Trousersnake mate, the looters will tear themselves apart. We have no moral obligation to help them.

They are. Their savings go towards funding these people's debt. Nearly all of their savings go towards some type of investment. Now these investments can be split into two groups: buying stock or selling credit. When their savings go towards selling credit, then some of it goes towards businesses (good debt) and the rest to persons (bad debt). So generation Y is getting its credit from savers, which are baby boomers.

You see businesses use the credit to make more money so the credit will be paid back, thus good. People don't earn more money when they take out credit.

It's all retarded. Lenders shouldn't have lent the money in the first place. The lenders didn't authorize the loan - the employees did. They received a commission on every loan so it was in their interests to make the loans.

Then I agree with you.

Euda, my definition of greed would be to continue working in a job for money I didn't need, whilst someone that needs money can't have that job because I have it...

Working to live is not greedy. I have just chosen not to live to work anymore. Simple. And I've identified the REAL economic crisis.

Some people here understand. Kudos to you!

I understand very well what you mean. I've been simplifying my life for a while now.

However, life, and people, change over time. A person shouldn't cut out the option of earning beyond what they need to live because there is a level of uncertainty in life. You have to consider the opportunity cost of your choice.

Just as a bit of a footnote, why do people keep shitting on about dropping their profession for a simple job just to meet their costs of living because what they currently earn is in excess of such.

Why not either save it or increase your standard of living to match it.

Lots of people want more leisure time. It's a growing trend.

Save it for what? Time is money and obviously his time is worth money to him than money.

I know TS, he has a fully furnished appartment and lives alone. He has worked multiple jobs and schools since he was 15. He has given up the prime time of his life to get where he is at. He OWNS a car and his own place, he has a university degree and has (as far as I can tell) gotten every job he has ever applied for.

He doesn't need or want a lavish lifestyle at this point in life, he is debt free (close enough to it anyhow), he doesn't want to maintain a pool or a huge garden just to showcase his worth. He'd rather just live his life.

He has the security of having a degree to far back onto if he ever needs more money again.

He needs money solely to pay for his bills and to feed himself, and he can earn that money at a job that doesn't destroy his soul with money leftover to save.

This is where you lost me. What?

The first and last paragraph contradict themselves.


The underlined paragraph demonstrates what savings do.

He doesn't like going to work all the time. He no longer needs to, why shouldn't he relax?

ComradeAsh - He has worked multiple jobs for years and invested the money into banks, property and lord knows what. He has never enjoyed his money, he has worked to make it grow. He bought his house, he has a car, and the house is fully furnished. He doesn't need to buy anything!

What I'm saying (and he is too by the looks of things) is he wants to leave the white collar job that pays him more money than he needs and earn the small amount of money he needs to get him by (bare essentials I'm talking here) at a job he finds easy to do and doesn't mind going to for a few hours a week.

What if you relax by working?

Then work...

Why can't both of you have jobs? If someone brings up NAIRU, it's a load of shit. There are ways to have full employment (I was reading a perfect example from the Land Values Research Group).

disobey_the_norm, 99% of the people you are describing are not debt free. They have not earnt their money and that is what is causing part of the crisis now. They have borrowed too much, and this has taken away from businesses that could have used the money for profitable purposes.

That 1% that are living close to debt free do have a lavish lifestyle. Nearly all homes over about $10 million in Australia have no mortgage. They are what the 99% want to be. 10 years ago I never saw a Ferrari or a Lambourghini. Maybe once or twice, but not on a weekly basis. Nowadays I see them on a weekly basis. 99% of those cars are on loans.

Back to that 1%. Some inherited the money. Others earnt it and they enjoy working. The average amount of sleep a fortune 500 CEO has per night is 4 hours. Working is relaxing for them.

I also need to mention how much I hate the word affluenza.

It's an ingenius term. It encompasses everything that is the blight of modern day. Fuck the big TV the manufacturer wants you slave at work for ages to pay off!

Are you suggesting that I shouldn't have a 50" plasma because I could watch telly on a shitty little 38cm because it would be cheaper?

Well I was the one that said affulenza to begin with so I'll say you shouldn't have it if you can't afford it. You shouldn't. I'll go out on a limb and say you shouldn't spend more than a week or two (or more) wages on a luxury item. It's fine if it's a car, it gets you to work and so on, and a house is your home and shelter, or a computer.

A TV houldn't be a major purchase. Maybe I'm just old fashioned that way....Personally I have like a 68cm Flat Screen TV and it looks like TV to me

Or in other words it's not a good investment, if you put money into a house or car, over time you can make money on them or break even on it at resale, but TV's just become obsolete.

lol at this thread. good luck with the book dumbass

So you're really aiming at the 'don't buy shit you can't afford' angle, as opposed to the norm's "life of poverty" thing.

Thats fair enough. But I stand by my television remark, I've got a 68cm in my room and a 50" in the lounge room and oh boy, you don't really want to go back.

I would just like to say I find the picture quality of flat screen tvs to be abysmal, and I really can't understand how they are supposed to be better than traditional TVs. Since they really don't sell old style TVs in stores anymore, when my current one breaks, I guess I will have to hunt through flea markets and garage sales for a new one, because I can't stand that plasma shit.

edit: On the same note, drivers license pictures today are lower quality than they were 30 years ago! Today they use those shitty little webcams to take the picture, and it comes out all grainy. I was looking at my grandfather's old drivers license from the 1970s and the picture, taken with a film camera obviously, was very clear. I just don't get it.

Depends on your source but you're right, but you don't really notice it once you've accepted that your TV is like four times bigger than your last TV.

It's mainly just because they take up much less space and aren't heavy. As far as picture quality...HD flat-screen kicks ass. If I had some cash to throw around, I wouldn't mind getting one, but...yeah, I'm perfectly happy with my box.

As for this thread: I'm glad I'm not the only one who isn't sucking up Zay's apocalypse now bullshit. Kudos to you.

fuck the looters. we should all go make our own gulch and ride it out.