The reason society has failed is not because "the elderly generation" fucked us.
As stated, it is a particular problem plaguing the U.S. right now. Of course it's not the entire problem, I never said it was. But one of the largest economic drains on society is welfare benefits. From healthcare to social security, it's all a drain if we do no invest in the programs.
The entire concept of free market capitalism is what has failed the lower class. Your argument ignores the reality that capitalism necessitates a portion of the population be subjugated in order to function properly.
My argument does not even mention this, so I'm not sure how it can ignore it. We are talking about the investment of disposable income, not the entire free market system. I agree that capitalism, by its own nature, discriminates power amongst different classes.
Capitalism can never create enough surplus for the entire population to live comfortably because the forces of supply and demand do not allow for this to happen.
I disagree, but that's an argument too lengthy for this website.
Without a portion of the population becoming the "working poor," and without an army of reserve workers represented by the unemployed, capitalism simply can't function.
I disagree.
Your argument is that people could climb out of poverty if they spent their money on only necessities and not frivolous items.
Many can, and many do. Not everyone is the same, though. Some people have no desire to work hard or progress economically. That's not to so those in poverty don't work hard, but a lot of unskilled labor pays what society values. I do not believe someone content working a fast food job deserves $50k a year for their labor. There are many individuals who are perfectly content doing the bare minimum. There are people reading this thread who are thinking to themselves "I'm happy the way I live right now, why should I work any harder"? That's part of the problem, as well. There will always be individuals who are not working at their maximum.
This is flawed because it ignores the reality that there will always be poverty because the system both produces and requires it. This means that not only can people often not remedy their own situation when faced with poverty, but it means that even if they could, they would simply be replaced with others that fall down the latter. This is intuitive if you follow your argument to its logical conclusion:
So what are these people who remedy their poverty actually doing? You seem to agree that some people can remedy their poverty. What separates them from those who don't remedy their poverty?
Lets say that tomorrow everyone stops buying expensive flat-billed caps and designer jeans, goods that buy your own admission are purchased largely by those that live under the poverty line. What happens to the revenue those companies were making when their demand disappears completely?
They would lower their prices when faced with extinction. A billionaire would rather be a millionaire than completely broke. Does a baseball player refuse to play baseball if last year he was making $30 million, but this year he is only offered $5 million? No, absolutely not.
Massive layoffs, an increase in unemployment, shrinkage of the job market.
Only to be replaced by organizations that have better business practices. If not, the cycle continues until it happens. I didn't say problems don't exist, but blaming it all on the system itself is flawed. You're essentially saying people are a victim for existing.
Even if those that did not waste their money are able to climb out of poverty by saving an extra $30 (something that would not occur), they would simply be replaced by those that are now faced with unemployment.
People climb out of these situations all the time. Are you saying no one climbs out of poverty by being smart with their investments? It's never happened? We aren't talking about lottery winners, we are talking about people dealing with a bad hand to the best of their ability.
Basically people here are attempting to point out that your argument is not just a very shallow understanding of a tiny fraction of a factor of poverty, it represents a gross misunderstanding of the economic system in general and how individuals behave in it.
That's fine, but I fully accept that many individuals here are just wrong. If people want to believe that frivolously spending money when you're in a dire situation is the smart thing to do, then they are beyond my help. If you think you just summed up the entire problem with capitalism in a couple paragraphs, please collect your Nobel Prize. My entire point was that spending a heavy percentage of your disposable income on frivolous items negates your credibility when complaining about your particular economic situation. I'm not here to teach Econ 101, I'm just here for some fun discussion and a good laugh, particularly in this thread. I don't need validation from anyone here about my work, as my obscenely large paycheck does that for me.