@MichiganMan,
"You may well own the house that you buy, either in cash or by paying off the mortgage. But, you NEVER own the land upon which that dwelling sits. That land, much like the feudal lands of yore, is owned by the Lord (county), to whom you are merely a tenant. Don't believe me, don't pay your property taxes for a few years and you'll see the Lord's (county's) armed goons show up and remove you from the property by force, if necessary.
"Look up the history/etymology of the term 'Fee Simple,' and you'll get an idea of what kind of system we're REALLY living in, your rose-colored view not withstanding."
I disagree with this analysis, although it depends exactly how you're using the word "own." If you view "ownership" of land as being irrevocable absolute dominion over the land, then you're right, that does not exist for private persons.
But it never has -- not even for the lords you're talking about. In fact, they owed duties to the king in exchange for owning their land, and arguably did not exercise even the level of dominion over their land that a modern landowner does. In turn, their tenants owed money or services to them. (Only the king really owned in the clear). Over time, the services the lords owed evolved into property taxes, and those have existed for a long, long time (including in most of the early American colonies, before and after the revolutionary war).
So sure -- "fee simple" comes from "fief." So? You are objecting because the form of ownership you exert over your land fails to meet standards that have never been met by any privately owned land. If you don't own the land your house is on today, then nobody has ever owned land, and the word "own" is a meaningless appendage to English (at least as applied to land).
It seems that, again, you're engaging in an odd dichotomy, complaining about the present as compared to.... what?
@Tolstoy,
"semck, I don't know about you, but my parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents all worked hard so that I could have a life better than they had."
There are a lot of ways to define "better life," Tolstoy. I'd be most surprised if your life is not a good deal easier than your grandparents' in myriad ways. Your continuing refusal to recognize these improvements as a very real and significant form of wealth is confusing to me. (We must, of course, realize that wealth, freedom, and quality of life are all concepts floating around this thread, and they are all distinct).
You complain that the money is being "siphoned off" by bankers and others. Perhaps it is; but if so, that is due to choices you or your parents have made in using the money. Simply put, it turned out to be impossible to have a life that was both a maximal improvement in comfort over your grandparents', and also to keep the same level of capital. This may not be what they expected, but I'm not sure why they shouldn't have. Life, as Invictus points out, has never been easy, certainly not for entire populations. Large population growth and near-universal massive increases in standard of living is sufficient to explain much of the precipitous increase in cost of living; one doesn't have to resort to cabal (though such things certainly exist and play some role).
"This siphoning has become pronounced enough that these money-movers are now the richest men on earth, and their share of the earth's wealth is expanding so quickly that the buying power of the average American has been falling for decades now even though overall wealth has been steadily increasing."
That's hardly anything new. Spend some time investigating JP Morgan and his time, and then look at the socialist movements of that time in places like West Virginia. You'll find that there was a far more substantial gap in real living standards between workers and super-rich then than there is now.
"Unlike my parents, I'm poorer now than when they were my age."
As you pointed out, the past few generations often portrayed themselves as living and working for the comfort of future generations. Most in this generation have not -- many have lived for their own comfort (perhaps as their parents intended). It is not completely a surprise that they have amassed less wealth than their parents.
"Don't you want to better your condition? Don't you want to leave a legacy to any children you have or may have in the future?"
Sure. But I don't feel the need of bettering it *dramatically.* Obviously I hope to make a deal more money than I make right now as a student, in the future.
"At any rate, I have a feeling your opinions may change very quickly when you finish with grad school and find - as many are today - that there is no job waiting for you on the 'other side'. What do you do then?"
Well, none of us can fully predict our future attitudes, of course, but I don't *think* I'll react in surprise and outrage. I entered this program with the knowledge that the job market was poor, and I might never get a good job in my field. I didn't do it for a job. I did it because I love the subject and found that I was less happy not studying it than otherwise, so I decided to do so for a few more years at least. (Personally, I think this is the best reason to go to grad school, though I'm certainly not in the business of criticizing others' views and motives).
After that, who knows? I'll try to get a job in this field; failing that, maybe I'll practice law, or branch into related areas of industry. I have never completely ruled out driving a cab or a truck, which are jobs I think I would in many respects love.
As I said earlier in the thread, there are a lot of lifestyles and choices that are appealing in various ways. But certainly I have never felt that anybody owed me a job in my field just because I happened to be getting a Ph.D. in it.
I had the privilege of knowing my grandfather. Like many of his generation, he had dreams of education that he had to give up when a sibling died, in order to help keep the fledgling family business afloat. (Not that he ever talked about this). Thereafter and until the day he died, he worked almost uninterrupted 12 and 14 hour days to provide for his family.
I think he would be delighted that, because of his hard work (and that of my parents), the family didn't need me to do the same thing, and that I was able to study and think about the things that I wanted to, that interested me (which is an incredible freedom). But whether delighted or not, I'm pretty confident that the only path I could take that would have made him feel *ashamed* would be coming on hard times and then blaming them on others, or failing to work as hard as I had to in order to improve things.
Yankee Gays waste good vodka ..... how queer is that?
)
)
)
)