On 1/14/2020 at 8:59 PM, KJP said:

 

The difference is that they've already been you and you're going to become them and there's nothing you can do to stop from becoming them.

I'm hoping that consuming large amounts of Japanese cartoon fan art will keep me young

When most Baby Boomers entered the workforce, the United States was experiencing one of the most incredible postwar economic booms in human history. One could feasibly raise a large family on a single income from a job that did not require a college degree. The period from 1950 to 2000 (-ish) was basically unprecedented in terms of economic growth, leading to lots of risky expenditures like state pensions that were basically counting on huge market returns forever to stay solvent. I’m not saying life was easy, but in many ways it was simpler, and certainly less expensive. Capitalism obviously worked, and we showed those goddamn Commies who was boss!

Now, however, things are...different. Wages have stagnated, economic growth is pretty good but the biggest gains have been seen at the top of the income spectrum. Decades of easy-to-get and arguably predatory student loans have turned the four-year college degree into little more than a filter for even the lowest-level jobs. The wealth gap is wider than ever before and growing, and the younger generations entered the workforce right before or after the 2008 crash, which will likely affect their wages for the rest of their careers. Things are just very different, and to many young people, capitalism just doesn’t seem as promising as it did to their parents and grandparents. Lots of unfulfilled promises and finger-pointing about who’s killing what industry, and so on.

But hey, they have memes! That’s something!

1 hour ago, TerribleTom said:

When most Baby Boomers entered the workforce, the United States was experiencing one of the most incredible postwar economic booms in human history. One could feasibly raise a large family on a single income from a job that did not require a college degree. The period from 1950 to 2000 (-ish) was basically unprecedented in terms of economic growth, leading to lots of risky expenditures like state pensions that were basically counting on huge market returns forever to stay solvent. I’m not saying life was easy, but in many ways it was simpler, and certainly less expensive. Capitalism obviously worked, and we showed those goddamn Commies who was boss!

Now, however, things are...different. Wages have stagnated, economic growth is pretty good but the biggest gains have been seen at the top of the income spectrum. Decades of easy-to-get and arguably predatory student loans have turned the four-year college degree into little more than a filter for even the lowest-level jobs. The wealth gap is wider than ever before and growing, and the younger generations entered the workforce right before or after the 2008 crash, which will likely affect their wages for the rest of their careers. Things are just very different, and to many young people, capitalism just doesn’t seem as promising as it did to their parents and grandparents. Lots of unfulfilled promises and finger-pointing about who’s killing what industry, and so on.

But hey, they have memes! That’s something!

THat is a false premise. Capitalism is still working and it works fine. The problem is that the Millennial generation had been sold a bill of goods about having to go to college and get a degree and how if they did their part and went to school then there would be rewards for them of having a comfortable life. It was never the case and has never been the case of capitalism, but it has been a lie pushed by colleges (who were getting drunk off the guaranteed loan money) and high schools who tried to push their rankings by encouraging kids who had no business in college and belonged in a trade school to go off to college and that they could all "learn to code". Now certainly, the shift from a manufacturing to service based economy contributed to things too, as the service jobs tended to be lower paid, but that is more of a global thing than "Capitalism has failed" issue. Ultimately, it is up to the individual to work to carve out the niche to create their space. It is hard work, yes, oftentimes not pleasant. 

Throughout history, it has proven over and over again that Capitalism is the only system that can provide a pathway for people to escape poverty and has led the US to be the wealthiest nation on the planet. Capitalism may not be perfect, but it is the best system out there. 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

THat is a false premise. Capitalism is still working and it works fine.

Sure, capitalism as an entire system of economics is working the way we built it.
 

But @TerribleTom is right, the boomers stepped into a system created by the greatest generation where homeownership and retirement were a real possibility for everyone. Millennials have stepped into a system the GOP and Reagan created where the generational share of wealth is at an all time low.

Edited July 10, 20204 yr by Enginerd

4 minutes ago, Enginerd said:

Sure, capitalism as an entire system of economics is working the way we built it.
 

But @TerribleTom is right, they boomers stepped into a system created by the greatest generation where homeownership and retirement were a real possibility for everyone. Millennials have stepped into a system the GOP and Reagan created where the generational share of wealth is at an all time low.

That is a faulty analysis and a false conclusion. 

As an early millennial, I take exception to that. 

 

1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

That is a faulty analysis and a false conclusion. 

As an early millennial, I take exception to that. 

 

Only people who make a lot of money say that.

7 minutes ago, Enginerd said:

But @TerribleTom is right, they boomers stepped into a system created by the greatest generation where homeownership and retirement were a real possibility for everyone. Millennials have stepped into a system the GOP and Reagan created where the generational share of wealth is at an all time low.

 

Absolutely. You wonder why so many younger people are into socialism these days? It's because they graduated high school or college into a world where housing is unaffordable, job prospects are bad, wages for real workers has barely increased for decades while CEOs and VPs have gotten 1000× raises over the same time period, and the middle class has been completely hollowed out. They have never seen a world where capitalism works for the majority of people. If you want capitalism to survive, you need to fix the system so that it works for everyone. Otherwise, the system will have to be overthrown.

Send all the violent cops to trade school so that they can beat the crap out of each other on private property or take it out on inanimate objects such as I-beams and giant hunks of aluminum. Then fish all the educated people out of Starbucks to take care of the mental health issues and marital problems that cops for some reason were assigned to. BOOM

On 7/10/2020 at 11:02 AM, taestell said:

 

Absolutely. You wonder why so many younger people are into socialism these days? It's because they graduated high school or college into a world where housing is unaffordable, job prospects are bad, wages for real workers has barely increased for decades while CEOs and VPs have gotten 1000× raises over the same time period, and the middle class has been completely hollowed out. They have never seen a world where capitalism works for the majority of people. If you want capitalism to survive, you need to fix the system so that it works for everyone. Otherwise, the system will have to be overthrown.

Or, younger people were told if you aren't living in stupidly overpriced California or New York you're a loser.  Job prospects are bad for oversaturated liberal arts degree fields, and wages in those fields have stagnated because of simple supply and demand. It's a good thing everyone born between 1980 and 2000 was told a 2 year degree in HVAC, pluming, auto repair, or electrician was just as bad as being a fry cook at McDougals. I was literally told that going into debt 100k was the only way to get ahead.

 

You have great points about massive wage gains for the top of the pyramid. How do we fix it? I dunno, we apparently can't vote in people to change it, so do we have to do it with ballot measures?

Maybe it's just because I went to school in an area that wasn't an elite/wealthy suburb, but our school district presented students with multiple options ranging from vocational schools to AP classes to post-secondary (free community collage at UC Clermont or Raymonds Walters during your junior and senior years). Reps from the local vocational school came in to talk to my classes and told us that many trades pay just as well as many jobs that require college degrees.

 

I don't believe I was ever presented with the idea that I had to move to a megacity in order to be considered successful.

11 minutes ago, taestell said:

Maybe it's just because I went to school in an area that wasn't an elite/wealthy suburb, but our school district presented students with multiple options ranging from vocational schools to AP classes to post-secondary (free community collage at UC Clermont or Raymonds Walters during your junior and senior years). Reps from the local vocational school came in to talk to my classes and told us that many trades pay just as well as many jobs that require college degrees.

 

I don't believe I was ever presented with the idea that I had to move to a megacity in order to be considered successful.

I went to Mason High School, and had a similar experience. The problem with the vocational schools is that the reputation they have is that people who get expelled or don't do well in traditional classes go to the vocational schools. They develop a bad reputation among the student body. The teachers and staff build them up as possible alternatives, bring in people to discuss it, but the stigma associated with them is real in a school like Mason, which is a well-off suburb. No one at Mason had two thoughts about "elite cities" or anything like that. Everyone's too worried about how close their parking space is to their classes and what they're going to do on the weekend to worry about what state makes you "cool".

3 minutes ago, taestell said:

Maybe it's just because I went to school in an area that wasn't an elite/wealthy suburb, but our school district presented students with multiple options ranging from vocational schools to AP classes to post-secondary (free community collage at UC Clermont or Raymonds Walters during your junior and senior years). Reps from the local vocational school came in to talk to my classes and told us that many trades pay just as well as many jobs that require college degrees.

 

I don't believe I was ever presented with the idea that I had to move to a megacity in order to be considered successful.

 

I went to a similar school, and we were presented with similar options.  About 60% of my high school went on to some post-secondary education, but less than 40% of that was a four-year degree program.  (Which of course is still actually slightly above the national average, but overall pretty close to in line with it.)  A decent number of the kids I went to to high school with were children of people who were themselves alumni of the school, and several of my classmates now actually have kids that attend that same high school--and since this is a public high school, not Andover or Exeter, the upshot here is that a decent number of my classmates still live in the same middle-class exurb where they graduated.

 

Here's the thing about the trades, though: People hold those up as examples of good jobs that can be had without a college degree.  That is true, but it carries with it a false innuendo: that skilled trades are a generally good option for a wide cross-section of the kids who aren't college material.  Several of my classmates at that school went into skilled trades, and some have very good jobs and little or no student debt.  They were honor students.  Maybe they weren't valedictorians or AP Scholars or National Merit Finalists, but I'd bet that all of the ones that really "made it" in skilled trades were in the top half of my high school class.  Being a master electrician, welder, mason, plumber, or carpenter is mentally demanding (and often physically demanding as well).

 

There's definitely demand for more skilled tradesmen and businesses out there (I called three companies in June to schedule a roof repair; two said they were too busy to do anything and one was able to schedule me for August).  But it's definitely harder to get into those industries than some people think.

I know a guy with a degree from Georgetown who bartended for two years, hiked the Appalachian Trail, bartended for another year, and then started his own kitchen and bathroom remodeling business and has probably grossed over $200k for most of the past 15 years.  My former college roommate went on to get a master's degree but now does the same thing - kitchens and bathrooms.  He doesn't make as much because he spends half of his time smoking pot and hiding from his wife at his work shop space.  

 

 

On 7/13/2020 at 1:28 PM, Gramarye said:

Here's the thing about the trades, though: People hold those up as examples of good jobs that can be had without a college degree.  That is true, but it carries with it a false innuendo: that skilled trades are a generally good option for a wide cross-section of the kids who aren't college material.  Several of my classmates at that school went into skilled trades, and some have very good jobs and little or no student debt.  They were honor students.  Maybe they weren't valedictorians or AP Scholars or National Merit Finalists, but I'd bet that all of the ones that really "made it" in skilled trades were in the top half of my high school class.  Being a master electrician, welder, mason, plumber, or carpenter is mentally demanding (and often physically demanding as well).

 

There's definitely demand for more skilled tradesmen and businesses out there (I called three companies in June to schedule a roof repair; two said they were too busy to do anything and one was able to schedule me for August).  But it's definitely harder to get into those industries than some people think.

I would say that one of the main distinctions, if not appeals, of trades and physical labor are that you don't have to be a good classroom student to succeed at them. I'd agree that many people who go into the trades aren't "college material", in that they aren't very productive sitting at a desk and taking notes and writing papers, but they are good with their hands.

 

In general in the trades, it seems to me like the smarter you are, the less elbow grease you have to put in. (But the applicable smarts are more common sense things applied to concepts like mechanics.) Doesn't take many smarts to hang sheetrock, but it's pretty backbreaking. Skilled carpentry w/ proper knowledge of tools and everything is a bit more physically sustainable.

This is the result of 50 years of neoliberalism and erosion of labor rights and turning a blind eye to inequality. Remember that the minimum wage should be $24 if it kept up with 1970 minimum wage and inflation. Boomers will continue to push anti-worker politicians and big business as long as they live, and continue to privatize and gut education because they don't need it any more.

 

Millennials own less than 5% of all U.S. wealth

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/09/millennials-own-less-than-5percent-of-all-us-wealth.html

 

Despite making up the largest portion of the workforce, millennials controlled just 4.6% of U.S. wealth through the first half of 2020, according to data from the Federal Reserve.

Baby boomers control over 53% of the country’s wealth, while Gen X accounts for just over 25% and the silent generation holds around 17%, according to the Fed’s data, which breaks down U.S. wealth in the beginning of 2020 by age, class and race.

While it’s not abnormal for older generations to be wealthier than younger generations — they have had longer to earn money and accumulate assets, after all — the Fed’s data also shows that millennials have far less wealth than boomers did at the same age. 

 

In 1989, when baby boomers were around the same age as millennials are today, they controlled 21% of the nation’s wealth. That’s almost five times as much as what millennials own today.

 

Many previous reports have found that millennials are, on average, worse off financially than their parents and grandparents were at the same age, despite being better educated.

 

The country is far, far wealthier today than it was even 20 years ago, let alone 40 years ago.  Look at the performance of the S&P 500 - it was like 300 in 1980 and now it's over 3,000.  The country's population didn't come close to doubling in the past 40 years yet the value of its 500 biggest companies is 10x larger because there is so much international business now.  In 1980 there weren't skyscrapers almost anywhere other than the U.S.  Everybody was riding bicycles in China. 

And that wealth has not been evenly distributed at all. It has been disproportionately hoovered up by upper class and hoarded. They were not taxed enough. We did not build enough public infrastructure. We did not maintain what we had. The rich have plundered the loot and the masses are suffering.

^You can't "distribute" accumulated wealth evenly across age groups since the majority of wealth in the united states is the appreciation of and dividends paid by shares of business ownership.  

 

There are almost zero wealthy people in the United States whose wealth is comprised of something other than shares of business ownership.  Yeah there are some people who own a ton of farmland or land with mineral rights or they own memorabilia or classic cars or 50 apartment units.  But overwhelmingly, wealth comes from stocks and like I mentioned wealth is pouring into U.S. companies from all corners of the globe in a way that it wasn't in the second half of the 20th century.  

Edited October 12, 20204 yr by jmecklenborg

1 hour ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

And that wealth has not been evenly distributed at all. It has been disproportionately hoovered up by upper class and hoarded. They were not taxed enough. We did not build enough public infrastructure. We did not maintain what we had. The rich have plundered the loot and the masses are suffering.

yeah somehow they survived the 50's, 60's, and 70's with a highest tax rate for the highest earners that did not drop below 70 percent. Then Reagan came along and in 1981 it started going down-and we all know "trickle down" economics does not work. Reagan was one of the worst presidents we ever had. 

 

We should not only tax higher incomes at a higher rate, we should also tax wealth.

 

As a nation we suck compared to most of Western Europe, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Japan, etc. This nation is only a great place for the wealthy. 

1 hour ago, jmecklenborg said:

^You can't "distribute" accumulated wealth evenly across age groups since the majority of wealth in the united states is the appreciation of and dividends paid by shares of business ownership.  

You can tax them. You can even nationalize them. I'm well aware of what the current situation is, and it is grossly unequal. It will continue to be more and more unequal if things stay fundamentally the same.

1 hour ago, Toddguy said:

yeah somehow they survived the 50's, 60's, and 70's with a highest tax rate for the highest earners that did not drop below 70 percent. Then Reagan came along and in 1981 it started going down-and we all know "trickle down" economics does not work. Reagan was one of the worst presidents we ever had. 

This is a complete misconception of the 86 tax reform bill. If you look at the rate under the Obama years, the % of income tax paid by the highest earneers was pretty much in line with the taxes paid by the highest earners in the 50s 60s and 70s. The fact that the rates were 70-80% at that time was irrelevant because nobody paid them. So what the tax reform bill did was bring things in line with what was actually occurring and close a ton of tax shelters the rich used to build the generational wealth.

 

The 86 tax reform law had to start from the premise of being revenue nuetral because you have to remember the legislature was controlled by Tip O'Neill and the Democrats at that time. So yes, while the stated tax rate for the top earners dropped considerably, the actual tax paid by the wealtiest earners did not because they were not paying 70% to begin with. Those that keep citing how taxes on the rich fell after the 86 tax reform really do not understand how the tax code actually works. 

59 minutes ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

You can tax them. You can even nationalize them. 

 

Dividends are taxed.  Capital gains are taxed.  Taxing paper gains makes no sense.  

32 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Those that keep citing how taxes on the rich fell after the 86 tax reform really do not understand how the tax code actually works. 

 

The now-infamous Dave Ramsey was driven into bankruptcy by the 1986 law because it motivated the bank to call his loans.  

1 hour ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

You can tax them. You can even nationalize them. I'm well aware of what the current situation is, and it is grossly unequal. It will continue to be more and more unequal if things stay fundamentally the same.

The wealth tax that has been promoted by a number of democratic candidates is a fallacy. It has been tried in numerous European countries and has failed miserably in all of them. It has been repealed in most countries and the amount of money it has brought in has been vastly below anyone's expectations who promoted such a tax. Futhermore, it has been completley inefficient to administer costing a ton and raising a few paltry sum. 

1 minute ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

The now-infamous Dave Ramsey was driven into bankruptcy by the 1986 law because it motivated the bank to call his loans.  

The 1986 law also killed the real estate market because you had a ton of investors use it as tax shelters for their active income. It established passive loss rules so that you could no longer claim real estate losses against active income. There were a ton of lawyers and doctors who owned small buildings and especially slum property. They were able to offset this directly against their doctor or lawyer income and deduct it directly. The 86 law ended this and caused real estate prices to crash for a few years since it took a ton of money out of the marketplace. This was why Ramsey had his loans called. 

44 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 This was why Ramsey had his loans called. 

 

He also admits that he got the loans because his dad was buddies with the owner of the small local bank.  The bank sold to new owners that same year and the new owners didn't care that his dad used to golf with the old owner so it was game over.  

 

Speaking of generation gaps, Citybeat did a great story on the history of Bogart's a few years ago and there is a completely crazy story of how the guy who started the club got a loan from Central Trust only because he had somehow met Henry Kissinger and he was friends with the president of the bank:  

https://www.citybeat.com/home/article/13002078/well-always-have-short-vine

 

Aaron Renn and a few other commenters have remarked that the consolidation of banking into about 10 big consumer banks has been disastrous for the Midwest because we don't have a way of borrowing money for unusual projects like what is described in this article.  Everything is based on a credit score and other standardized metrics.  No handshakes!  

 

 

25 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

He also admits that he got the loans because his dad was buddies with the owner of the small local bank.  The bank sold to new owners that same year and the new owners didn't care that his dad used to golf with the old owner so it was game over.  

 

Speaking of generation gaps, Citybeat did a great story on the history of Bogart's a few years ago and there is a completely crazy story of how the guy who started the club got a loan from Central Trust only because he had somehow met Henry Kissinger and he was friends with the president of the bank:  

https://www.citybeat.com/home/article/13002078/well-always-have-short-vine

 

Aaron Renn and a few other commenters have remarked that the consolidation of banking into about 10 big consumer banks has been disastrous for the Midwest because we don't have a way of borrowing money for unusual projects like what is described in this article.  Everything is based on a credit score and other standardized metrics.  No handshakes!  

 

 

I do remember the consolidation. All the S&Ls got wiped out off the mat. There are still quite a few community banks around, not nearly as many, where you can do loans with more of a handshake. The biggest challenge is that the FDIC regulations have tightened a lot (for good reason) to limit those types of deals. You remember the Erpenbeck scandal form 15 years ago I am sure. Those were handshake deals with the bank.

9 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 You remember the Erpenbeck scandal form 15 years ago I am sure. Those were handshake deals with the bank.

 

I just re-read that details of that whole thing - even wilder than I remembered!  I think most of it occurred before I moved back to town but I remember listening to Bill Cunningham back in 2009 or thereabouts when the duffel bag full of cash was dug up at the golf course. 

 

Earlier this year a guy I'm friends with inherited a bunch of gold coins and asked me if I wanted to buy a few off him.  I remember thinking that I could go bury them on a golf course to avoid paying a storage fee! 

What is it with blue-collar Boomer males having to make a big entrance wherever they go? The yelling, the loud Harleys and trucks, the AC/DC blasting, having to speak loudly every time they enter a room with others in it, commenting on what people are doing at the time. Do they think they're wrestlers? I used to think it was just an Appalachia thing but now it seems more widespread.

38 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

What is it with blue-collar Boomer white males having to make a big entrance wherever they go? The yelling, the loud Harleys and trucks, the AC/DC blasting, having to speak loudly every time they enter a room with others in it, commenting on what people are doing at the time. Do they think they're wrestlers? I used to think it was just an Appalachia thing but now it seems more widespread.

 

FTFY.

40 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

What is it with blue-collar Boomer males having to make a big entrance wherever they go? The yelling, the loud Harleys and trucks, the AC/DC blasting, having to speak loudly every time they enter a room with others in it, commenting on what people are doing at the time. Do they think they're wrestlers? I used to think it was just an Appalachia thing but now it seems more widespread.

"White Trash Culture" definitely appears to have spread. Growing up in Cleveland the predominant blue-collar culture was definitely more Roseanne than Dukes of Hazzard, but every time I go home I seem to see more lifted trucks and flannel cut-offs and thick accents than I remember growing up. 

33 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

 

FTFY.

Yeah if someone is going to archetype they should be as specific as possible.

30 minutes ago, BigDipper 80 said:

"White Trash Culture" definitely appears to have spread. Growing up in Cleveland the predominant blue-collar culture was definitely more Roseanne than Dukes of Hazzard, but every time I go home I seem to see more lifted trucks and flannel cut-offs and thick accents than I remember growing up. 

 

There does seem to be more friction between these folks and everyone else in the Cleveland area than the rest of the state.

Testosterone levels in young American men much lower today than in 1980:

https://www.urologytimes.com/view/testosterone-levels-show-steady-decrease-among-young-us-men

 

Edited January 10, 20214 yr by jmecklenborg
Changed Link

^It's an interesting fact but the direction of causal relationships is not really known and the causes are seem to be many causes of reduced testosterone. . Also, you might want to link to a different sight. That one seems to be loaded with malware. 

34 minutes ago, freefourur said:

^It's an interesting fact but the direction of causal relationships is not really known and the causes are seem to be many causes of reduced testosterone. . Also, you might want to link to a different sight. That one seems to be loaded with malware. 

 

Okay I changed the link to a different but similar study.  The only time I think I had super-high testosterone levels was after 8 months of hard manual labor.  I remember coming home and wanting to wrestle my brothers constantly. 

The Personal Brand Is Dead

Gen Z would rather be anonymous online.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/06/gen-z-internet-anonymity-instagram-tumblr/661316/ (Warning: 2 article per month limit before paywall.)

 

The surprising recent popularity of Discord suggests a nostalgia among members of Gen Z for IRC and forum cultures that existed mostly before they were born.

 

=====================================================

 

Hey now, Atlantic!!  Forum culture is not completely dead! 😎 🤪

 

(Get ready for the influx of Gen Z here in 3, 2, 1 ...)

I'm not that active here on UO, but me returning here after a hiatus does oddly coincide very timely with me diving into Discord 

That outlaw time between AOL and MySpace -- around 2001-2004 -- when everyone was just an e-mail address.

1 hour ago, GCrites80s said:

That outlaw time between AOL and MySpace -- around 2001-2004 -- when everyone was just an e-mail address.

Those were still IRC days for me, though I recognize it was probably on the way out by then. 
 

There was also an oddball chat-and-P2P client (similar to mIRC) called DC++ that somehow got crazily popular in all the OSU dorms back then.  It was somehow able to run on ResNet, the OSU residence halls’ internal Ethernet network.  It wasn’t just used for illegal filesharing, either, it was a legit chat hangout.  People used it to find pickup StarCraft matches (or even IRL games), boast about their Snood high scores, or just chit chat to procrastinate in the most ungodly hours of the night. 

3 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

That outlaw time between AOL and MySpace -- around 2001-2004 -- when everyone was just an e-mail address.

 

I was active on a couple e-mail groups, and also a few forums.   Mostly Greedwatch/BrownsTNG/Bernie's Insiders/Orange&BrownReport and Free Republic.  No real names anywhere.

 

The novelty of FB was that it defaulted to real names, you didn't have to wonder if a person that sounded like someone you once knew actually was them.

😂

 

Why would they know

Cut the mustard: people haven't had to make their own mustard for over 100 years

Flogging a dead horse: 99% of people today never deal with horses

Throw in the towel: boxing's popularity is way down

Burning the midnight oil: no oil lamps for like 80 years

Bite the bullet: old war term from a time with no anesthesia or painkillers

?

 

 

 

as if oldens know what cheugy means ... 😂

I believe this is fallout from all the helicopter parenting 🚁

 

Right back to the warehouse for them I guess. But if they're the boss' kids or somebody's buddy from high school there's no getting rid of them.

Edited October 1, 2024Oct 1 by GCrites

Kids these days!

a day later...(weren't millennials saying these same things a decade or so ago?)🥴