As usual I forget all about the content of previous posts.
I've been reading a load of stuff about whether or not people consider themselves 'wage slaves', and if 'Baby Boomers' are really responsible for the current financial conditions.
An underlying pattern emerges that indicates that the wealth accumulated and made by the middle classes was historically speaking, an aberration. Throughout history the normal situation was the vast majority of wealth was held by only 1% of the population.
It's going that way again in the developed world, whereas it has always been so elsewhere.
So without talking 'boring' mortgage type stuff. The issue is to see if outside agencies are succeeding in reducing your life time working efforts to zero.
Bottom line is, if you work your butt off, have a great standard of living which is achieved either directly by wages or by the loans serviced by wages, but die relatively penniless - that's a gain for the 1%.
It's becoming almost impossible to escape that situation, look at the way students are now being put into debt before they actually have anything, and all for a promise based on the success of those who operated a winning game on a level playing field, forty years earlier.
Now it isn't even a game. It's a one sided turkey shoot.
If the measure of winner vs loser is whether you have any net worth or not sure. It doesn't work in practice though - The Queen mother died in debt (by design) And George Best spent a shit ton on fast cars and fast women '..and the rest just squandered.'
Earning a lot but choosing to spend it on a 'great lifestyle' hardly marks you out as a loser who has been shafted by 'the 1%.'
Students aren't being forced to take on debt to get useless degrees in David Beckham studies. They are doing that of their own volition because they are idiots. If they had any sense they would bin off 'uni' and get real jobs /no debt 3 years earlier.