigrant-households-benefit/


#87
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
Because getting rid of the trap imposes severe costs on everyone else.
Paying for primary and high school also imposes a severe cost. so do police and the military and roads etc. Having an educated population is worth the cost. That is why we already pay for schools. Instituting free college is just an extension of the policy we already have. 

That really depends on if you want them "expanding the market." 51% of immigrants are on at least one welfare program, compared to 30% of natives. I don't see that as being helpful.
I don't see why that really matters.

The US population growth is the lowest it has been since the great depression. Without immigration, the US economy would barely expand at all. Do immigrants need more assistance programs in the 1st few years they are in the US, yes. But they will continue paying into the system for the rest of their lives. And their children will too. The amount of assistance they receive is minuscule considered to all the benefits they provide. 

#88
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
I have yet to see how it will outweigh the costs. Perhaps if you dictate what majors can and cannot be taken. However, letting them choose whatever tickles their fancy is not a policy I could ever support. That is why I prefer grants, you can be more discretionary about that. Then, with whatever type of loan, they are taking the risk onto themselves if they want something not covered by grants. We should probably expand grants.

I don't have an NYT subscription :/
Could you link me to whatever study they reference?
#89
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
I have yet to see how it will outweigh the costs.
The costs may not always be easy to see. For example, students are being hit with large amounts of debt in order to get the training society requires. This is causing them to take years, even decades longer than their parents to become financially stable on their own. We don't know what all the effects of that even are. It is likely lowering the birth rate as people have to wait to have families. It is likely helping to drive the growing popularity of socialist policies among young people. It is alot easier to hate the current system when you need to spend a decade or two trying to get financially stable. 

I don't have an NYT subscription :/
Could you link me to whatever study they reference?
Sorry about that. This is a different article. They are using different stats than the NY times one was, but many of the implications are the same. The US birth rate is too low to create growth. America needs immigrants if they want to keep their population roughly static, let alone growing.