Maybe gen a will be the ones with the balls to actually rise up, set everything on fire, and kill the people responsible for destroying everything. Because of the rest of us are just sitting around complaining.
It looks like if gen Z’s massive wave of unionization doesn’t work that’ll be the case. Gen A is likely the water war generation unless we clean up our act enough for it to be gen ß
Occupy Wall Street started strong but quickly decended into uncoordinated nonsense. The initial message was simple, popular, and actionable about how it's bullshit that global austerity and government cutbacks were hurting the 99% whilst the 1% who caused the crash got off scott free with massive bailouts and tax cuts.
Because it was a "leaderless" collective action it quickly got occupied itself by all sorts of weird and wacky movements who diluted the message and gave the right wing media all the ammo they could ever want to paint the whole thing as "just some crazy hippies chatting shit about communism" or whatever.
It's pretty typical of movements on the left unfortunately. Everyone wants to be super inclusive so all ideas are equally important and you can't just dismiss ideas as not being relevant without creating a load of infighting. The alternative however means people with bad ideas (ones who often have more time and energy to boot) can easily take over the conversation and your whole message gets diluted, confused, and easily disarmed by the media.
I think the left's problem isn't inclusiveness (in things like this) it's the inability to give power to "strong" leadership. The same mental firewalls that prevent those on the left from falling victim to mountebanks keeps them from letting others speak on their behalf.
It also creates mental roadblocks for anyone on the left who tries to lead. "How can I speak for these people? I am not one of them." That's not a limitation of inclusiveness it's just empathy. So when anyone on the left challenges a left wing leader with anything, really that leader--if they are truly left leaning--will not fight back without near certainty about their position.
This makes it easy for a left wing leader to denounce the illogical and/or racist positions from those on the right but extremely difficult to take a stand on issues where everything sucks like Israeli/Palestinian conflict or immigration. This leaves them open for charlatans to point to them and say, "See? They're weak!" Which is the exact thing the right hates and fears from left wing leaders.
Maybe inclusiveness wasn't the right word to use, but your second and third paragraphs are exactly what I meant. It's because we want to make sure everyone's voices are hard and ideas are considered that movements end up standing for everything and nothing at the same time. To me creating that space and opportunity for all ideas and people is inclusivity, which is a great thing overall but can make affecting change difficult when your opposition all fall into line behind "strong" leaders.
I have been educating my child on unions and workers' rights. When he's old enough, we move on to the proper engineering and maintenance of guillotines.
It is getting to the point that is the only option. Voting doesn't matter, protesting doesn't matter, complaining doesn't matter. Millennials were raised that those are the processes, we have come to realize they don't work and our kids are being raised with the understanding that that doesn't work. If they want things to change, and it literally HAS to, that is what needs to happen. Either accept the status quo or forcefully change it. If I understand history, that is the most American thing you can do.
The funny thing is that we have politicians here in Australia that complain about "woke" environmentalists standing up for the environment by sitting down on the road. They're trying to have them labelled as terrorists for simply sitting down in the street.
Meanwhile in France, Farmers who are angry about stopping of diesel concessions are setting things on fire, blocking streets with tractors and dumping manure and dirt into the street to block public servants responsible into buildings.
The point is two fold, French have always done protests better. And the west conservatives have a massive raging boner for eroding ones rights to protest.
I support protesting wholeheartedly, but blocking a road is among the most moronic ways to protest I can think of.
They are blocking emergency vehicles, people going to work, people doing errands, visiting family, goods being transported etc.
There is a reason people get pissed off and pull them off of the road themselves. It does absolutely nothing to further their cause.
It doesn't even effect the people they protest against.
Imagine missing your kids show, mothers dying breath or the flight to your long awaited vacation and family visit because someone couldn't think of a more appropriate way to protest than sitting down and being an absolute butthole.
Just wondering if you’ve ever participated in a protest or this is just an academic exercise.
In my experience well behaved protests are basically ineffective.
It’s true that you can actually end up vilifying the cause in the eyes of people that you’ve inconvenienced.
But that creates social pressure on our leaders to address the problem. Either by compromise with the protests demands or clearing them out by force.
I get that it may block the direct path of an ambulance potentially. But most gps algorithms when they see a ton of stationary phones in the street interpret that as traffic and try to route around it.
At the end of the day, yes there is the small potential for harm to a few individuals, but (hopefully) the benefits to a larger group offset that.
I went to UT and there were protests in the street all the time. It always inconvenienced me and I actually came to blows with a few of the protesters, but they should know that’s a possibility going into it. There’s really no right or wrong here. There’s only large organized group against a few impacted drivers.
I appreciate your arguments but respectfyully disagree.
A GPS guided detour should not be necessary for vital social functions to operate.
I also dislike the small potential for harm to a few individuals when there are better ways to get the point across.
Block construction.
Occupy offices and locations.
March.
Send letters and run awareness campaigns.
Vote.
Do anything you can that makes people see you. Just don’t block the road. To me that is too risky. If everybody would protest like that to achieve their political goals we would live in total anarchy.
Hope my opinions make sense even though you might disagree.
I'm gonna be honest, I'm a zoomer (ahhh yes I'm a zoomer, I'm a zoomer, yippee! Everyone look at me, I'm the zoomer) and, looking towards the future, my future, I'm already kinda there. I just think we both haven't quite hit the critical mass where everyone else is at that point, yet, and I think that the narrative about, you know, why things suck, I think that's been co-opted with a mixed level of success, forcing people to feel "fine" with their circumstances, or, forcing people to feel personally responsible for their circumstances, as the case may be. I also think there's a good amount of cynicism about standing up to the US government and institutions, since we've been fed a shitload of stuff against that, and then, you know, we're all fucked and have limited resources and whatever. I also think people are probably too nice for their own good, most people just kind of want to chill, even if that means they're actually not allowed to chill because they have to work 2 jobs and have no energy and one financial emergency could wipe them out instantly.
I dunno, I feel pretty cynical, but I also feel like things will probably get at least a little bit worse, before they get better. I just hope they get worse in the right way, instead of in the whole like, world ending kind of way. Or, localized apocalypse, kind of way, more likely.
This seems like a good place to post this reminder that in the last 50 years income has lost to inflation by 137 points. That's decades of prices rising faster than wages. It's not rocket science. They walked away with all of the productivity gains, and gave the entire country a pay cut at the same time. You want a boring dystopia? How about stealing your paycheck a couple percentage points a year until suddenly we realize we can't afford to live without 3 full time incomes in one household.
Yup, the 137 points is just "core" inflation. Education, Housing, Food, and Cars all come in over that. Which is fine because those aren't necessary in the US right?
All we would need is 3 days of a general strike with at least 10% participation.
But unfortunately there are several factors that prevent this, some human nature, some deliberately manufactured.
Almost no one I know can afford missing a week's worth of work: This is manufactured with stagflation and at-will work laws
The rich inflaming radical partisanship with traditional and social media to distract from who the real enemy is, reducing social cooperation
American culture has become largely an 'observer culture', where the world is treated as a thing to passively watch while feeling disconnected, this is probably the worst contributor.
So many of the labor movement gains our forefathers bled and died for have been trampled by an owner class hell bent on recapitulating european nobility on American soil and they have been WILDLY successful the last 30 years.
Either we organize a general strike, or there will be food riots within a decade.
Shawn Fain (United Auto Workers president) has been calling for unions across every industry to align their contracts to end at the same time on May 1st, 2028 (International Labor Day), specifically so that we can prepare for a general strike. Gives the already organized unions time to build up a strike fund and non-organized folks time to get organized.
If there was an IT workers union with presence in my state I would absolutely do the same, though to be fair I could probably just take a week off that might not end until the owner class comes humble to the table.
Might be worth your while to look into Locals in your area that aren't necessarily IT focused unions. Some unions (like the Teamsters and others) will still help you organize under their union even though they typically represent workers in a specific industry. I don't have an office workers union local in my neck of the woods, but I've been giving it some thought as well.
If I had never sold or lost a single bitcoin I mined I could afford to pay for a few thousand people to cover the costs, even more for the most needed protesters, the fast food workers. If I were a billionaire I would literally break my fortune to pay for every fast food worker in the U.S. (in their pockets, to be clear) to take a week off.
I would live on ramen and burning newspaper for warmth if it would guarantee that even 5% of the fast food and restaurant workforce took off for a week.
Inflation isn't prices growing faster than wages, it's just prices growing in general. Don't let anyone tell you that gentle inflation is bad for poor people.
Debtors gain from inflation because they pay their fixed debts with currency worth less. When interest rates are low, refinance or borrow at low fixed rates. When inflation rises, your fixed debt costs go down in real terms.
If you want wages to increase, support a higher minimum wage.
This isn't just inflation over 50 years. This is divergence in the inflation of wages and core inflation. So prices over all have risen by 137 points more than wages have risen. This isn't the talk about inflation vs deflation vs death spirals. This is everything slowly becoming less affordable over time. And it really doesn't matter if the money is worth less when the interest rate on the loan is far beyond inflation in the first place. You either pay it back quickly (monthly on a card) or watch it spiral out of control rapidly because adjustable rate loans work off of inflation and your wages didn't go up to match. So now you have that much less money a month to buy food.
Theoretically inflation is good for borrowers. In practice you need a certain base of money for that to be true. If you can't cover increased costs over the life of the loan then inflation is going to take you behind the shed.
We're DINKs just starting to push into the "living a comfortable life" range. As in, we can do what we want and enjoy doing it.
However, bringing a kid into that picture throws all of that away. Hospital bills, diapers, just the costs in general would wipe us out.
We most likely wouldn't qualify for any reimbursements and are already maximizing the ones we have such as house financing and taxes.
I obsessively try to keep my "IOUs" to a minimum meaning aggressive mortgage payments and credit cards within the limitations of what I can pay off immediately but even that is difficult.
The house needs work - new siding and windows, unexpected issues like the boiler dieing etc. And I'm generally fearful of what we'd find behind the siding (termites??? everything not up to code?) A new job like that could turn into $40-50K that we just don't have floating around.
I don't go to doctors because I was afraid of what I might find. I'm lucky in the fact that my insurance is now pushing in the correct direction but still ludicrously expensive... And I mean ludicrously for the lack of services available that won't cost me an additional fortune.
The wife also works a must-commute 9-5. Not sure how she, or both of us would be able to handle childcare needs and not feel like we would be neglecting the kid.
When would I ever be able to afford a kid in these situations?
And I am lucky to say that we are DINKs that are getting paid relatively well... How can people that are below us in income survive having kids?
After WW2 almost every other developed nation was in ruin. The US was "the only game in town" when it came to production. This caused US labor to be in high demand and priced at a premium compared to places like in Europe or Japan, who were more concerned about rebuilding than exporting goods.
THIS is how a high school dropout could afford a house and a family. Because that high school dropout was basically your only option for labor. As those other countries finished rebuilding a lot manufacturing jobs left and things started to get "back to normal".
The US was in a unique position but like most things it was just squandered. Now the US is "regressing towards the mean". This is going to be the new normal because the last 40-50 years was an exception.
Europe was reduced to rubble, but my grandfathers, who were children during the war and after, both still managed to build a house, raise two kids each and set money aside; one of my grandmothers worked as a seamstress and those grandparents not only built houses for themselves and each kid, but essentially owned a whole block in our village. The other grandfather was the son of an orphan, still managed to do well.
I had to take a job that requires great effort, stress and skill and keeps me away from home 40% of the time, it pays well but still I couldn't dream to be able to do the same as they did.
That's true to a point. However bigger effects were the rise in executive compensation, the loss of labor and corporate regulations, and the resurgence of the shipping industry such that it was cheaper to ship from China than to make it in the US. It's true that demand for US manufactured goods has fallen, but there's no reason our current Service economy should struggle like it is.
correct me if i’m wrong, but these are the colloquial “golden days” that so many want to return to, right? a period which undoubtedly contributed to the presumption of american exceptionalism in the minds of its citizens.
if only there was a way to build a future out of transparency and sustainable systems instead of perpetuating our collective delusions.
I think attributing the "good years" just to post war production is an incomplete explanation. The real issue is irresponsible private ownership and hobbling the value our economy can create.
Creating true value in our work is possible. Once some types of work are done the output can continue to benefit our society for decades. But a confluence of decisions by private owners have meant often we don't receive that benefit, and instead it's siphoned away as profit.
I moved from the US to Italy, where everything is cheaper and better quality, and we get free healthcare, free college, retirement pension and six months paid maternity leave. All this on a 35% tax rate. Public daycare is about $300 a month, housing expenses are about half of what I paid in the US, and while groceries are about the same, they are all local, organic, non GMO and -get this - crops are grown for flavor rather than weight. Houses are smaller here and wages are usually lower, but working hours are less and less intense, and the pace of life is much chiller.
There are many things that need change, but fixing the housing prices isn't complicated, it's just unpopular. You just need to take make speculating on housing as an asset very expensive. This will drive down the demand from non owner occupiers (businesses). It will also reduce the value of the largest asset most people own. People who invested so much into owning a home with the expectation that it will appreciate aren't going to support policies that do the opposite.
We should've been taxing homes or land that people own but are not their primary residence, from the start.
It would be super easy to implement, and flexible - if housing prices are too high for 75% of the population, you raise those taxes little by little and the problem eventually sorts itself out. If it's no longer a problem, you reduce the taxes.
Or you keep those taxes the same and use the money to reinforce social programs to make sure no one in your area ever has to go homeless or hungry again.
The commenter I replied to said"when it's no longer a problem" to lower the taxes again, I'm suggesting to not lower them again. People who have multiple homes should be paying maximum taxes on all luxury items- homes, cars, airplanes, income, everything possible, and that money should be used to support social programs.
We already have first, primary, and only home exceptions to many things. There's no reason Frank and Martha's house should be any less valuable. The problem is housing as speculation is causing houses to be priced higher than their real value.
I'm not advocating violence, of course, because that's illegal both on this platform and in real life.
However, the history of humanity has demonstrated that powerful people need to be publicly executed in order for there to be sea change in economic inequalities. When enough people have nothing to lose, said executions become inevitable.
Also the advocating for violence rule has always been weird, because it's rarely against the rules to advocate for war, even if it's literally violence and also much much worse due to the scale and horror of it.
The only way to avoid this that I have ever been able to imagine would require our global society to somehow abandon the concept of currency. But that's insane, of course, so we're probably screwed...
Not insane. Insane is making up a system of what is worth keeping alive and then sacrificing life on Earth for that system. If we want to survive as a species, we might have to embrace a sort of gift economy.
Thanks for your reassurance. You know, given that the entire purpose of operating as a society is for everybody's individual benefit, it seems kinda weird to reject a "gift economy" out of hand, doesn't it? Basically, if each and every member of a society doesn't benefit from how that society is organized, then said society has failed at it's most primary function.
A general strike of 3 days with 10% of the population participating would do a LOT more than public executions of billionaires.
That said, there's no fucking way you will get 10% of the population to agree on ANYTHING anymore because every single communication channel, forum, and social space is FILLED with people who actively create hostile, circular and unproductive environments. Either for the hell of it or at the behest of their corporate masters, the result is the same.
We can't do it the easy way, so we will suffer until the only choice is the hard way.
Assuming change involves violence you simply advocate for the change and "defending" your way of life or "taking back" or "sheparding society". Violent Neo Nazis use this kind of rhetoric all the time to get people to do stupid shit and then escape accountability for winding them up. The absolute best way though? Thoroughly make your case and spread your ideology. When enough people feel like things aren't going right and they can't make change any other way, violence is the natural next inflection point.
That all said. We really should be trying to do things peacefully. Political violence is fucking nasty and modern civil wars see things like militias taking control of small towns or neighborhoods to kill everyone they find because they think they voted the wrong way. If we could avoid that I'd be grateful, I really don't need to witness a second factional battle with hundreds of people on either side right down a main street in a city.
I certainly don't want civil war. I would, however, like to see a few billionaires fear for their life enough that they would lossen their death grip on the future health and wellbeing of the rest of the world's inhabitants.
It's wealth inequality. Capital accumulates capital, and it actually means something because wealth is control, and things like housing that determine control over people's lives are forms of wealth that get concentrated away from regular people along with everything else.
Oh but they actively took our paychecks too. This wasn't just government welfare for the wealthy and the stock market. When they fired Janet because they only needed one worker instead of two thanks to new software? They didn't pay Bob extra. That's wealth just sucked up into the Executive and Shareholder realm. Then to add salt to the wound of doing two jobs they give Bob a December raise below inflation. (because of course there is still actually more that Bob has to do, the software didn't fix everything.) So now they get Janet's pay and the extra revenue they denied Bob, because of course their prices damn sure went up in step with inflation.
This kind of fuckery has resulted in an estimated upwards transfer of around 47 Trillion dollars.
The thing I don't like with that kind of argument is that it is inherently anti efficiency and anti progress. We don't want jobs to be done in the most inefficient way just so that a lot of people can be paid to do them that way. We want them to be done efficiently and then everyone gets fed,... anyway because society values people over wealth.
That's not what they're saying the issue is though, the issue is how it's redistributed. In fact, what you're saying quite literally is the living example of anti-progress.
It could be fine in the current state if companies paid people fairly, but they don't, any progress or efficiency that could have been made was stifled by the company pocketing the ex-employees wage. Rather than supporting the current employee by giving them a raise or a team of members to work with, it's taken.
To put it this way: Bob and Janet are janitors who split their work equally. A new tool the company bought is able to cut their workload down by 15% each. Now Bob and Janet only have 35% of their work, instead of 50%.
A good workplace will support Bob and Janet in various ways, making them both more efficient by being able to accomplish more tasks.
A bad workplace will fire one of them, making the work load for one of them to 70%, without supplemental pay.
That 35% of value Janet brought is no longer going into the economy, it's going into the corporate profit.
It's very efficient. That's why corporations do it. Now one worker is extremely overworked and underpaid, but the job still gets done and the company makes more money? Sounds like a win.
It is not inherently anti-efficiency or anyi-progress. It is pointing out how those things have been corrupted by those in charge. In a more perfect world, Janet and Bob just work less hours due to the software while retaining their pay.
I mean with the turnabout of current generation work ethic, I personally think that the current systems anti-productivity / efficiency in the first place. There used to be a worker loyalty and high work ethic but it'd increasing trends among millennial and Gen Z to just... not, and why would they when it's been proven time and time again that the company culture is now replace first and hope the replacement is better or another annoying trend is replace and then not fill, with the expectation that the rest of the team will take on the extra workload for no additional pay.
I think the only real solution to the issue is either an overall wealth tax, or regulation in the spectrum of the next tier has to be at within x amount of the previous or the highest tier must be within x amount of the lowest tier, which would allow for competition in the work hiring field still, raises would still be allowed to happen it's just in order to raise one tier they have to raise the tiers below it as well.
I think you are right, and it would be better not to focus on trying to micromanage specific business practices. You cannot write a good set of regulations that will prevent companies from siphoning wealth, because profit is the entire reason for existence of a company to begin with, and they will either find a way around it or stop functioning. Instead I think they should be allowed relative free reign, and the market allowed to do what it does, except that in the end a portion of the wealth extracted is taken and given back to the people, such that the level of concentration is kept stable instead of perpetually increasing.
It makes sense to me that governments should be providing their citizens with items at the base of the pyramid for Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
Air is everywhere, but governments mostly do have clean air regulations to make sure that air is breathable. Water is also typically provided by the city for every residence. It's not free, but it's pretty cheap. But, governments could be doing a lot more when it comes to shelter and food.
It's a bit strange that governments do spend a lot of effort / money on employment and personal security when they're higher up the pyramid than basics like housing and food.
I'm not positive that the world is going to be a comfortable place to live in at all in the next 40-80 years. I can't be sure it's morally acceptable to bring a new life into the world just to struggle until death. I know if I were given the choice I would have rather just not have been, it's not worth struggling forever just to barely get by until the game changes yet again and you get knocked back down to the peg you started on.
Whenever I hear someone say "what are people supposed to do?", that is what I remind myself is the default.
When the rich have taken everything that they want, that is all that is leftover for literally everyone else.
A magic utopia is not the default. That took effort to build, and now the ultra-wealthy are putting in effort to tear it down, so it is ludicrous to think that without effort that things will magically go back to the way they were. That is neither how inertia nor entropy work.
Sorry this is upsetting, but it is the Truth. When Trump wins, it will get even worse, not better. Maybe we should do something about it.
The owner class has collectively decided there are too many worker class people and have gone out of their way to make sure that fewer and fewer are born, and to actively punish those who choose to have children.
One thing I want to point out because I'm sure some rightie tightie always whitie is going to come by and say 'Butbutbut... there are more millionaires now than evar!!!11!1one1!!'
Yes.
They are trust fund kiddies, nearly all of them.
Upward mobility has been actively crippled by stagflation and several 'once in a lifetime economic crises' all in the span of 20 years.
Even lower end millionaires are scared of this and claim they are struggling.
Yeah, because they know that they are the next 'middle class' that will be targeted for extraction.
No joke I used to do consulting work for fast food franchise owner with 4 locations, the guy netted 800k a year with investments added.
Caught him several times literally sweating in fear that he wasn't going to be able to afford his kids private school and that he'd have to sell a franchise to stay above water.
Would be nice to get some class solidarity with them, but they've spent generations spitting on us so I really don't think they'll ever join the cause.
Hell, most of them blame US for the inflation that has made their money worth less.
If you keep working and investing etc etc, sure. That's not what I said.
I said to live off of it, which is generally the implied point of the "millionaire" goal. Retirement and whatnot. The generally accepted number is you can safely pull down (depending on the year and performance etc etc) ~30k, MAYBE 40k per mil you have invested. Fine if you're still in the workforce and all that but it's not paying the bills on its own if you have a single M.
That's giving them too much credit. They're just greedy and trying to manipulate markets to hoard as much wealth as possible and they don't care what happens to the workers.
Most of them, yeah, but the few capable and practiced in such actions whisper to the ignorant rich what they are to do.
I'm not pretending the wealthy are a monolithic entity, but I'm also not pretending that 8 people hold more power for political and economic change than 5 billion combined. And even if only 1 of them is a eugenicist (protip: a fucktonne more of them are eugenicists) then they in their own hand has the power to shape politics and money to whatever the fuck their twisted will is.
And some of them is to reduce the 'excess population'.
I agree with your stance on policy, but honest question here:
I hear lots of theories that the ownership class are trying to limit reproduction of the classes below them.
Why though? Don't they want a huge population of desperate workers that keep fueling their profits and keeping their well-manicured hands from doing any real work?
I dunno, I wonder sometimes if we apply Hanlon's Razor and it really is an extreme example of incredibly shortsighted capitalist stupidity: "Yeah we're running out of workers but that's not a problem THIS quarter..."
Why though? Don’t they want a huge population of desperate workers that keep fueling their profits and keeping their well-manicured hands from doing any real work?
Did you not see the rich's reaction to Kelly Osbourne's tactless 'who will clean our toilets?' statement?
If anything the last 40 years has taught me that the ultra wealthy have zero understanding of planning for a world beyond the next quarterly report.
The reason 'why' is mostly petty af, they consider us unsightly and are annoyed that our brightest are out-competing their trust fund crotchfruit in prestigious education, and are fully aware of the coming economic collapse and want as few as possible rioters banging on the doors of their ultra lux survival compounds.
I dunno, I wonder sometimes if we apply Hanlon’s Razor an
No, all you need to do is talk to them about it without them knowing that you are poor. They will tell you with their own mouths.
Class warfare has existed since before writing, and it exists wherever the wealthy are allowed to take power.
You want to keep them fighting amongs themselves so you limit their resources and opportunities. Don't want a lot of them suddenly realising there's a lot more of them than there are of you.
People who think of their children and want to give them the best future but don't have the money for it don't have children. People who don't care about the future of their children, ended up having children.
This leads to more children being born with shitty parents who don't care about them.
This is a bit unfair. There are lots of circumstances that result in children that weren't planned. Lots of millennials grew up being told to just pop out the babies and the rest will happen. No the fuck it doesn't. Not anymore anyway. Maybe that was true at some point but now what happens is they have to work harder than ever while daycare raises their kids. Meanwhile, they have to work a second job to just pay for daycare. When I was a kid I remember my mom getting a lot more gov assistance than seems to ever happen for people now. It was rough but we never had to worry a out keeping a roof over our heads or food on our table. Half those life changing programs are gone now. At least in my area.
meanwhile 1000 and 1 Stinkpieces are being written about population decline, blaming young generations for not getting busy while job and housing prospects go down the shitter.
Get rid of an income tax and move to a federal sales tax on everything. Provide cost of living stipends for everyone. It could provide a safety net and stop tax avoidance schemes.
Sales tax on everything... isn't a tax on wealth. Why not just do some of the things Scandinavian countries do?
Why is it so all-or-nothing on any one idea? There is a lot of nuance in how you tax income, and the teeth and regulation in order to effectively tax corporations. E.g. Anything over 400k, taxed at 90%... is something. Suggesting to tax it instead at 0% because you can slap on some flat sales tax.... is just silly.
Doesn't help that politics are very corrupt, politicians can do insider trading, media is owned by private interests, unions are demonised and unsurprisingly workers rights are almost non-existent, and you have a two party system that's deeply flawed.
The US had a real shot at moving in the right direction, but the DNC saw it fit to sabotage its own candidate. I'd imagine treason charges for something like that... but, not even an apology.
I understood your argument. It's just not how it works. Even if amassed wealth was used to buy stuff as a exchange of goods, it wouldn't be anything significant, and it would be less significant the more wealth we're talking about. That in itself should clue you in on why this doesn't work.
If taxes is a problem in terms of inequality, why... not tax it more progressively then? That's the whole point of it. Reduce taxes for lower brackets, increase for higher brackets. Even if you thought 0% tax makes sense, which sort of already exists for the lowest bracket, and you want this to apply to more people... then, just do that, starting at from lower income side. Do the same starting from the upper income side, but there you increase it significantly. How far you go, is politics.
Put into place stricter regulations for the exploitation of workers. Actually enforce this stuff, not just give fines that are less than the gains. Replace your election system, it's broken. Etc. There are soooo many things, that actually make sense, and would have a good effect. But looking at say 400k+ incomes and thinking "tax it at 0%". Reagan's grave would look like the classic zombie stereotype, except it would be his dick protruding from the ground.
The thing a consumption tax fixes is eliminating all the tax avoidance schemes. People living off their wealth don't pay high taxes, they take out loans against their wealth and pay the loan back at 5% instead of the 20% capital gains tax. Carl Icahn, an investor was able to pay no income tax using this scheme. He had an adjusted gross income of $544 million but deducted it all from paying his 1.2 billion dollar loan.
People living off their wealth don’t pay high taxes
That's... why you might want to tax wealth? Sales tax does literally nothing to address the problem of neither wealth nor income inequality. Income tax does address some of it. Removing it just because it doesn't address all of it is absurd. Thinking it is covered by sales tax, is even more so. Those who would be in the lower tax brackets would have less buying power, and those with high incomes would be having a party, well... until the fairly immediate collapse of the economy and the riots start, that is. Just because one aspect doesn't cover everything doesn't mean you remove it all-together and replace it with... well, I'm still curious.
The ways to circumvent paying taxes, is what you go after, but you don't do that by just removing existing obstacles. You do it by adding more obstacles. You can still tax income, and you adjust it to tax the high income earners much more. You evaluate wealth and tax that. You put a tax on absurd inheritances. You limit the profitability of trading necessities (e.g. housing) as goods by also high taxation.
The only thing I objected to in your original comment was to suggest 0% tax on income... and that this is compensated for by increasing sales tax... as if it solves anything at all. Income tax accounts for about 50% of the US federal budget. Tricks to avoid paying income tax are well known, but the idea of not addressing the issue, but instead just "start from scratch", or suggest to remove something fundamental to the function of a modern state, is ... tiresomely American. It's like the Churchill quote of Americans always doing the right thing, after having tried everything else.
I am that educated couple. Wife has an associates and was just able to find a small job. I have associates, BS, and MA and can't even get a fucking interview because I don't have the absolutely insane list of qualifications on my resume that these companies are demanding for a half-decent paying job. I did everything I was supposed to and they still won't fucking pay me.
I went to college, acquired two diplomas, my SO went to college and acquired one as well. My brother has two as well if I recall correctly, and his wife has one as well.
Together, we are four college graduates with upwards of six diplomas between us.
The four of us also had to pool our finances to afford one home.
Quad income, one house.
It's not a small house but it's not exactly in a high demand city (we're pretty far out in a rural area, surrounded by farmland). I also wouldn't describe the house as large. If my SO and I, or my brother and his wife were to buy this place it might be "large" but with four of us here, it's fairly modest. We have no significant land, less than a quarter of an acre, and there's nothing special about the house that makes it cost more (in fact, there were several things that should have lowered the cost). Yet here we are, scraping by with multiple incomes barely able to save at all because the monthly cost of the mortgage is so high... And we need to save, because all of those savings need to exist for when the water heater and furnace and air-conditioner inevitably fail.... They're not new, this is not a new home. I'm still finding aluminum wires that I have to rip out and replace, because if the place burns down and my insurance finds a scrap of aluminum wire, they'll deny me any coverage for the damage.
My SO and I have no children. That fact is never changing.
6 diplomas and no kids and you're having trouble affording a quarter acre in the boondocks? I'm sorry, I'm going to need more information, that just doesn't pencil unless you got a bunch of useless degrees, or are refusing to explore the job market.
I'm in Canada. Getting a diploma from a college isn't a degree. Most are 2-3 year certificate courses. Until recently, colleges in Canada couldn't even issue degrees. If you wanted a degree from college courses, usually you would earn a diploma and then have further studies at a university before you obtained a degree.
Between the four of us, there are two nurses, one graphic designer, and one IT/systems/network administrator. Our combined household income is above $150,000 CAD per year (probably closer to or more than $200k, but I haven't crunched the numbers), and our home, which is less than 3000 sq ft, and cost in excess of $700,000 CAD. Monthly we pay over $4500 per month for the mortgage alone, and we have plenty of bills which are additional to that to keep the house running, as any home owner will know.
We live in a rural community in the middle of farmland. It's a small town type thing, population in this town is under 10k. In town we have a grocery store (just one), I believe there are three pharmacies for some reason, a few medical services (clinic, dentist, eye doctor), and a handful of fast food places including an A&W, subway, pizza hut, and some local places too, mostly pizza places. To get to the next town/city over, you must drive at least 15-20 minutes to reach the city limits of another Township or city, which often doesn't get you to anywhere you would want to go, and you're probably going to need to drive at least 10-15 more minutes to get anywhere you would want to go.
Several of us have not insignificant debts, mostly credit cards and vehicle loans, though most of us have paid off our educational loans at this point.
These are all factual statements. As for my opinion.... I don't owe you an explanation. You can not believe me if you wish. I could not possibly care less about what you think of my situation. I don't say any of this to provide some sort of evidence or proof that the information I initially gave is valid or true; I wrote all this down to provide context because I felt context was warranted. We're all millennials, born between 1980 and 1990, and we've all worked our entire lives to try to get out from under the debt that was pushed on us from post secondary education and from the economy being in the crapper for so long. Nobody got a free ride through college, we all accumulated some educational debts. We're all hard working people and I don't need to justify that we're doing our best. The fact is, this house that we own today, would have cost half as much 15 years ago, possibly less. The problem is, at that time, we were all so saddled with debt we couldn't have hoped to afford this house even at less than half the cost, at that time. Now that we have enough to actually start the process of having a mortgage and buying a house, the market has gone to such shit that the only way for us to afford it with our stagnant wages is to pool our funds. With a simple meal at a modest restaurant costing over $50 CAD per person, it's not really a wonder why we're all struggling. We all require vehicles because there's next to nothing in our city worth going to, and the local grocery is frequently 50% + more costly than a discount grocery in the next town over (a 20 minute drive at least). So for less than $5 in fuel, we can save literally hundreds per trip on groceries. We couldn't do that without vehicles. Which isn't to mention work; we're all specialised in our fields and as you should be able to imagine, we generally need to go where that work is to earn the wage we deserve. Again, requiring vehicles in most cases.
We're solidly middle class, and we're okay being middle class. None of us inherited significant money from family, and only because of a death in our immediate family were we even able to afford the down payment to buy a home. We're proud of what we have accomplished, and there's nothing you or anyone else can say that will take that away from us. The fact is, my entire generation has been screwed from the start. There have been more economic crisis and "once in a lifetime" collapses and such that we've been held back so significantly that it has become a near impossibility for many people I knew from highschool to achieve the same as we have despite being similarly educated and in a similar social standing.
I do, however, take offense at the implication that we simply suck. That we've somehow squandered the opportunities that we have had.
Hey, I appreciate the context and explanation. I'm sorry if I came across as offensive, that wasn't my intent. It appears that I made a couple of assumptions about your situation which weren't true, and you cleared them up for me.
I'm from the same generation as you, and come from generally the same circumstances (no inheritance, DINK, etc), but I live in the US so I'm not very familiar with Canada's job market, or wages. I also made a bad assumption about diplomas being bachelor or master's degrees.
700k house with $4500 monthly mortgage sounds strange as well, but maybe you have a shorter term loan than I expect. I know housing prices in Canada are crazy, but 700k in the middle of nowhere is bonkers.
$200k household income puts 4 adults at about the average salary in Canada. That's a little distressing given your degreed qualifications, I'd think that IT work and nursing would bump those numbers quite a bit.
I know you didn't ask for advice, so I'm not going to attempt to give it. Thanks for helping me to understand your situation, sorry again if I sounded like a jerk.
I get it, it's easy to just react and not think about the tone you may be portraying on the internet.
Remember we're dealing in Canadian dollars; but the housing market here is nuts. A couple of new builds went up about a block from me and they're asking for 1.5M each, with about 2/3rds as much house for the price.... We have 6-7 bedrooms and those places have 4, IIRC. They're new, but I don't think "new" is worth twice the asking price.
My problem is that I'm not terribly far from a Toronto, it's about an hour drive in light traffic by the highway a bit more when you consider it can take 20 minutes to get to the highway from here. Still 1.5 hours or so from Toronto, and people who live in Toronto who have money and are looking for a small town to live in... My area is pretty appealing to those folks, especially when they can sell their modest tomorrow house for several million dollars (again, Canadian). So if someone is looking to retire to a small community, they can likely sell their home, buy one of those 1.5M houses up the street, and still have money left to retire with....
Toronto's housing issues have become a problem for the entire region. People are commuting farther and farther to get to Toronto for work because the costs in the city are so outrageous.
My mortgage is a standard 25 year term, but the bank is handling property tax so that drives it up a bit. It's closer to $4000/mo before the extra stuff. Here, we also need mortgage insurance, home insurance and content insurance. Mortgage insurance is required so the bank can get paid if we are incapable of paying them and the asset disappears (like if we were all at home and the house was destroyed), house insurance is for us, if the house is destroyed and we survive, the home insurance will cover the cost of replacing the house (rebuilding it). Content insurance covers everything we own that is in the house, like our TVs, computers, beds, clothing, etc.
Some of the insurance is mandatory, most of voluntary but a really good idea.
We also have mandatory car insurance here. So between the mortgage and all the insurance we have for home and vehicles, plus property taxes and other things, we're probably spending above $5k/mo on simple living expenses. Then bills for electricity, heating, internet, cellphones.... Our total household expenses are not cheap and they're not getting any cheaper. Many are poised to increase over time. With the fairly stagnant salaries we bring in, it's not easy.
I work in IT, I hold the IT certificates, and I'm actually earning the most in the home. Something like 1/3rd of our income is me. Probably more like 40% maybe more. I don't have the exact figures for what everyone is making, but I'm well above a one-quarter share. Less than half, but above one quarter. My brother, the graphic designer, has had the worst luck with employment and earnings, but he still contributes where he can. It's just been tough for him, but I won't get into his situation since that's not my story to tell.
I recently had a bout of unemployment, and while we have social assistance here for unemployment, it was less than 40% of my normal earnings (there's a cap that I hit). I'm back at work now and things should ease up financially.
As for advice. One of the certificates I hold is in business. Part of my business studies included personal financial management. I'm certain that any advice you could give, I've already heard and told myself over and over again. Knowing what to do and doing it, are two different things entirely. I've never had investment money, though I know what to do if I ever do. Most of my earnings go towards keeping things running and doing minor upgrades where I can, when I can. Right now I'm in a bit of a recovery phase, where all my free money will be going to paying down any debts that have arisen from my time unemployed. Once that's taken care of, I'm hoping to develop a small slush fund for when/if I ever end up in a similar situation and getting my long term debts paid off. This will, unfortunately, take years to accomplish. Most of my money needs to go towards keeping the lights on.
Simply put, losing the house, or falling behind on bills is simply not something that should ever happen. So my focus is clear. Primarily keeping the house in working order and our bills paid. After that pay off any and all existing debts, then finally build funds so I can relax. Even if something were to happen, like when I ended up unemployed, I can survive without further stress and worry... Allowing me to focus on getting a job instead of stressing over what needs to be paid, and where our next meal will come from.
I'm far from the only one struggling. I know you are too. I'm sure many aspects of my story are echoed in your life. The fact is that this cannot continue like this. We need better wages. Prices for goods and services cannot continue to just rise uncontrollably. The middle class is disappearing, we're not unique in our position and bluntly, it makes me mad that everyone in the middle class seems to be struggling, but nobody cares enough to actually do anything about it. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class gets squeezed between them. Either we gain enough to escape into the upper class, or we're doomed to fall into the poor house. Most of us are headed down. Some may go up. I probably won't live long enough to see which way my family goes, and I have no children to suffer through it either way. As long as I can maintain what we have for the next 20-30 years, we should be able to come out on the other side, into retirement and the story will eventually end with us. I'm okay with this. Hopefully whomever gets whatever is left when I die, escapes the trappings of middle class and can move up in the world.
Thanks again for the insight, it sounds like you've got things on the right track.
Truthfully, I feel like I'm struggling, but relative to most I'm probably living very well. I own my home near the ocean in a major metro in California.
Any advice I'd feel comfortable giving doesn't revolve around money investments or savings. When my relationship with my now wife first got serious, we talked transparently about what kind of life (and lifestyle) we wanted. We did a back of the napkin calculation of the minimum income required to support ourselves, and at the time we were very short. We agreed that we would become very aggressive about our careers and income generation. This is why I asked you about whether you'd been exploring the job market with your sights set on long term goals.
My wife and I decided to work together to defray the risk inherent in solving the income problem. We started by having one of us find a job with a salary slightly above our old ones. Then that person became the anchor for the household which enabled the other person to find a job that was far riskier but with much higher financial upside. Once things stabilized with that person's career, making it less risky, that person became the anchor for the household which permitted the first person to take on risk (and debt) to go back to university for a degree specifically selected to improve their earning potential once they graduated.
Over and over, slingshotting each other forward by taking turns and being very aggressive about generating income, and then investing that income. 20 years later we feel like we can do most of the things we want. We still stress about having enough or being on track for retirement, but it's a different kind of stress.
At this point I'm not confident that either myself or my SO would be comfortable doing the same strategy. Personally I'd like to return to school and upgrade my diploma to a degree, however, being the highest earner in the home, I can't really take the several years of unemployment required to do so, even with support from everyone involved. It would simply be too much of a hit to our finances.
I've been exploring getting some after-hours training in to enhance my resume, even looking into pursuing a degree part time. The problem I keep facing is that since I'm very rural, the universities that offer degree courses in IT (non-programming) are few and far between, and for the most part, those IT related courses that are required for the degree, are not offered as distance learning. I'm simply too far away to attend a university class, even part time, in person. The closest uni that would offer a course that I'm interested in, would likely be more than an hour drive away each direction. With my current duties and obligations in the home and for work, I just can't seem to find a way to make that work. Distance learning is my only real viable option, and it's basically not offered for the program I want.
Unfortunately, my life's story, while interesting, is full of missteps and failures. As a brief overview, I dropped out of highschool after my parents separated, nearly ended up homeless but my brother gave me a room in his apartment for a year or so for me to get on my feet. I was ~16. I entered the workforce to get off of social assistance, and floundered for several years doing retail work to make it by. After a particularly bad break up, I obtained my highschool equivalent diploma, and started college at ~23yo. I lost about 7 years or more doing menial labor.
I got into trouble during my academics, ended up getting a year long suspension for an action that I thought would be helpful, but the administration at the college took as malicious. Took me almost two years before I decided to return, I was bitter about trying to help, and being punished for it.
I graduated college at ~29yo, with two diplomas (each a "2 year" diploma), and got my first job in my field. That was around 10 years ago. I'm 40 now, I'll be 41 later this year (in a few months).
I was diagnosed with ADHD at 39, and the same year, I bought a house with my SO, brother and his spouse.
This is the first time in my life I'm not renting. I finally paid off my student loan in 2022, and I fully paid off my vehicle in 2019? I think. I still carry significant debts, mostly credit cards, a lot of it from the seven year gap and from my college days. Though I still have expenses that I have to put on credit, since I don't currently have a slush fund for incidentals. I usually pay more for things because I always focus on buying things that are durable and reliable more than cost effective in the short term. This leads to spending more up front, but (hopefully) less in the long term. Most of what I own is older, most of it was purchased used, but I haven't had to replace almost anything I own unless it is so obsolete it no longer functions effectively for what it does. My most significant recurring purchase is for laptops, since college I've owned three, all of which have been more than $1500 CAD, frequently more than $2000 CAD.... Around $5000 in 10 years. Rivalling that is my cellphone, which is rotated out every 3 years or so, and I buy my phone entirely (rather than lock into a contract with my provider), and they cost around $1000 CAD for every upgrade, every three years. I'm currently on year two of owning my current phone, a pixel 7. My computer's, laptop, phone and car, are all work-enabling devices for me given my vocation, so those expenses are generally required to be effective in my job. Everything else I've purchased has been either less expensive or a one time purchase that I have not had any need to replace.
My strategy is to pay for reliable things up front, to minimize any recurring costs of replacement, and provide a good return on my investment. Hopefully better than that of cheap items that will need to be regularly replaced.
This, hopefully, limits my spending, but my recent unemployment has significantly damaged my finances. I was in a good position prior to the unemployment condition, though with little if any savings, and much of my ongoing expenses taxed my finances since my income from social assistance was so low in comparison to my normal income.
As mentioned, my current plan is to continue to reduce any debts until they are resolved, since I know any investments I make right now, and any interest I earn will be far outweighed by the interest owed on my debts. Once debts are eliminated (aside from the mortgage), I can refocus on saving and building a slush fund for incidentals. Again: this will take years to accomplish. So my only daily focus right now is to maintain my employment so I can continue to pursue my debt payment plan. I need to re-do my budget and assess my financial condition given my new employment, and plan from there. I'm certain I'm making enough for my ongoing expenses, both fixed (mortgage, bills, etc), and dynamic (additional considerations for debts, as well as food, fuel for my car, maintenance, etc); what I need to determine is how much I have above and beyond those required expenses, and allocate some for entertainment, so I don't lose my mind or burn out working without a break, and a small amount for upgrades, like for my cellphone in a year and a half or so; then push the rest to debt repayments as I am able, and have a bit left over for minor incidentals (under $200).
Budgeting is not an activity I enjoy. It's necessary, but it's incredibly hard for me to do given that I have ADHD.
Most of my life and the poor path I had previously (especially prior to college) can be explained by my ADHD condition and being undiagnosed. Now that I'm receiving treatment for it, the effects are significantly reduced.
That's my story, and it goes so much deeper. I left out a lot of detail for brevity, and all of that detail explains why I ended up here. I'm proud of how much I've done despite my obvious challenges, and I've accomplished a lot in the short time I've been receiving treatment for the condition.
Personally, I like a relatively simple life. I don't want much. I don't desire travel or vacations, I'm happiest watching TV on the couch with my SO. My next big spend will likely be a ring. She's stuck with me for the better part of a decade and she was instrumental in getting the mortgage approved and the house purchased. It's time.
Reproduction isn't a luxury item. It's a survival need. The only reason that it's viewed as such in western society is because our economic system is all kinds of screwed up. People have been brainwashed to consider survival, as a society, in terms of our economic systems rather than in terms of the actual people.
Last I checked the world seems to be ending around us one day at a time as we march towards an ever higher global temperature, but if you want to say that's normal and fine and we're gonna be ok in 250 years then overpollution from overconsumption isn't a problem yet.
At what point does the earth become overpopulated? are we already there? if not... what's the magic number?
Uh, we are already past resource tipping points as human beings. This means we use more resources than the Earth is producing in a single year, which also means we cut into the resources that have been generated in other plentiful years (like old growth forests, fish populations, etc). If we efficiently utilized the space we have we could raise the bar for that resource tipping point, but we don't.
So yeah. TL;DR: it's not necessarily that we're overpopulated now but our population size + overconsumption = effective overpopulation.
We outsourced the need for reproduction to the periphery. But we're also a deeply racially anxious nation, such that 1.4B Han Chinese and another 1.4B East Indians fundamentally terrifies us as some kind of threat to... idk, Aristotle and Elvis Western Culture? Like humanity as we know it will be irrevocably changed if we don't live like our grandparents did in the 1950s, with all that that entails.
People have been brainwashed to consider survival, as a society, in terms of our economic systems rather than in terms of the actual people.
The thing that sticks in my brain and keeps me up at night is the idea that I'm going to die without a family, alone and abandoned, in a country that sees me as little more than a wad of cash it can squeeze dry and dispose of.
The elderly in this country are just another kind of commodity - a pass through by which some sales shits running a call center in the San Fernando Valley get enough to cover their mortgage notes. I'd like a group of people around me as I get into my senior years who see me as another human being, and I get the sense that this is going away right alongside health care and education and housing.
I feel like "The Han Chinese are naturally imperialist, taking over the world is in their blood" is the sort of shit I'd hear out of a Bond Villain from the 1960s.
Letts : You know the person who had the greatest positive impact on the environment on this planet? Genghis Khan, because he massacred forty million people. There was no one to farm the land. Forests grew back. Carbon was dragged out of the atmosphere. And had this monster not existed, there'd be another billion of us today, jostling for space on this dying planet.
Help me understand please, how is it a survival need? Maybe back in the 1800s when you were working a farm and needed to produce extra pairs of hands to help? Nowadays it seems to me that while it might be nice to have a proper family having children is a financial burden that many can't bear, whether they want to or not
It's a need in that it's programmed into your biology, and most people can't thrive without it. Surveys of middle-aged people find about 1 in 5 are child-free. Out of those, about 1 in 10 are so by choice. That leaves 49 in 50 that either have or wished, but couldn't have, children.
That is not a link to a survey, and more importantly it doesn't even say what you claim.
"One in six women and one in four men have not yet had children by the age of 45. One of the reasons is that women do not want to have children with men of lower status," says the researcher.
"In one generation, the proportion of childless women has increased from 9 to 15 percent among 45-year-old women and from 14 to 25 percent among men of the same age. This is far more than the 5 to 10 percent who state that they do not want to have children."
That ratio seems off? 49 out of 50 people wished they could have children? I highly doubt that. If going by your logic you say that 1/10th of 1/5th of folks are child free not by choice. Say out of 50 people that math equals 1 person per 50 folks regret not being able to have kids.
Not exactly the best example, since that's not a typical behavior but a result of poor scientific practices. Mantises only take that action when extremely stressed, which is frankly a lesson we should be carefully considering.
Or humans being able to live well past their ability to bear children. It might not make sense for an individual to live that long, but it's better for a species, since it means that you have members that aren't having their own kids, but are capable of helping care for them while the parents do other things.
Survival? I'm just waiting to die. I can't afford to live and the world just keeps getting worse. Oh, and the clusterfuck of conditions I'd be passing on? Not something worth cursing another human with.
Historically, most families lived together under one roof (even royalty). It was only in post WWII USA that the idea of each generation having its own home became prevalent.
There's always someone who shows up to say that. I bet there's been one of you every time society advanced. "Historically, having clean water a recent development, and they don't even have access to clean water in other countries!"
Same energy as "eat your vegetables, there are starving children somewhere." And equally useful as a statement when trying to force me to swallow something I despise.
Okay, that doesn't change the fact that a lot of wealth has been vacuumed out of 90 percent of the country. Even the 90-99 percentile just managed to hold their ground with all of those gains going to the top 1 percent.
Edit to Add - I wouldn't be against encouraging multi-generational housing again. But the wealth loss is still there.
I think it was a good advancement in society though (aside from suburban sprawl). Having each generation go out and experience life away from where they grew up fosters empathy and understanding through exposure. We should be striving for more of that.
The owner class has, since before the invention of writing, always had limiting the reproduction of the 'poors' on their mind. In fact when they were mask-off, European nobility wrote SEVERAL essays about the 'dangers of unmitigated breeding of the poverty classes'.
Free childcare is too much burden mitigation for them to allow our politicians to even forward it in a serious manner.
Also if you were actually aware of human history before writing, you'd know we had classless urban environments inhabiting hundreds of thousands without any evidence of hierarchy or top -down management, through systems of credit in the absence of money. You'd be more accurate to say that, since before the invention of writing (whatever that means), we were able to construct societies without a ruling class. Question is, what happened? How did we lose touch with that? How did the abstract concept of 'wealth' be able to be converted into power over people? My own opinion is it started around 600BCE when coin was used to pay armies for violent conquests, making money synonymous with violence and dominion.
It's hard being married to an archaeologist that's confronted with evidence that, for most of human history and societies, there wasn't a ruling class. Why then do we agree to a rolling class, knowing full well the violence and instability it causes?
I'm sorry reading comprehension is an issue for you. You deliberately conflated two separate statements with no common reference. Probably just so you could get all righteous and post this.
we had classless urban environments inhabiting hundreds of thousands without any evidence of hierarchy or top -down management
Name 3. I dare you.
The 'owner class before writing' and European nobility are separated by time but not by nature.
The reason I say this is that when writing was becoming established, it contained historical events that were part of the oral culture of the time. We have records of behaviors of the oldest of cultures that already establish a noble and sometimes royal class that pre-existed the oldest extant documents we have.
Anthropological evidence shows legacy-based class separation as early as the beginning of agriculture and domestication.
My own opinion is it started around 600BCE when coin was used to pay armies for violent conquest
That's nice. You are entitled to your opinion. Ask your archaeologist mate the ages of the oldest decorated burials and then ask them if every burial in that culture was treated the same way or only certain people that also included valuable grave goods while everyone else was bare graves or even mass graves. Class separation has existed significantly longer than 600bce.
You aren't here for a conversation, you are just here to muddy the conversation so I'm blocking you now and forgetting you ever existed.
Agree. I am that 30 y o still living at home. Work full time, 2 jobs and STILL cannot afford a rent without it decimating me to the ground. Its nothing to do with my budget: i get close to 3k/mo yet if i try to rent some place, i will pretty much have only about 400/500 left a month…. In a european capital. What is the point of renting in these conditions? And yes i know rationally its possible with my salary but i choose its more fruitful to help parent and be able to save rather than live ln the verge every month without being able to do much.
jokes on the rich who need both the working class to keep working for them and the middle upper class to buy their shit. One of them collapses, so does their empire.
Billionaires shouldn't exist. Everything after $999,999,999 should be taxed 100%. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to ever have a billion dollars. All that tax could pay for universal health care, free education, ending hunger, and homelessness. Billionaires are the problem.
Do billionaires actually have billions of dollars cash?
Everything after $999,999,999 should be taxed 100%.
This implies it's income, although if it's taken as assets + unrealized gains then that would be very cool. Each year, anyone with cash + assets over $999,999,999 will get a bill from the IRS for the entirety of the overage. That would put sell pressure on real estate and stocks while funding (hopefully) social programs. Sounds like a good solution.
The way net worth works, if I understand it correctly, is like this:
Take Bob for example. If Bob has $100M in his checking account, 4 houses worth $100M each, and 500,000 shares of NILE (the company he owns) which are each worth $1,000 each, then it's said his net worth is a billion dollars. He's Bob the Billionaire.
Say he starts selling his NILE shares, but he has so much that each sale puts downward pressure on the price (and spooks investors) so that instead of cashing out for the full $500M he only gets $400M for the sale. Then his net worth is $900M and he's no longer a billionaire.
Or say Costa Rica invades his country and both the stock market and real estate markets crash. He's not Bob the Billionaire anymore, he probably has just the $100M now.
The first question is why the fuck does Bob have four houses, and the second would be how is it that people like Bob are easily able to become billionaires only since the Reagan administration? Certainly Bob did not actually work for this money, all those shares, for all four of those houses. That amount of wealth is far beyond what any reasonably productive person could possibly earn. The only possibilities for him to have all of that is either through nepotism, inheritance, or corruption.
If he is gaining that wealth by being given stock options and then borrowing money against those stock options and then using tax write-offs to not pay that money back, then Bob is stealing from his company, the country, and his employees.
So, no corporations and no individual wealth? Who owns a factory or a datacenter? These are fantastically expensive things. A chip foundry cannot exist under these conditions.
It could be owned by, like, multiple people? Also, a lot of companies in the world, and especially the ones managing costly infrastructure assets, are owned by states (which are a form of "multiple people").
In those situations what do the workers that have no interest in owning the means of production do? Like, if you just want to do your job and go home, is there still room for you under that system? Or does it require active participation from every worker?
Do you think Capitalist owners can't just do their job and go home? Do you even think Capitalist Owners work?
If Workers share ownership, they can hold electoral councils, elect a manager, or do any other form of decision making without requiring constant input.
Do you actively participate in every company you own in your S&P 500 ETF?
Is anyone on Lemmy doing okay? I always come to the comments of these posts and see the doom and gloom. I’m a millenniaI. I paid off my student loans. I own a home I can afford. I’m debt free besides my mortgage. I have an emergency fund. I have a 401k that’s on track. I worked hard and made sacrifices to get where I am. I can only assume there are others out there who have done the same.
Millenial here, not in tech. SINK. Skilled blue collar labor. Not union (for now...my next job I want to get in a union shop). I work hard, but I was also very lucky.
The #1 thing I did, by far and away, to crawl out of the grinding poverty that I was born into, was to leave my shithole Southern state and move to California.
I now make enough money that I'm on track for my own retirement, and I'm also funding my parents' retirement. I'll be a millionaire within a few years if things stay on track.
I did NOT pull myself up by my bootstraps. I worked very hard, had a government social system designed to support me rather than keep me down, and had several lucky breaks. Now I pay a shit ton of taxes and I'm glad to do so. California has been VERY good to me, and whatever taxes they feel entitled to is okay by me.
There are plenty of people in your situation (I'm also one of them), but the fact is that (unless you're at the very top of the pyramid) nearly everyone (including people like us) is a bit worse off than they would have been at a comparable stage in life 30 - 60 years ago.
I had to work hard and make sacrifices to make it, however with my qualifications my parents (and even moreso my grandparents) generation would have just walked into secure, high-paying jobs with real prospects of advancement. Instead I've got to constantly be switching jobs and looking out for myself in order to not fall behind. I know the rules of the game, so I do what I have to do.
Now just imagine people who 50 years ago would have been 'making it with sacrifices and hard work', since (virtually) everyone is now a bit worse off, their situation has shifted to 'underwater despite sacrifices and hard work'.
TLDR: The average millennial is poorer than past generations and it's harder to make it than before. This doesn't mean that there aren't large amount of individual millennials (like us) who DO make it, although even for this group (unless they are at the top of the pyramid) it's harder than before.
Well, that's great. It's very easy to make this about you and fail to see what many others face. I hope you never have to face the brutal hardships caused by not being in the right place with the right connections and the other life circumstances that can lock people into a life of deeper or generational poverty. But it could be the tide just hasn't risen to a level with your head barely above the turbulence stuck treading water with no way out. In an instant, everything could get turned upside down and through no fault of your own, now the world is a different place all of a sudden. But it's not any different, you've just joined the millions of others who got the rug pulled from beneath them earlier than you.
I too have been quite successful in life through hard work, discipline and the right life situations that gave me the opportunities to carve my own path in life doing what I love. I can still see how things have collapsed and I would never question the validity of the millions of others simply because my life experience has been different. This alone makes you venerable to being pushed to the front of the line next.
We haven't even begun to see just how fucking bad this incoming depression is going to be. We've staved it off for a long time by wildly printing money and shoving it anywhere it will fit since 2008 but that's over now.
It's going to be really, really fucking bad, and the cratering of the real estate market will only be the beginning. China is already feeling it.
During the last Great Depression, real estate was a hedge for the wealthy as they pulled out of the retail-overleveraged stock market that was starting to wobble while being at an all time high after the spanish flu, was mainly due to everyday joe investors with no fundamental understanding of company valuation investing in the financial recovery once everyone stopped dying all over.
I'm a very late Gen X, my wife is very early Millennial, most of our friend groups are a similar mix... And we're in the same boat as you. I paid off my student loans last year, my mortgage is bearable, I got laid off a little over a year ago but had the savings to bridge the gap until I found a new job (and landed in a better paying position), and just got back from taking my family to Disney World for a week. But I spent most of my 20s and into my 30s eating ramen, saving up to go to maybe 2 concerts a year, asking my parents for gas money, and truly living paycheck to paycheck. Gradually it got better, but I was lucky to not get sick, injured, or addicted and I do acknowledge just how much of my current situation is due to luck, but I also had to put in plenty of hard work.
Millennial here. Doing alright. SINK tech worker with no pets.
Was sort of on a track to retire at as early as 45, though recent inflation has made me rethink how much I need saved.
I bought my condo, 1 bedroom + office, in 2016, and it was within my budget and was slightly bigger than apartments I had rented in the past. Back home though I could use my parents garage when needed.
Now I feel somewhat trapped because to get even a small place with a garage (I miss working on my car myself), is prohibitively expensive given how interest rates and house values have changed. Sure my condo is up quite a bit in valuation (something like 50% increase in the past 8 years), but homes have gone up quite a bit more, like 100% increase in some cases. Also my HOA dues just keep going up too, and we don't have a pool or anything crazy. Not to mention developers in the area grab up small starter homes before they can hit the market, bulldozer them, and drop a mansion on the same land that is completely unaffordable for me.
So my options are stay where I am (and it's fine for now I guess), or move and expect to have to work much longer, and have a longer commute.
Pretty much checks all the boxes you said. No debt except mortgage. Emergency fund. 401k. HSA. I'm not house poor. These days I can afford pretty much anything I could want in life except for a slightly bigger house :p
But I look at how prices are changing and I'm still worried for the future. Ideally I live another 60 years. Statistically another 40 or so. That's a long time for high rates of inflation and greed to change things.
Edit: also with all the tech layoffs happening, there's just an underlying sense of gloom. I've been laid off twice throughout my career. Once it took me something like 6 months to find a job. The other time a little under 2 months. Not fun though.
Yup, living my best life after getting married. Two kids, two cars, and a house in the suburb. I worked my ass off through my twenties and only in my mid thirties did it start to all come together.
Why is it all so great? Wife had a windfall from her mother who died from cancer as well as from her grandparents who passed away soon after. Bittersweet, mostly bitter. It doesn't feel right to me most days, but at least our children have a good chance to get there faster than we did. For us we don't have to worry about retirement as long as we keep that money invested, and the world doesn't go sideways.
I think if childcare and college were free people could basically have the same benefit. That money can go into retirement and a mortgage instead.
Im like you, doing pretty well. The only way this was possible is we have no kids. Kids would have killed us financially and I would be hand to mouth for the rest of my life. Fuck you capitalism, no future labor to exploit from me!
To be fair, if they're bringing home a paycheck they should be contributing. Of course since it's family you do a split based on income, not a straight split. And they also get a say on things around the home at that point too.
Already seen this a few times with people I've dated.
Rich parents buy a vacation house, not so rich kids pay rent on it with no equity while also understanding that their shitstain parents will reverse mortgage all that equity for retirement vacations before they ever have a chance to inherit it.
They cope with a 'this is fine' attitude.
If I had a nickle for every person I dated that was in this situation, I'd have three nickles. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird it happened three times.
Maybe we'll see planned communities pop up that pool resources and create their own "circular economy". Certain things are incredibly cheap today, e.g. learning how to do things. And technology can make certain basics needed to live very cheap. Food, water, energy, housing, education, safety, medical, community.
If you could e.g. buy some farmland and build a compact apartment block out of e.g. shipping containers (or something even cheaper) then you could produce your own food, have your own school (partially over internet), a doctor / medic, and have workshops to make and maintain whatever you need.
Maybe the "buy in" costs for each person could be pretty low, like 10-20k.
A kind of "democratization" of economy for the basic needs. The global economy is completely out of whack because nobody can compete with mass produced garbage and marketing, so our work is getting worth less and less and we're getting poorer.
Gasp! Sir, this is a micro-federation of free people! :D
I don't really care what you call it, it shouldn't be about ideology but about economy benefit and freedom from economic exploitation. But you'll definitely be facing anti-socialist propaganda. It's possible that certain advances in technology allow for a life in relative luxury (e.g. rich in free time, rich in stability, rich in self determination). Things like 3D printers don't quite get us there, but if you could invent / develop or genetically engineer access to raw materials. You'd still need quite a few "vitamins" like microprocessors etc so you'd still need to import some stuff and export some labour or goods.
Not exactly, the proper umbrella term would be "intentional community" and there are many forms that would not fit that label.
PS: Mostly I'd avoid that term because of the negative propaganda. You see OP, everyone agrees shit is ridiculously bad, then you see accusations of being a "tankie" when you suggest any alternative. But there are also many (failed) social engineering ideas that are associated with communes.
We are saying the same thing here man, you're just not wanting to say commune because it's too close to the word communism... When a commune doesn't strictly mean a communist village.
The wikipedia you linked to even says that it's a synonym for a commune.
Also being a tankie is way different than wanting more progressive legislation. Though I understand your point.
Yes you're right, unfortunately I failed haha. The wikipedia article even says "Also the alternative term commune is considered to be non-neutral or even linked to leftist politics or hippies."
Yeah ok sure, but this site has shown me theres a good reason to distrust someone who call themselves a communist. China and Russia are TERRIBLE examples of where the world should head, yet a LOT of the communists on this site are Tankies
My example is explicitly not "state-socialism" (where all economic power is concentrated in the hands of very few) and most socialists think Russia is a far right government. Unfortunately the hardened battle lines make it very hard to discuss the failures of either state socialism or plutocracy, while pretty much all agree that massive concentration of economic power is shit.
But on a small scale like a planned community these things actually do work much better.
This decline is a necessary aspect of Capitalism. Competition, for all it helps initially with forcing prices lower, ultimately comes at the cost of increased exploitation of the Working Class. As all value comes from labor, there is only so much you can immediately automate away to lower cost of production before you must further exploit your labor force to remain competitive.
Socialist markets, ie ones controlled by Worker Co-operatives, still face these issues, but delay them due to being of and for the workers themselves.
Only a non-market form of Socialism, such as Anarchism or Communism, can actually permanently solve these issues. Markets are a useful tool during Capitalism, but just as feudalism gave way to Capitalism, so too will Capitalism give way to a more equitable distribution of control.
The argument I've seen "against" this is to point out that if you want to live like they did in the 50s it's pretty cheap. It's a lot of canned food. A lot of stuff you might pay for now are DIY projects (such as clothes repair, house repair, car repair etc.) there's no such thing as your fancy TV, your Internet or any modern kitchen amenities. Medical assistance is garbage so no wonder you paid less for it. The way you live today is like a king compared to the 50s.
Now it's still an idiotic argument. Before anyone replies, I don't agree with it. But it's what people who can't handle the OP tell themselves.
I know you said you don't agree, so this argument is for the hypothetical person who holds that opinion...
With that said. My wife and I crunched the numbers recently. If we lived like people in the 50s, which is to say, we lived as poor as we could and completely wrecked our quality of life (eating as cheap as possible, no Netflix, never eating out, no luxuries at all), we would save like $10k a year. Which means that if we did that for 10 years, we would have enough for a down payment on a house that we would not be able to afford the monthly mortgage on (and a house in that price range would be a wreck in our neighborhood. A standard 3bed 2bath in good condition where I live starts at about 800k).
It's insane. This isn't some "just stop eating avacado toast" thing.
Yeah not only that but the obvious conclusion is "well yeah, but why should we hold our standards to the 50s?" Sure we have needs we didn't then for things like TVs and computers but those same computers have made everything about that 50s lifestyle exponentially cheaper and easier to accomplish. It should be nearly free to live like the 50s but for some reason prices have kept rising.
Lots of the DIY stuff is harder now though. I can change the oil on a ‘00 Civic, can’t on a ‘19. Cars now have complicated and user-hostile electronics - they don’t really want you to fix your own car, phone, TV…
I mend my clothes as much as possible, but fast fashion in the last ten years have seen a race to the bottom on material quality. Clothes don’t always come with extra buttons, the fabric is shit… if you find vintage stuff from even the 90s at a thrift shop it’s obvious. Modern clothing is made to be worn a few times and then thrown away.
Cooking can be still be done cheap (if you enjoy lentils and beans!) but requires time, which is easier if you have a stay at home partner. You also need storage space. There’s been substantial declines in the quality of kitchen appliances and tools imho. I’m still upset about what they’ve done to Pyrex.
Lots of the modern fancy stuff is also somewhat necessary. Internet is required for pretty much everything nowadays. You can go to the library/McDick’s/etc for WiFi, but you shouldn’t be filling out a job app on public WiFi.
The average new house size went from around 1,000 sq ft in 1910 to 1,500 sq ft in 1970, to 2,000 sq ft in 2000 to aroind 2,400 sq ft today. It's not easy to buy a new small(er) home and housing prices reflect that
When the Corvette was launched in 1953 it cost $3,490. That's around $39,000 in today's money. A brand new Corvette will cost you $70,000
A 1970 Datsun 240z was $3,500, which is $28,000 today. You can buy a brand new Mazda Miata or Toyota GR86 for that inflation adjusted amount
A gallon of milk cost $1.32 in 1970. That's $10
According to the 1970 census, median household income was $8,730. Adjusted for inflation, that's around $71,000 - which is surprisingly close to the 2022 census's $70,784 number
So what's going on and why are people not happy? IMO it's a mix of
Things are getting nicer, but they're also getting more expensive. This seems to be a mix of consumer taste and seller side shenanigans. For example, small/mid size cars, which are typically cheap, have had decreasing sales volume for the past 20 years. Enter multiple OEMs de-emphasizing small/mid size cars and leaning into crossovers, which just so happen to cost more. To go back to the earlier housing example, house size has been going up while the average household size is going down. There were 4.5 people per household in 1910. This dropped to 3.15 in 1970 and is down to 2.51 today. In other words, today's new larger homes have fewer people living in them than 50 years ago. New homes today also tend to be built with nicer furnishings (coming from someone with 1960s builder grade cabinets in their house). Housing is a bit of a mess for a bunch of other reasons too... Zoning, smaller parcel sizes for subdivisions, etc etc
That's what's gonna happen here in America. IF and I mean IF your family was lucky enough to have a single home in the family everyone's going to be living at it. Many aren't even close to lucky though...I wonder how many more will die on the streets in the coming years.
Man I'm glad I was born and raised in a working class town now. Prospects looked pretty dire here when I was a kid. Local industry fell flat in the 1990s and into the 2000s so tonnes of my fellow millennials left to go to uni and get jobs in cities. That kept the cost of living here low and I was able to buy my first house at 22.
Now those deserters are saddled with student debt and unaffordable rents with no prospect of ever buying their own home. Recently the local industry started taking off again in a big way. I'm already making a pretty good wage but I'm also in track to have a Masters Degree and a high paid job after 3 years with a house that should have its value skyrocket over the next decade.
The idea that any working class boomer could raise a family/ own a house on a single income is a myth. That was only true if you were a man, and happened to be white. The federal government built the interstates to the suburbs, the GI bill loaned the money to buy the house, and sent you to college. All to the exclusion of POC and women.
Even the labor unions told black men that you couldn't be in a union without a job, and couldn't get hired unless you were in a union. This "golden age" economy was also when a divorced woman couldn't get a bank account, an apartment, or a job.
The capitalists weren't sharing more wealth, they were sharing with fewer people.
The capitalists weren't sharing more wealth, they were sharing with fewer people.
A higher proportion of business's income went to wages, so yes, they were sharing more wealth (but only because they had to, because of the strong unions).
But yes, that was only being shared with white men
This is why it’s critically important for millenials who want a family to buy homes. Good ones. Big ones with land. It’s going to end up a generational home. You’re gonna need room for additions.
Are you aware of the general difficulties faced by the Millennial generation with buying housing? Because it sounds like you're not. Millennials aren't not buying homes because of a preference as much as a lack of option.
Whole thing reeks of setting us up for failure. Insecure housing means no/less kids, and that has huge rippling effects 30 m-50 years from now when millenials are too old and infirm to work and there’s not enough people to replace us in the workforce.
And then our boomer parents, who somehow despite all our best efforts are still alive, will be blaming us for it.
uh if you want to live remotely close to where the jobs are, its gonna be a tiny shitty appartement in exchange for life long debt. not a house, most definitely not a desireable one.
thats with two median incomes lol.
those who can buy houses do so thanks to family or have exceptional income or both. mostly both
While I agree that in general the demands of wealthy nations are frequently excessive, there was a time in those nations where, as the meme describes, relatively poor families could own a home and support a family on a single income. That disappeared not because everyone stated wanting more, but because of constant, intentional inflation of house prices and depression of wages (relative to inflation) by capitalists.
Any attempt to redirect blame onto the people this affects, by accusing them of "wanting too much" plays into the hands of those capitalists.
To me the point is more that the post WW2 boom and the resulting ability of a cashier to buy a home and support a family was somewhat an aberration, not a new normal. Something similar could happen again if the conditions were right (much more modest house building via major zoning reform, free education, healthcare, and childcare, high taxes on the wealthy) but we're not actually achieving those necessary things politically, so here we are. And even if we did achieve all that, new homes won't look like current new homes because 4000 ft2 suburban homes are fundamentally unsustainable.
Lmao I'm sorry do only "westerners" have phones? Or clothes? Do people outside the west not have trinkets that they don't really need? Of course they fucking do. Moving to a poorer country only works if you move with significant capital... If you are from America and you have no money, moving to Venezuela just means you still have no money but now you live in Venezuela, not sure how that's supposed to help.
Not sure what your point is re politicians. They bear culpability alongside the capitalists, yes.
When you or I bought our phones doesn't matter because even if I bought a top of the line phone once per year that wouldn't buy me a house. I don't, fwiw, and I'm privileged enought to be able to afford to buy a house - but I also don't make the mistake of thinking that being frugal is what got me here. Individuals in America and the UK (can't speak for anywhere else, I'll limit it to where my experience lies) do not have a choice they can make that will get them the things they need at a reasonable price. It is not their fault for wanting too much or anything else.
Yeah... so, the record high inequality is just nothing to think about, because suddenly we don't deserve to own a house for one life's worth of work...? What a joke take
I really enjoy that West is crumbling. You guys did dun dirty to us Iranians in the past 10 years, pressuring our economy and crippling it. Now you are experiencing a literal 'Karma, Bitch!'.
It's not far-fetched that, once Iran manages to have America fuck off the middle east, it will become the next superpower (for the 5th time over the past 2 millennia I believe and don't say 'Persia is not Iran', you will show how uneducated you are, because Persia is a province in Southern Iran, it's a Netherlands/Holland situation) and I hope I am alive to see the fall of West. Because you Westerners have been nasty to me, insulted me, been racist against me, etc. You deserve nothing but a nice fall from grace.
Let's raise our cups to the fall of 'jorsumeh' that is the West.
And yet, every one seeks to rest under their own vine and fig tree. I don't think that's strictly capitalist indoctrination. People need places, spaces, situations, groups, creative outlets in which they have some basic autonomy. We could set up soup kitchens on every corner so that nobody is ever hungry, but for many that will fall far short of a "full happy life". Like security from violence or shelter from the elements, a full stomach is foundational to happiness, that doesn't mean it's enough for most people.
Although perhaps you have hit on an essential point -- until somebody has an empty dish in front of them, they may not be unhappy enough to take drastic action.
Your life depends on a full stomach, that's the last barrier for most people. After all, the system we live in also ensures that work will take the most of you. We're always exhausted, after a day full of work, happy to have the time to think, regenerate and be among your loved ones. But, before we have a chance of fully regenerating, we're at work again, counting hours.
Maybe gen a will be the ones with the balls to actually rise up, set everything on fire, and kill the people responsible for destroying everything. Because of the rest of us are just sitting around complaining.
And yes, I admit, I'm in that category.
It looks like if gen Z’s massive wave of unionization doesn’t work that’ll be the case. Gen A is likely the water war generation unless we clean up our act enough for it to be gen ß
fails self-restraint check
gen β, not ß
No, the Troika changed it when Germany took control of Greece 10 years ago.
self-restraint, not self-restaint
:)
Good old Gen SS
I can’t believe I have never seen this joke made in any context before
SS seems powerful, sure but the godlike powers of SSS class generations could put black holes to shame with their inescapable might.
SSSS class generations can harness the power output of a galaxy
We cannot name one gen Alpha and the next Beta, that is too mean
Occupy Wall Street started strong but quickly decended into uncoordinated nonsense. The initial message was simple, popular, and actionable about how it's bullshit that global austerity and government cutbacks were hurting the 99% whilst the 1% who caused the crash got off scott free with massive bailouts and tax cuts.
Because it was a "leaderless" collective action it quickly got occupied itself by all sorts of weird and wacky movements who diluted the message and gave the right wing media all the ammo they could ever want to paint the whole thing as "just some crazy hippies chatting shit about communism" or whatever.
It's pretty typical of movements on the left unfortunately. Everyone wants to be super inclusive so all ideas are equally important and you can't just dismiss ideas as not being relevant without creating a load of infighting. The alternative however means people with bad ideas (ones who often have more time and energy to boot) can easily take over the conversation and your whole message gets diluted, confused, and easily disarmed by the media.
I think the left's problem isn't inclusiveness (in things like this) it's the inability to give power to "strong" leadership. The same mental firewalls that prevent those on the left from falling victim to mountebanks keeps them from letting others speak on their behalf.
It also creates mental roadblocks for anyone on the left who tries to lead. "How can I speak for these people? I am not one of them." That's not a limitation of inclusiveness it's just empathy. So when anyone on the left challenges a left wing leader with anything, really that leader--if they are truly left leaning--will not fight back without near certainty about their position.
This makes it easy for a left wing leader to denounce the illogical and/or racist positions from those on the right but extremely difficult to take a stand on issues where everything sucks like Israeli/Palestinian conflict or immigration. This leaves them open for charlatans to point to them and say, "See? They're weak!" Which is the exact thing the right hates and fears from left wing leaders.
Maybe inclusiveness wasn't the right word to use, but your second and third paragraphs are exactly what I meant. It's because we want to make sure everyone's voices are hard and ideas are considered that movements end up standing for everything and nothing at the same time. To me creating that space and opportunity for all ideas and people is inclusivity, which is a great thing overall but can make affecting change difficult when your opposition all fall into line behind "strong" leaders.
We need a raised militia in open, violent rebellion against the police and national guard. Anything less than that is theater.
I hear Texas is already on it.
Lol I'm a millennial too I definitely remember that and it's not what I'm talking about at all. They just stood around yelling for the most part.
I have been educating my child on unions and workers' rights. When he's old enough, we move on to the proper engineering and maintenance of guillotines.
Have you considered teaching him welding and bulldozer operation?
Programming your foot up a billionaire's ass
It is getting to the point that is the only option. Voting doesn't matter, protesting doesn't matter, complaining doesn't matter. Millennials were raised that those are the processes, we have come to realize they don't work and our kids are being raised with the understanding that that doesn't work. If they want things to change, and it literally HAS to, that is what needs to happen. Either accept the status quo or forcefully change it. If I understand history, that is the most American thing you can do.
The funny thing is that we have politicians here in Australia that complain about "woke" environmentalists standing up for the environment by sitting down on the road. They're trying to have them labelled as terrorists for simply sitting down in the street.
Meanwhile in France, Farmers who are angry about stopping of diesel concessions are setting things on fire, blocking streets with tractors and dumping manure and dirt into the street to block public servants responsible into buildings.
The point is two fold, French have always done protests better. And the west conservatives have a massive raging boner for eroding ones rights to protest.
I support protesting wholeheartedly, but blocking a road is among the most moronic ways to protest I can think of.
They are blocking emergency vehicles, people going to work, people doing errands, visiting family, goods being transported etc.
There is a reason people get pissed off and pull them off of the road themselves. It does absolutely nothing to further their cause.
It doesn't even effect the people they protest against.
Imagine missing your kids show, mothers dying breath or the flight to your long awaited vacation and family visit because someone couldn't think of a more appropriate way to protest than sitting down and being an absolute butthole.
Isn’t the inconvenience literally the point though?
I don't call people potentially dying an inconvenience.
They have no moral right to decide wether or not people make it to where they are going.
So what do they hope to achieve?
If it is awarenes, then there are much better ways of doing it
Just wondering if you’ve ever participated in a protest or this is just an academic exercise. In my experience well behaved protests are basically ineffective. It’s true that you can actually end up vilifying the cause in the eyes of people that you’ve inconvenienced.
But that creates social pressure on our leaders to address the problem. Either by compromise with the protests demands or clearing them out by force.
I get that it may block the direct path of an ambulance potentially. But most gps algorithms when they see a ton of stationary phones in the street interpret that as traffic and try to route around it.
At the end of the day, yes there is the small potential for harm to a few individuals, but (hopefully) the benefits to a larger group offset that.
I went to UT and there were protests in the street all the time. It always inconvenienced me and I actually came to blows with a few of the protesters, but they should know that’s a possibility going into it. There’s really no right or wrong here. There’s only large organized group against a few impacted drivers.
I appreciate your arguments but respectfyully disagree.
A GPS guided detour should not be necessary for vital social functions to operate.
I also dislike the small potential for harm to a few individuals when there are better ways to get the point across.
Block construction.
Occupy offices and locations.
March.
Send letters and run awareness campaigns.
Vote.
Do anything you can that makes people see you. Just don’t block the road. To me that is too risky. If everybody would protest like that to achieve their political goals we would live in total anarchy.
Hope my opinions make sense even though you might disagree.
Totally. No animosity here. Never considered occupying an office.
i'd rather complain than be complacent at least
I'm gonna be honest, I'm a zoomer (ahhh yes I'm a zoomer, I'm a zoomer, yippee! Everyone look at me, I'm the zoomer) and, looking towards the future, my future, I'm already kinda there. I just think we both haven't quite hit the critical mass where everyone else is at that point, yet, and I think that the narrative about, you know, why things suck, I think that's been co-opted with a mixed level of success, forcing people to feel "fine" with their circumstances, or, forcing people to feel personally responsible for their circumstances, as the case may be. I also think there's a good amount of cynicism about standing up to the US government and institutions, since we've been fed a shitload of stuff against that, and then, you know, we're all fucked and have limited resources and whatever. I also think people are probably too nice for their own good, most people just kind of want to chill, even if that means they're actually not allowed to chill because they have to work 2 jobs and have no energy and one financial emergency could wipe them out instantly.
I dunno, I feel pretty cynical, but I also feel like things will probably get at least a little bit worse, before they get better. I just hope they get worse in the right way, instead of in the whole like, world ending kind of way. Or, localized apocalypse, kind of way, more likely.
This seems like a good place to post this reminder that in the last 50 years income has lost to inflation by 137 points. That's decades of prices rising faster than wages. It's not rocket science. They walked away with all of the productivity gains, and gave the entire country a pay cut at the same time. You want a boring dystopia? How about stealing your paycheck a couple percentage points a year until suddenly we realize we can't afford to live without 3 full time incomes in one household.
Where I'm from, the median house price has risen 600% relative to the median income in the past 50 years.
That means the deposit we pay today is the equivalent of the entire 30 year mortgage of the people calling you lazy.
Yup, the 137 points is just "core" inflation. Education, Housing, Food, and Cars all come in over that. Which is fine because those aren't necessary in the US right?
And yet nearly anyone IRL you point this out to spouts some form of free market propaganda bullshit.
When houses cost twice a person's salary there were no 30 year mortgages.
True - that's been the response to pricing getting out of control rather than addressing the fundamental issues with the economy.
Without violent pushback there is no reason at all to improve things. Cant afford to live?.. fuck you, we'll find someone who can. Piss off, peasant.
All we would need is 3 days of a general strike with at least 10% participation.
But unfortunately there are several factors that prevent this, some human nature, some deliberately manufactured.
Almost no one I know can afford missing a week's worth of work: This is manufactured with stagflation and at-will work laws
The rich inflaming radical partisanship with traditional and social media to distract from who the real enemy is, reducing social cooperation
American culture has become largely an 'observer culture', where the world is treated as a thing to passively watch while feeling disconnected, this is probably the worst contributor.
So many of the labor movement gains our forefathers bled and died for have been trampled by an owner class hell bent on recapitulating european nobility on American soil and they have been WILDLY successful the last 30 years.
Either we organize a general strike, or there will be food riots within a decade.
Shawn Fain (United Auto Workers president) has been calling for unions across every industry to align their contracts to end at the same time on May 1st, 2028 (International Labor Day), specifically so that we can prepare for a general strike. Gives the already organized unions time to build up a strike fund and non-organized folks time to get organized.
If there was an IT workers union with presence in my state I would absolutely do the same, though to be fair I could probably just take a week off that might not end until the owner class comes humble to the table.
Might be worth your while to look into Locals in your area that aren't necessarily IT focused unions. Some unions (like the Teamsters and others) will still help you organize under their union even though they typically represent workers in a specific industry. I don't have an office workers union local in my neck of the woods, but I've been giving it some thought as well.
People who can't afford three days off work will certainly fare well by not participating in a general strike.
/S
If I had never sold or lost a single bitcoin I mined I could afford to pay for a few thousand people to cover the costs, even more for the most needed protesters, the fast food workers. If I were a billionaire I would literally break my fortune to pay for every fast food worker in the U.S. (in their pockets, to be clear) to take a week off.
I would live on ramen and burning newspaper for warmth if it would guarantee that even 5% of the fast food and restaurant workforce took off for a week.
We could do a general strike.
What's a point?
One percent relative what the market was at the starting point.
The market today is 237 % of starting point (probably 1990).
Entire country? Which country? We're talking about our whole western civilisation.
The data I'm using is for the US.
Inflation isn't prices growing faster than wages, it's just prices growing in general. Don't let anyone tell you that gentle inflation is bad for poor people.
Debtors gain from inflation because they pay their fixed debts with currency worth less. When interest rates are low, refinance or borrow at low fixed rates. When inflation rises, your fixed debt costs go down in real terms.
If you want wages to increase, support a higher minimum wage.
This isn't just inflation over 50 years. This is divergence in the inflation of wages and core inflation. So prices over all have risen by 137 points more than wages have risen. This isn't the talk about inflation vs deflation vs death spirals. This is everything slowly becoming less affordable over time. And it really doesn't matter if the money is worth less when the interest rate on the loan is far beyond inflation in the first place. You either pay it back quickly (monthly on a card) or watch it spiral out of control rapidly because adjustable rate loans work off of inflation and your wages didn't go up to match. So now you have that much less money a month to buy food.
Theoretically inflation is good for borrowers. In practice you need a certain base of money for that to be true. If you can't cover increased costs over the life of the loan then inflation is going to take you behind the shed.
The most important thing is the rich getting richer
The Market Has Spoken: Get Fucked.
A riveting exploration of the markets and society of the 21st century that will be written in 2200 lol
We're DINKs just starting to push into the "living a comfortable life" range. As in, we can do what we want and enjoy doing it.
However, bringing a kid into that picture throws all of that away. Hospital bills, diapers, just the costs in general would wipe us out.
We most likely wouldn't qualify for any reimbursements and are already maximizing the ones we have such as house financing and taxes.
I obsessively try to keep my "IOUs" to a minimum meaning aggressive mortgage payments and credit cards within the limitations of what I can pay off immediately but even that is difficult.
The house needs work - new siding and windows, unexpected issues like the boiler dieing etc. And I'm generally fearful of what we'd find behind the siding (termites??? everything not up to code?) A new job like that could turn into $40-50K that we just don't have floating around.
I don't go to doctors because I was afraid of what I might find. I'm lucky in the fact that my insurance is now pushing in the correct direction but still ludicrously expensive... And I mean ludicrously for the lack of services available that won't cost me an additional fortune.
The wife also works a must-commute 9-5. Not sure how she, or both of us would be able to handle childcare needs and not feel like we would be neglecting the kid.
When would I ever be able to afford a kid in these situations?
And I am lucky to say that we are DINKs that are getting paid relatively well... How can people that are below us in income survive having kids?
After WW2 almost every other developed nation was in ruin. The US was "the only game in town" when it came to production. This caused US labor to be in high demand and priced at a premium compared to places like in Europe or Japan, who were more concerned about rebuilding than exporting goods.
THIS is how a high school dropout could afford a house and a family. Because that high school dropout was basically your only option for labor. As those other countries finished rebuilding a lot manufacturing jobs left and things started to get "back to normal".
The US was in a unique position but like most things it was just squandered. Now the US is "regressing towards the mean". This is going to be the new normal because the last 40-50 years was an exception.
Europe was reduced to rubble, but my grandfathers, who were children during the war and after, both still managed to build a house, raise two kids each and set money aside; one of my grandmothers worked as a seamstress and those grandparents not only built houses for themselves and each kid, but essentially owned a whole block in our village. The other grandfather was the son of an orphan, still managed to do well.
I had to take a job that requires great effort, stress and skill and keeps me away from home 40% of the time, it pays well but still I couldn't dream to be able to do the same as they did.
That's true to a point. However bigger effects were the rise in executive compensation, the loss of labor and corporate regulations, and the resurgence of the shipping industry such that it was cheaper to ship from China than to make it in the US. It's true that demand for US manufactured goods has fallen, but there's no reason our current Service economy should struggle like it is.
enlightened bit of context here.
correct me if i’m wrong, but these are the colloquial “golden days” that so many want to return to, right? a period which undoubtedly contributed to the presumption of american exceptionalism in the minds of its citizens.
if only there was a way to build a future out of transparency and sustainable systems instead of perpetuating our collective delusions.
I think attributing the "good years" just to post war production is an incomplete explanation. The real issue is irresponsible private ownership and hobbling the value our economy can create.
Creating true value in our work is possible. Once some types of work are done the output can continue to benefit our society for decades. But a confluence of decisions by private owners have meant often we don't receive that benefit, and instead it's siphoned away as profit.
I moved from the US to Italy, where everything is cheaper and better quality, and we get free healthcare, free college, retirement pension and six months paid maternity leave. All this on a 35% tax rate. Public daycare is about $300 a month, housing expenses are about half of what I paid in the US, and while groceries are about the same, they are all local, organic, non GMO and -get this - crops are grown for flavor rather than weight. Houses are smaller here and wages are usually lower, but working hours are less and less intense, and the pace of life is much chiller.
Oh wow non GMO groceries what a magical fairy tale land.
Thankfully we don't live in the US then, but these same dark times are washing over us in Europe too :-(
But there's actually an outrageous amount of wealth in the west. It just needs to be redistributed.
It's not an easy problem to fix, but it's relatively simple.
There are many things that need change, but fixing the housing prices isn't complicated, it's just unpopular. You just need to take make speculating on housing as an asset very expensive. This will drive down the demand from non owner occupiers (businesses). It will also reduce the value of the largest asset most people own. People who invested so much into owning a home with the expectation that it will appreciate aren't going to support policies that do the opposite.
We should've been taxing homes or land that people own but are not their primary residence, from the start.
It would be super easy to implement, and flexible - if housing prices are too high for 75% of the population, you raise those taxes little by little and the problem eventually sorts itself out. If it's no longer a problem, you reduce the taxes.
Or you keep those taxes the same and use the money to reinforce social programs to make sure no one in your area ever has to go homeless or hungry again.
Por que no los dos?
Raise taxes on 2nd homes, use the tax to fund social programs
The commenter I replied to said"when it's no longer a problem" to lower the taxes again, I'm suggesting to not lower them again. People who have multiple homes should be paying maximum taxes on all luxury items- homes, cars, airplanes, income, everything possible, and that money should be used to support social programs.
We already have first, primary, and only home exceptions to many things. There's no reason Frank and Martha's house should be any less valuable. The problem is housing as speculation is causing houses to be priced higher than their real value.
I'm not advocating violence, of course, because that's illegal both on this platform and in real life.
However, the history of humanity has demonstrated that powerful people need to be publicly executed in order for there to be sea change in economic inequalities. When enough people have nothing to lose, said executions become inevitable.
No it's not.
This platform's policies do not have the force of law.
Advocating for violence in general isn't illegal; only specific threats are. (Trump, for example, is an idiot-savant at walking that fine line.)
Also the advocating for violence rule has always been weird, because it's rarely against the rules to advocate for war, even if it's literally violence and also much much worse due to the scale and horror of it.
Yeah no, lemmy.world's admins and mods are already infected with the alt-right taint, calling for eating the rich can and will get you banned.
Don't advocate violence. Instead, imply advocacy for violence.
It's not "let's kill the rich", it's "it'd be a damn shame if someone killed the rich"
It's not "you're morally obligated to burn that pipeline", it's "you're morally obligated to burn that pipeline in Minecraft"
Wanna reenact the French revolution
In Minecraft
Install the guillotine mods
The only way to avoid this that I have ever been able to imagine would require our global society to somehow abandon the concept of currency. But that's insane, of course, so we're probably screwed...
Not insane. Insane is making up a system of what is worth keeping alive and then sacrificing life on Earth for that system. If we want to survive as a species, we might have to embrace a sort of gift economy.
Thanks for your reassurance. You know, given that the entire purpose of operating as a society is for everybody's individual benefit, it seems kinda weird to reject a "gift economy" out of hand, doesn't it? Basically, if each and every member of a society doesn't benefit from how that society is organized, then said society has failed at it's most primary function.
Currency is just standardized gifts.
A general strike of 3 days with 10% of the population participating would do a LOT more than public executions of billionaires.
That said, there's no fucking way you will get 10% of the population to agree on ANYTHING anymore because every single communication channel, forum, and social space is FILLED with people who actively create hostile, circular and unproductive environments. Either for the hell of it or at the behest of their corporate masters, the result is the same.
We can't do it the easy way, so we will suffer until the only choice is the hard way.
All so 8 people can own half the fucking world.
Assuming change involves violence you simply advocate for the change and "defending" your way of life or "taking back" or "sheparding society". Violent Neo Nazis use this kind of rhetoric all the time to get people to do stupid shit and then escape accountability for winding them up. The absolute best way though? Thoroughly make your case and spread your ideology. When enough people feel like things aren't going right and they can't make change any other way, violence is the natural next inflection point.
That all said. We really should be trying to do things peacefully. Political violence is fucking nasty and modern civil wars see things like militias taking control of small towns or neighborhoods to kill everyone they find because they think they voted the wrong way. If we could avoid that I'd be grateful, I really don't need to witness a second factional battle with hundreds of people on either side right down a main street in a city.
I certainly don't want civil war. I would, however, like to see a few billionaires fear for their life enough that they would lossen their death grip on the future health and wellbeing of the rest of the world's inhabitants.
Yeah the thing about violence though? You don't get to decide when it stops.
It's really hard for me to imagine a scenario where large groups of people are fighting on principle to protect billionaires.
It's wealth inequality. Capital accumulates capital, and it actually means something because wealth is control, and things like housing that determine control over people's lives are forms of wealth that get concentrated away from regular people along with everything else.
IMO two main things need to happen:
Oh but they actively took our paychecks too. This wasn't just government welfare for the wealthy and the stock market. When they fired Janet because they only needed one worker instead of two thanks to new software? They didn't pay Bob extra. That's wealth just sucked up into the Executive and Shareholder realm. Then to add salt to the wound of doing two jobs they give Bob a December raise below inflation. (because of course there is still actually more that Bob has to do, the software didn't fix everything.) So now they get Janet's pay and the extra revenue they denied Bob, because of course their prices damn sure went up in step with inflation.
This kind of fuckery has resulted in an estimated upwards transfer of around 47 Trillion dollars.
The thing I don't like with that kind of argument is that it is inherently anti efficiency and anti progress. We don't want jobs to be done in the most inefficient way just so that a lot of people can be paid to do them that way. We want them to be done efficiently and then everyone gets fed,... anyway because society values people over wealth.
It's anti progress to say "don't improve productivity", but it's anti worker to say "don't increase wages commensurate with improved productivity".
That's not what they're saying the issue is though, the issue is how it's redistributed. In fact, what you're saying quite literally is the living example of anti-progress.
It could be fine in the current state if companies paid people fairly, but they don't, any progress or efficiency that could have been made was stifled by the company pocketing the ex-employees wage. Rather than supporting the current employee by giving them a raise or a team of members to work with, it's taken.
To put it this way: Bob and Janet are janitors who split their work equally. A new tool the company bought is able to cut their workload down by 15% each. Now Bob and Janet only have 35% of their work, instead of 50%.
A good workplace will support Bob and Janet in various ways, making them both more efficient by being able to accomplish more tasks.
A bad workplace will fire one of them, making the work load for one of them to 70%, without supplemental pay.
That 35% of value Janet brought is no longer going into the economy, it's going into the corporate profit.
It's very efficient. That's why corporations do it. Now one worker is extremely overworked and underpaid, but the job still gets done and the company makes more money? Sounds like a win.
It is not inherently anti-efficiency or anyi-progress. It is pointing out how those things have been corrupted by those in charge. In a more perfect world, Janet and Bob just work less hours due to the software while retaining their pay.
I mean with the turnabout of current generation work ethic, I personally think that the current systems anti-productivity / efficiency in the first place. There used to be a worker loyalty and high work ethic but it'd increasing trends among millennial and Gen Z to just... not, and why would they when it's been proven time and time again that the company culture is now replace first and hope the replacement is better or another annoying trend is replace and then not fill, with the expectation that the rest of the team will take on the extra workload for no additional pay.
I think the only real solution to the issue is either an overall wealth tax, or regulation in the spectrum of the next tier has to be at within x amount of the previous or the highest tier must be within x amount of the lowest tier, which would allow for competition in the work hiring field still, raises would still be allowed to happen it's just in order to raise one tier they have to raise the tiers below it as well.
I think you are right, and it would be better not to focus on trying to micromanage specific business practices. You cannot write a good set of regulations that will prevent companies from siphoning wealth, because profit is the entire reason for existence of a company to begin with, and they will either find a way around it or stop functioning. Instead I think they should be allowed relative free reign, and the market allowed to do what it does, except that in the end a portion of the wealth extracted is taken and given back to the people, such that the level of concentration is kept stable instead of perpetually increasing.
It makes sense to me that governments should be providing their citizens with items at the base of the pyramid for Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
Air is everywhere, but governments mostly do have clean air regulations to make sure that air is breathable. Water is also typically provided by the city for every residence. It's not free, but it's pretty cheap. But, governments could be doing a lot more when it comes to shelter and food.
It's a bit strange that governments do spend a lot of effort / money on employment and personal security when they're higher up the pyramid than basics like housing and food.
It isn't that strange if you think of us as being in a sort of situation of soft indentured servitude which is intentionally maintained.
Why? Slave owners fed and housed their slaves. Providing housing and food seems basic.
What other mechanisms exist to compel people to do work they wouldn't choose at unrewarding wages?
It's not even about money anymore.
I'm not positive that the world is going to be a comfortable place to live in at all in the next 40-80 years. I can't be sure it's morally acceptable to bring a new life into the world just to struggle until death. I know if I were given the choice I would have rather just not have been, it's not worth struggling forever just to barely get by until the game changes yet again and you get knocked back down to the peg you started on.
Die.
Whenever I hear someone say "what are people supposed to do?", that is what I remind myself is the default.
When the rich have taken everything that they want, that is all that is leftover for literally everyone else.
A magic utopia is not the default. That took effort to build, and now the ultra-wealthy are putting in effort to tear it down, so it is ludicrous to think that without effort that things will magically go back to the way they were. That is neither how inertia nor entropy work.
Sorry this is upsetting, but it is the Truth. When Trump wins, it will get even worse, not better. Maybe we should do something about it.
It's class warfare, plain and simple.
The owner class has collectively decided there are too many worker class people and have gone out of their way to make sure that fewer and fewer are born, and to actively punish those who choose to have children.
One thing I want to point out because I'm sure some rightie tightie always whitie is going to come by and say 'Butbutbut... there are more millionaires now than evar!!!11!1one1!!'
Yes.
They are trust fund kiddies, nearly all of them.
Upward mobility has been actively crippled by stagflation and several 'once in a lifetime economic crises' all in the span of 20 years.
Even lower end millionaires are scared of this and claim they are struggling.
Eat the rich, it is the only solution.
Being a millionaire isn't even enough anymore. You have to be at least a multimillionaire to live off of it.
Yeah, because they know that they are the next 'middle class' that will be targeted for extraction.
No joke I used to do consulting work for fast food franchise owner with 4 locations, the guy netted 800k a year with investments added.
Caught him several times literally sweating in fear that he wasn't going to be able to afford his kids private school and that he'd have to sell a franchise to stay above water.
Would be nice to get some class solidarity with them, but they've spent generations spitting on us so I really don't think they'll ever join the cause.
Hell, most of them blame US for the inflation that has made their money worth less.
Uhh no. I could do just fine with the rest of my life and a million dollars.
If you keep working and investing etc etc, sure. That's not what I said.
I said to live off of it, which is generally the implied point of the "millionaire" goal. Retirement and whatnot. The generally accepted number is you can safely pull down (depending on the year and performance etc etc) ~30k, MAYBE 40k per mil you have invested. Fine if you're still in the workforce and all that but it's not paying the bills on its own if you have a single M.
Nope. 1 million.
That's giving them too much credit. They're just greedy and trying to manipulate markets to hoard as much wealth as possible and they don't care what happens to the workers.
Most of them, yeah, but the few capable and practiced in such actions whisper to the ignorant rich what they are to do.
I'm not pretending the wealthy are a monolithic entity, but I'm also not pretending that 8 people hold more power for political and economic change than 5 billion combined. And even if only 1 of them is a eugenicist (protip: a fucktonne more of them are eugenicists) then they in their own hand has the power to shape politics and money to whatever the fuck their twisted will is.
And some of them is to reduce the 'excess population'.
I agree with your stance on policy, but honest question here:
I hear lots of theories that the ownership class are trying to limit reproduction of the classes below them.
Why though? Don't they want a huge population of desperate workers that keep fueling their profits and keeping their well-manicured hands from doing any real work?
I dunno, I wonder sometimes if we apply Hanlon's Razor and it really is an extreme example of incredibly shortsighted capitalist stupidity: "Yeah we're running out of workers but that's not a problem THIS quarter..."
Did you not see the rich's reaction to Kelly Osbourne's tactless 'who will clean our toilets?' statement?
If anything the last 40 years has taught me that the ultra wealthy have zero understanding of planning for a world beyond the next quarterly report.
The reason 'why' is mostly petty af, they consider us unsightly and are annoyed that our brightest are out-competing their trust fund crotchfruit in prestigious education, and are fully aware of the coming economic collapse and want as few as possible rioters banging on the doors of their ultra lux survival compounds.
No, all you need to do is talk to them about it without them knowing that you are poor. They will tell you with their own mouths.
Class warfare has existed since before writing, and it exists wherever the wealthy are allowed to take power.
You want to keep them fighting amongs themselves so you limit their resources and opportunities. Don't want a lot of them suddenly realising there's a lot more of them than there are of you.
People who think of their children and want to give them the best future but don't have the money for it don't have children. People who don't care about the future of their children, ended up having children.
This leads to more children being born with shitty parents who don't care about them.
This is a bit unfair. There are lots of circumstances that result in children that weren't planned. Lots of millennials grew up being told to just pop out the babies and the rest will happen. No the fuck it doesn't. Not anymore anyway. Maybe that was true at some point but now what happens is they have to work harder than ever while daycare raises their kids. Meanwhile, they have to work a second job to just pay for daycare. When I was a kid I remember my mom getting a lot more gov assistance than seems to ever happen for people now. It was rough but we never had to worry a out keeping a roof over our heads or food on our table. Half those life changing programs are gone now. At least in my area.
Accidents don't happen. Keep your dick dry. It's not hard.
For you, it probably isn't.
It's so very easy.
meanwhile 1000 and 1 Stinkpieces are being written about population decline, blaming young generations for not getting busy while job and housing prospects go down the shitter.
How do we tax the rich?
Everything above the neck goes.
Get rid of an income tax and move to a federal sales tax on everything. Provide cost of living stipends for everyone. It could provide a safety net and stop tax avoidance schemes.
Sales tax on everything... isn't a tax on wealth. Why not just do some of the things Scandinavian countries do?
Why is it so all-or-nothing on any one idea? There is a lot of nuance in how you tax income, and the teeth and regulation in order to effectively tax corporations. E.g. Anything over 400k, taxed at 90%... is something. Suggesting to tax it instead at 0% because you can slap on some flat sales tax.... is just silly.
Doesn't help that politics are very corrupt, politicians can do insider trading, media is owned by private interests, unions are demonised and unsurprisingly workers rights are almost non-existent, and you have a two party system that's deeply flawed.
The US had a real shot at moving in the right direction, but the DNC saw it fit to sabotage its own candidate. I'd imagine treason charges for something like that... but, not even an apology.
Anyways....
You don't need to tax wealth. Amased wealth will be taxed when the wealth is spent.
I understood your argument. It's just not how it works. Even if amassed wealth was used to buy stuff as a exchange of goods, it wouldn't be anything significant, and it would be less significant the more wealth we're talking about. That in itself should clue you in on why this doesn't work.
If taxes is a problem in terms of inequality, why... not tax it more progressively then? That's the whole point of it. Reduce taxes for lower brackets, increase for higher brackets. Even if you thought 0% tax makes sense, which sort of already exists for the lowest bracket, and you want this to apply to more people... then, just do that, starting at from lower income side. Do the same starting from the upper income side, but there you increase it significantly. How far you go, is politics.
Put into place stricter regulations for the exploitation of workers. Actually enforce this stuff, not just give fines that are less than the gains. Replace your election system, it's broken. Etc. There are soooo many things, that actually make sense, and would have a good effect. But looking at say 400k+ incomes and thinking "tax it at 0%". Reagan's grave would look like the classic zombie stereotype, except it would be his dick protruding from the ground.
The thing a consumption tax fixes is eliminating all the tax avoidance schemes. People living off their wealth don't pay high taxes, they take out loans against their wealth and pay the loan back at 5% instead of the 20% capital gains tax. Carl Icahn, an investor was able to pay no income tax using this scheme. He had an adjusted gross income of $544 million but deducted it all from paying his 1.2 billion dollar loan.
That's... why you might want to tax wealth? Sales tax does literally nothing to address the problem of neither wealth nor income inequality. Income tax does address some of it. Removing it just because it doesn't address all of it is absurd. Thinking it is covered by sales tax, is even more so. Those who would be in the lower tax brackets would have less buying power, and those with high incomes would be having a party, well... until the fairly immediate collapse of the economy and the riots start, that is. Just because one aspect doesn't cover everything doesn't mean you remove it all-together and replace it with... well, I'm still curious.
The ways to circumvent paying taxes, is what you go after, but you don't do that by just removing existing obstacles. You do it by adding more obstacles. You can still tax income, and you adjust it to tax the high income earners much more. You evaluate wealth and tax that. You put a tax on absurd inheritances. You limit the profitability of trading necessities (e.g. housing) as goods by also high taxation.
The only thing I objected to in your original comment was to suggest 0% tax on income... and that this is compensated for by increasing sales tax... as if it solves anything at all. Income tax accounts for about 50% of the US federal budget. Tricks to avoid paying income tax are well known, but the idea of not addressing the issue, but instead just "start from scratch", or suggest to remove something fundamental to the function of a modern state, is ... tiresomely American. It's like the Churchill quote of Americans always doing the right thing, after having tried everything else.
I am that educated couple. Wife has an associates and was just able to find a small job. I have associates, BS, and MA and can't even get a fucking interview because I don't have the absolutely insane list of qualifications on my resume that these companies are demanding for a half-decent paying job. I did everything I was supposed to and they still won't fucking pay me.
I went to college, acquired two diplomas, my SO went to college and acquired one as well. My brother has two as well if I recall correctly, and his wife has one as well.
Together, we are four college graduates with upwards of six diplomas between us.
The four of us also had to pool our finances to afford one home.
Quad income, one house.
It's not a small house but it's not exactly in a high demand city (we're pretty far out in a rural area, surrounded by farmland). I also wouldn't describe the house as large. If my SO and I, or my brother and his wife were to buy this place it might be "large" but with four of us here, it's fairly modest. We have no significant land, less than a quarter of an acre, and there's nothing special about the house that makes it cost more (in fact, there were several things that should have lowered the cost). Yet here we are, scraping by with multiple incomes barely able to save at all because the monthly cost of the mortgage is so high... And we need to save, because all of those savings need to exist for when the water heater and furnace and air-conditioner inevitably fail.... They're not new, this is not a new home. I'm still finding aluminum wires that I have to rip out and replace, because if the place burns down and my insurance finds a scrap of aluminum wire, they'll deny me any coverage for the damage.
My SO and I have no children. That fact is never changing.
6 diplomas and no kids and you're having trouble affording a quarter acre in the boondocks? I'm sorry, I'm going to need more information, that just doesn't pencil unless you got a bunch of useless degrees, or are refusing to explore the job market.
I'm in Canada. Getting a diploma from a college isn't a degree. Most are 2-3 year certificate courses. Until recently, colleges in Canada couldn't even issue degrees. If you wanted a degree from college courses, usually you would earn a diploma and then have further studies at a university before you obtained a degree.
Between the four of us, there are two nurses, one graphic designer, and one IT/systems/network administrator. Our combined household income is above $150,000 CAD per year (probably closer to or more than $200k, but I haven't crunched the numbers), and our home, which is less than 3000 sq ft, and cost in excess of $700,000 CAD. Monthly we pay over $4500 per month for the mortgage alone, and we have plenty of bills which are additional to that to keep the house running, as any home owner will know.
We live in a rural community in the middle of farmland. It's a small town type thing, population in this town is under 10k. In town we have a grocery store (just one), I believe there are three pharmacies for some reason, a few medical services (clinic, dentist, eye doctor), and a handful of fast food places including an A&W, subway, pizza hut, and some local places too, mostly pizza places. To get to the next town/city over, you must drive at least 15-20 minutes to reach the city limits of another Township or city, which often doesn't get you to anywhere you would want to go, and you're probably going to need to drive at least 10-15 more minutes to get anywhere you would want to go.
Several of us have not insignificant debts, mostly credit cards and vehicle loans, though most of us have paid off our educational loans at this point.
These are all factual statements. As for my opinion.... I don't owe you an explanation. You can not believe me if you wish. I could not possibly care less about what you think of my situation. I don't say any of this to provide some sort of evidence or proof that the information I initially gave is valid or true; I wrote all this down to provide context because I felt context was warranted. We're all millennials, born between 1980 and 1990, and we've all worked our entire lives to try to get out from under the debt that was pushed on us from post secondary education and from the economy being in the crapper for so long. Nobody got a free ride through college, we all accumulated some educational debts. We're all hard working people and I don't need to justify that we're doing our best. The fact is, this house that we own today, would have cost half as much 15 years ago, possibly less. The problem is, at that time, we were all so saddled with debt we couldn't have hoped to afford this house even at less than half the cost, at that time. Now that we have enough to actually start the process of having a mortgage and buying a house, the market has gone to such shit that the only way for us to afford it with our stagnant wages is to pool our funds. With a simple meal at a modest restaurant costing over $50 CAD per person, it's not really a wonder why we're all struggling. We all require vehicles because there's next to nothing in our city worth going to, and the local grocery is frequently 50% + more costly than a discount grocery in the next town over (a 20 minute drive at least). So for less than $5 in fuel, we can save literally hundreds per trip on groceries. We couldn't do that without vehicles. Which isn't to mention work; we're all specialised in our fields and as you should be able to imagine, we generally need to go where that work is to earn the wage we deserve. Again, requiring vehicles in most cases.
We're solidly middle class, and we're okay being middle class. None of us inherited significant money from family, and only because of a death in our immediate family were we even able to afford the down payment to buy a home. We're proud of what we have accomplished, and there's nothing you or anyone else can say that will take that away from us. The fact is, my entire generation has been screwed from the start. There have been more economic crisis and "once in a lifetime" collapses and such that we've been held back so significantly that it has become a near impossibility for many people I knew from highschool to achieve the same as we have despite being similarly educated and in a similar social standing.
I do, however, take offense at the implication that we simply suck. That we've somehow squandered the opportunities that we have had.
And with that, I bid you good day sir.
Hey, I appreciate the context and explanation. I'm sorry if I came across as offensive, that wasn't my intent. It appears that I made a couple of assumptions about your situation which weren't true, and you cleared them up for me.
I'm from the same generation as you, and come from generally the same circumstances (no inheritance, DINK, etc), but I live in the US so I'm not very familiar with Canada's job market, or wages. I also made a bad assumption about diplomas being bachelor or master's degrees.
700k house with $4500 monthly mortgage sounds strange as well, but maybe you have a shorter term loan than I expect. I know housing prices in Canada are crazy, but 700k in the middle of nowhere is bonkers.
$200k household income puts 4 adults at about the average salary in Canada. That's a little distressing given your degreed qualifications, I'd think that IT work and nursing would bump those numbers quite a bit.
I know you didn't ask for advice, so I'm not going to attempt to give it. Thanks for helping me to understand your situation, sorry again if I sounded like a jerk.
I get it, it's easy to just react and not think about the tone you may be portraying on the internet.
Remember we're dealing in Canadian dollars; but the housing market here is nuts. A couple of new builds went up about a block from me and they're asking for 1.5M each, with about 2/3rds as much house for the price.... We have 6-7 bedrooms and those places have 4, IIRC. They're new, but I don't think "new" is worth twice the asking price.
My problem is that I'm not terribly far from a Toronto, it's about an hour drive in light traffic by the highway a bit more when you consider it can take 20 minutes to get to the highway from here. Still 1.5 hours or so from Toronto, and people who live in Toronto who have money and are looking for a small town to live in... My area is pretty appealing to those folks, especially when they can sell their modest tomorrow house for several million dollars (again, Canadian). So if someone is looking to retire to a small community, they can likely sell their home, buy one of those 1.5M houses up the street, and still have money left to retire with....
Toronto's housing issues have become a problem for the entire region. People are commuting farther and farther to get to Toronto for work because the costs in the city are so outrageous.
My mortgage is a standard 25 year term, but the bank is handling property tax so that drives it up a bit. It's closer to $4000/mo before the extra stuff. Here, we also need mortgage insurance, home insurance and content insurance. Mortgage insurance is required so the bank can get paid if we are incapable of paying them and the asset disappears (like if we were all at home and the house was destroyed), house insurance is for us, if the house is destroyed and we survive, the home insurance will cover the cost of replacing the house (rebuilding it). Content insurance covers everything we own that is in the house, like our TVs, computers, beds, clothing, etc.
Some of the insurance is mandatory, most of voluntary but a really good idea.
We also have mandatory car insurance here. So between the mortgage and all the insurance we have for home and vehicles, plus property taxes and other things, we're probably spending above $5k/mo on simple living expenses. Then bills for electricity, heating, internet, cellphones.... Our total household expenses are not cheap and they're not getting any cheaper. Many are poised to increase over time. With the fairly stagnant salaries we bring in, it's not easy.
I work in IT, I hold the IT certificates, and I'm actually earning the most in the home. Something like 1/3rd of our income is me. Probably more like 40% maybe more. I don't have the exact figures for what everyone is making, but I'm well above a one-quarter share. Less than half, but above one quarter. My brother, the graphic designer, has had the worst luck with employment and earnings, but he still contributes where he can. It's just been tough for him, but I won't get into his situation since that's not my story to tell.
I recently had a bout of unemployment, and while we have social assistance here for unemployment, it was less than 40% of my normal earnings (there's a cap that I hit). I'm back at work now and things should ease up financially.
As for advice. One of the certificates I hold is in business. Part of my business studies included personal financial management. I'm certain that any advice you could give, I've already heard and told myself over and over again. Knowing what to do and doing it, are two different things entirely. I've never had investment money, though I know what to do if I ever do. Most of my earnings go towards keeping things running and doing minor upgrades where I can, when I can. Right now I'm in a bit of a recovery phase, where all my free money will be going to paying down any debts that have arisen from my time unemployed. Once that's taken care of, I'm hoping to develop a small slush fund for when/if I ever end up in a similar situation and getting my long term debts paid off. This will, unfortunately, take years to accomplish. Most of my money needs to go towards keeping the lights on.
Simply put, losing the house, or falling behind on bills is simply not something that should ever happen. So my focus is clear. Primarily keeping the house in working order and our bills paid. After that pay off any and all existing debts, then finally build funds so I can relax. Even if something were to happen, like when I ended up unemployed, I can survive without further stress and worry... Allowing me to focus on getting a job instead of stressing over what needs to be paid, and where our next meal will come from.
I'm far from the only one struggling. I know you are too. I'm sure many aspects of my story are echoed in your life. The fact is that this cannot continue like this. We need better wages. Prices for goods and services cannot continue to just rise uncontrollably. The middle class is disappearing, we're not unique in our position and bluntly, it makes me mad that everyone in the middle class seems to be struggling, but nobody cares enough to actually do anything about it. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class gets squeezed between them. Either we gain enough to escape into the upper class, or we're doomed to fall into the poor house. Most of us are headed down. Some may go up. I probably won't live long enough to see which way my family goes, and I have no children to suffer through it either way. As long as I can maintain what we have for the next 20-30 years, we should be able to come out on the other side, into retirement and the story will eventually end with us. I'm okay with this. Hopefully whomever gets whatever is left when I die, escapes the trappings of middle class and can move up in the world.
Good luck everybody.
Thanks again for the insight, it sounds like you've got things on the right track.
Truthfully, I feel like I'm struggling, but relative to most I'm probably living very well. I own my home near the ocean in a major metro in California.
Any advice I'd feel comfortable giving doesn't revolve around money investments or savings. When my relationship with my now wife first got serious, we talked transparently about what kind of life (and lifestyle) we wanted. We did a back of the napkin calculation of the minimum income required to support ourselves, and at the time we were very short. We agreed that we would become very aggressive about our careers and income generation. This is why I asked you about whether you'd been exploring the job market with your sights set on long term goals.
My wife and I decided to work together to defray the risk inherent in solving the income problem. We started by having one of us find a job with a salary slightly above our old ones. Then that person became the anchor for the household which enabled the other person to find a job that was far riskier but with much higher financial upside. Once things stabilized with that person's career, making it less risky, that person became the anchor for the household which permitted the first person to take on risk (and debt) to go back to university for a degree specifically selected to improve their earning potential once they graduated.
Over and over, slingshotting each other forward by taking turns and being very aggressive about generating income, and then investing that income. 20 years later we feel like we can do most of the things we want. We still stress about having enough or being on track for retirement, but it's a different kind of stress.
Well, that's certainly a good plan.
At this point I'm not confident that either myself or my SO would be comfortable doing the same strategy. Personally I'd like to return to school and upgrade my diploma to a degree, however, being the highest earner in the home, I can't really take the several years of unemployment required to do so, even with support from everyone involved. It would simply be too much of a hit to our finances.
I've been exploring getting some after-hours training in to enhance my resume, even looking into pursuing a degree part time. The problem I keep facing is that since I'm very rural, the universities that offer degree courses in IT (non-programming) are few and far between, and for the most part, those IT related courses that are required for the degree, are not offered as distance learning. I'm simply too far away to attend a university class, even part time, in person. The closest uni that would offer a course that I'm interested in, would likely be more than an hour drive away each direction. With my current duties and obligations in the home and for work, I just can't seem to find a way to make that work. Distance learning is my only real viable option, and it's basically not offered for the program I want.
Unfortunately, my life's story, while interesting, is full of missteps and failures. As a brief overview, I dropped out of highschool after my parents separated, nearly ended up homeless but my brother gave me a room in his apartment for a year or so for me to get on my feet. I was ~16. I entered the workforce to get off of social assistance, and floundered for several years doing retail work to make it by. After a particularly bad break up, I obtained my highschool equivalent diploma, and started college at ~23yo. I lost about 7 years or more doing menial labor.
I got into trouble during my academics, ended up getting a year long suspension for an action that I thought would be helpful, but the administration at the college took as malicious. Took me almost two years before I decided to return, I was bitter about trying to help, and being punished for it.
I graduated college at ~29yo, with two diplomas (each a "2 year" diploma), and got my first job in my field. That was around 10 years ago. I'm 40 now, I'll be 41 later this year (in a few months).
I was diagnosed with ADHD at 39, and the same year, I bought a house with my SO, brother and his spouse.
This is the first time in my life I'm not renting. I finally paid off my student loan in 2022, and I fully paid off my vehicle in 2019? I think. I still carry significant debts, mostly credit cards, a lot of it from the seven year gap and from my college days. Though I still have expenses that I have to put on credit, since I don't currently have a slush fund for incidentals. I usually pay more for things because I always focus on buying things that are durable and reliable more than cost effective in the short term. This leads to spending more up front, but (hopefully) less in the long term. Most of what I own is older, most of it was purchased used, but I haven't had to replace almost anything I own unless it is so obsolete it no longer functions effectively for what it does. My most significant recurring purchase is for laptops, since college I've owned three, all of which have been more than $1500 CAD, frequently more than $2000 CAD.... Around $5000 in 10 years. Rivalling that is my cellphone, which is rotated out every 3 years or so, and I buy my phone entirely (rather than lock into a contract with my provider), and they cost around $1000 CAD for every upgrade, every three years. I'm currently on year two of owning my current phone, a pixel 7. My computer's, laptop, phone and car, are all work-enabling devices for me given my vocation, so those expenses are generally required to be effective in my job. Everything else I've purchased has been either less expensive or a one time purchase that I have not had any need to replace.
My strategy is to pay for reliable things up front, to minimize any recurring costs of replacement, and provide a good return on my investment. Hopefully better than that of cheap items that will need to be regularly replaced.
This, hopefully, limits my spending, but my recent unemployment has significantly damaged my finances. I was in a good position prior to the unemployment condition, though with little if any savings, and much of my ongoing expenses taxed my finances since my income from social assistance was so low in comparison to my normal income.
As mentioned, my current plan is to continue to reduce any debts until they are resolved, since I know any investments I make right now, and any interest I earn will be far outweighed by the interest owed on my debts. Once debts are eliminated (aside from the mortgage), I can refocus on saving and building a slush fund for incidentals. Again: this will take years to accomplish. So my only daily focus right now is to maintain my employment so I can continue to pursue my debt payment plan. I need to re-do my budget and assess my financial condition given my new employment, and plan from there. I'm certain I'm making enough for my ongoing expenses, both fixed (mortgage, bills, etc), and dynamic (additional considerations for debts, as well as food, fuel for my car, maintenance, etc); what I need to determine is how much I have above and beyond those required expenses, and allocate some for entertainment, so I don't lose my mind or burn out working without a break, and a small amount for upgrades, like for my cellphone in a year and a half or so; then push the rest to debt repayments as I am able, and have a bit left over for minor incidentals (under $200).
Budgeting is not an activity I enjoy. It's necessary, but it's incredibly hard for me to do given that I have ADHD.
Most of my life and the poor path I had previously (especially prior to college) can be explained by my ADHD condition and being undiagnosed. Now that I'm receiving treatment for it, the effects are significantly reduced.
That's my story, and it goes so much deeper. I left out a lot of detail for brevity, and all of that detail explains why I ended up here. I'm proud of how much I've done despite my obvious challenges, and I've accomplished a lot in the short time I've been receiving treatment for the condition.
Personally, I like a relatively simple life. I don't want much. I don't desire travel or vacations, I'm happiest watching TV on the couch with my SO. My next big spend will likely be a ring. She's stuck with me for the better part of a decade and she was instrumental in getting the mortgage approved and the house purchased. It's time.
This is why billionaires are so obsessed with developing AI systems to replace all the serfs who will now never be born.
At some point they will have no one to take money from.
Low end millionaires are the new middle class and a lot of them are starting to feel the same economic anxiety that the middle class did in the 2000s.
There will ALWAYS be people to take money from.
But with gen alpha population being half of millennials the squeeze is going to be a harder hit.
Agreed, though I have hope that they will be protesting alongside us when the food riots start.
Reproduction isn't a luxury item. It's a survival need. The only reason that it's viewed as such in western society is because our economic system is all kinds of screwed up. People have been brainwashed to consider survival, as a society, in terms of our economic systems rather than in terms of the actual people.
Population growth can go too far, can't it?
Last I checked the world seems to be ending around us one day at a time as we march towards an ever higher global temperature, but if you want to say that's normal and fine and we're gonna be ok in 250 years then overpollution from overconsumption isn't a problem yet.
At what point does the earth become overpopulated? are we already there? if not... what's the magic number?
Uh, we are already past resource tipping points as human beings. This means we use more resources than the Earth is producing in a single year, which also means we cut into the resources that have been generated in other plentiful years (like old growth forests, fish populations, etc). If we efficiently utilized the space we have we could raise the bar for that resource tipping point, but we don't.
So yeah. TL;DR: it's not necessarily that we're overpopulated now but our population size + overconsumption = effective overpopulation.
When I saw in a video that 96% of animals are either human or living for human consumption it was the biggest what the fuck moment of my adult life.
https://ourworldindata.org/biodiversity?insight=wild-mammals-make-up-only-a-few-percent-of-the-world-s-mammals#key-insights-on-biodiversity
96% of mammals by biomass. Still a what the fuck moment, but a noteworthy difference between that and all animals.
96% of mammals, not animals. So it does not count fish, birds, reptiles, insects and etc...
I mean, it's still a shocking number
PS: ops, someone already replied that... sorry
According to Limits to Growth- 2040
We outsourced the need for reproduction to the periphery. But we're also a deeply racially anxious nation, such that 1.4B Han Chinese and another 1.4B East Indians fundamentally terrifies us as some kind of threat to... idk, Aristotle and Elvis Western Culture? Like humanity as we know it will be irrevocably changed if we don't live like our grandparents did in the 1950s, with all that that entails.
The thing that sticks in my brain and keeps me up at night is the idea that I'm going to die without a family, alone and abandoned, in a country that sees me as little more than a wad of cash it can squeeze dry and dispose of.
The elderly in this country are just another kind of commodity - a pass through by which some sales shits running a call center in the San Fernando Valley get enough to cover their mortgage notes. I'd like a group of people around me as I get into my senior years who see me as another human being, and I get the sense that this is going away right alongside health care and education and housing.
You'll have to forgive people for being cautious when presented with an ethnic supremacist state actively working towards global domination.
I feel like "The Han Chinese are naturally imperialist, taking over the world is in their blood" is the sort of shit I'd hear out of a Bond Villain from the 1960s.
Yea man, that's totally what I said. @@
Utopia (tv series)
Damn. Not so Utopian after all.
Help me understand please, how is it a survival need? Maybe back in the 1800s when you were working a farm and needed to produce extra pairs of hands to help? Nowadays it seems to me that while it might be nice to have a proper family having children is a financial burden that many can't bear, whether they want to or not
It's a need in that it's programmed into your biology, and most people can't thrive without it. Surveys of middle-aged people find about 1 in 5 are child-free. Out of those, about 1 in 10 are so by choice. That leaves 49 in 50 that either have or wished, but couldn't have, children.
Could you link me to those surveys?
https://www.nrk.no/norge/dramatisk-okning-i-andelen-barnlose-i-norge-1.13759502#:~:text=Andelen%20barnl%C3%B8se%20er%20p%C3%A5%20en,ikke%20%C3%B8nsker%20%C3%A5%20f%C3%A5%20barn.
That is not a link to a survey, and more importantly it doesn't even say what you claim.
"One in six women and one in four men have not yet had children by the age of 45. One of the reasons is that women do not want to have children with men of lower status," says the researcher.
"In one generation, the proportion of childless women has increased from 9 to 15 percent among 45-year-old women and from 14 to 25 percent among men of the same age. This is far more than the 5 to 10 percent who state that they do not want to have children."
That ratio seems off? 49 out of 50 people wished they could have children? I highly doubt that. If going by your logic you say that 1/10th of 1/5th of folks are child free not by choice. Say out of 50 people that math equals 1 person per 50 folks regret not being able to have kids.
No. Out of 50 that's 40 who had kids, 9 who didn't and regret it, and just 1 who didn't and are content.
That's not what survival need means.
Again, this doesn't make it a survival need.
Survival need for species can be vastly different to that of individuals, like mantis' sexual cannibalism.
Not exactly the best example, since that's not a typical behavior but a result of poor scientific practices. Mantises only take that action when extremely stressed, which is frankly a lesson we should be carefully considering.
Or humans being able to live well past their ability to bear children. It might not make sense for an individual to live that long, but it's better for a species, since it means that you have members that aren't having their own kids, but are capable of helping care for them while the parents do other things.
yeah for us thats purely recreational.
Survival? I'm just waiting to die. I can't afford to live and the world just keeps getting worse. Oh, and the clusterfuck of conditions I'd be passing on? Not something worth cursing another human with.
Historically, most families lived together under one roof (even royalty). It was only in post WWII USA that the idea of each generation having its own home became prevalent.
There's always someone who shows up to say that. I bet there's been one of you every time society advanced. "Historically, having clean water a recent development, and they don't even have access to clean water in other countries!"
Same energy as "eat your vegetables, there are starving children somewhere." And equally useful as a statement when trying to force me to swallow something I despise.
Okay, that doesn't change the fact that a lot of wealth has been vacuumed out of 90 percent of the country. Even the 90-99 percentile just managed to hold their ground with all of those gains going to the top 1 percent.
Edit to Add - I wouldn't be against encouraging multi-generational housing again. But the wealth loss is still there.
I think it was a good advancement in society though (aside from suburban sprawl). Having each generation go out and experience life away from where they grew up fosters empathy and understanding through exposure. We should be striving for more of that.
Part of that was driven by specialization and people having different jobs and jobs in different locations than their parents though.
I honestly think free childcare would solve a lot of problems as well
Stop it. You're radicalising me.
Is it “radical” to want a safe, happy and comfortable life? I think the wealthy are the radicals for maintaining oppression.
No war but the class war!!!
What classes?
Well, I don’t know where you live but if you live in the US, these ones.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
The owner class has, since before the invention of writing, always had limiting the reproduction of the 'poors' on their mind. In fact when they were mask-off, European nobility wrote SEVERAL essays about the 'dangers of unmitigated breeding of the poverty classes'.
Free childcare is too much burden mitigation for them to allow our politicians to even forward it in a serious manner.
European nobility predates writing?
Also if you were actually aware of human history before writing, you'd know we had classless urban environments inhabiting hundreds of thousands without any evidence of hierarchy or top -down management, through systems of credit in the absence of money. You'd be more accurate to say that, since before the invention of writing (whatever that means), we were able to construct societies without a ruling class. Question is, what happened? How did we lose touch with that? How did the abstract concept of 'wealth' be able to be converted into power over people? My own opinion is it started around 600BCE when coin was used to pay armies for violent conquests, making money synonymous with violence and dominion.
It's hard being married to an archaeologist that's confronted with evidence that, for most of human history and societies, there wasn't a ruling class. Why then do we agree to a rolling class, knowing full well the violence and instability it causes?
I'm sorry reading comprehension is an issue for you. You deliberately conflated two separate statements with no common reference. Probably just so you could get all righteous and post this.
Name 3. I dare you.
The 'owner class before writing' and European nobility are separated by time but not by nature.
The reason I say this is that when writing was becoming established, it contained historical events that were part of the oral culture of the time. We have records of behaviors of the oldest of cultures that already establish a noble and sometimes royal class that pre-existed the oldest extant documents we have.
Anthropological evidence shows legacy-based class separation as early as the beginning of agriculture and domestication.
That's nice. You are entitled to your opinion. Ask your archaeologist mate the ages of the oldest decorated burials and then ask them if every burial in that culture was treated the same way or only certain people that also included valuable grave goods while everyone else was bare graves or even mass graves. Class separation has existed significantly longer than 600bce.
You aren't here for a conversation, you are just here to muddy the conversation so I'm blocking you now and forgetting you ever existed.
You sent me down a rabbit hole of primitive communism and the Çatalhöyük civilization. Thanks.
There are some ancient bloodlines in Anatolia and no doubt.
Agree. I am that 30 y o still living at home. Work full time, 2 jobs and STILL cannot afford a rent without it decimating me to the ground. Its nothing to do with my budget: i get close to 3k/mo yet if i try to rent some place, i will pretty much have only about 400/500 left a month…. In a european capital. What is the point of renting in these conditions? And yes i know rationally its possible with my salary but i choose its more fruitful to help parent and be able to save rather than live ln the verge every month without being able to do much.
jokes on the rich who need both the working class to keep working for them and the middle upper class to buy their shit. One of them collapses, so does their empire.
They banned abortion rights, in part, to replenish the population. Jokes on said working and middle class.
Abolish corporations
So only billionaires can own any type of the means of production? This is an exceptionally dumb take.
Billionaires shouldn't exist. Everything after $999,999,999 should be taxed 100%. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to ever have a billion dollars. All that tax could pay for universal health care, free education, ending hunger, and homelessness. Billionaires are the problem.
That, and a land tax
Do billionaires actually have billions of dollars cash?
This implies it's income, although if it's taken as assets + unrealized gains then that would be very cool. Each year, anyone with cash + assets over $999,999,999 will get a bill from the IRS for the entirety of the overage. That would put sell pressure on real estate and stocks while funding (hopefully) social programs. Sounds like a good solution.
Either they are billionaires or they are not billionaires. Which is it?
If it's all stock options, then redistribute their stock options.
The way net worth works, if I understand it correctly, is like this:
Take Bob for example. If Bob has $100M in his checking account, 4 houses worth $100M each, and 500,000 shares of NILE (the company he owns) which are each worth $1,000 each, then it's said his net worth is a billion dollars. He's Bob the Billionaire.
Say he starts selling his NILE shares, but he has so much that each sale puts downward pressure on the price (and spooks investors) so that instead of cashing out for the full $500M he only gets $400M for the sale. Then his net worth is $900M and he's no longer a billionaire.
Or say Costa Rica invades his country and both the stock market and real estate markets crash. He's not Bob the Billionaire anymore, he probably has just the $100M now.
After writing that example it seems a better threshhold would be $100M, lol. Here's a good visualization of the resources under the control of Jeff Bezos.
The first question is why the fuck does Bob have four houses, and the second would be how is it that people like Bob are easily able to become billionaires only since the Reagan administration? Certainly Bob did not actually work for this money, all those shares, for all four of those houses. That amount of wealth is far beyond what any reasonably productive person could possibly earn. The only possibilities for him to have all of that is either through nepotism, inheritance, or corruption. If he is gaining that wealth by being given stock options and then borrowing money against those stock options and then using tax write-offs to not pay that money back, then Bob is stealing from his company, the country, and his employees.
So, no corporations and no individual wealth? Who owns a factory or a datacenter? These are fantastically expensive things. A chip foundry cannot exist under these conditions.
I don't think you have a strong enough concept of large numbers to be able to hold a respectable opinion here.
Lmao brutal, but -1 for ad hominem.
That's fair. I chose violence.
You didn't answer the question though.
It could be owned by, like, multiple people? Also, a lot of companies in the world, and especially the ones managing costly infrastructure assets, are owned by states (which are a form of "multiple people").
Multiple people working together with 1 goal? Like a .... Company?
Workers own the factory. Collectively. Through democratic process of any variety.
In those situations what do the workers that have no interest in owning the means of production do? Like, if you just want to do your job and go home, is there still room for you under that system? Or does it require active participation from every worker?
Do you think Capitalist owners can't just do their job and go home? Do you even think Capitalist Owners work?
If Workers share ownership, they can hold electoral councils, elect a manager, or do any other form of decision making without requiring constant input.
Do you actively participate in every company you own in your S&P 500 ETF?
Ooooooookaaaaayyyyy. You are more interested in feeling attacked and defending your ego than discussing praxis. I'm not interested in that.
Also lmao thinking I own stock.
They get a part of the company's gains regardless because they are workers.
Simple. That sounds really good.
Is anyone on Lemmy doing okay? I always come to the comments of these posts and see the doom and gloom. I’m a millenniaI. I paid off my student loans. I own a home I can afford. I’m debt free besides my mortgage. I have an emergency fund. I have a 401k that’s on track. I worked hard and made sacrifices to get where I am. I can only assume there are others out there who have done the same.
Millenial here, not in tech. SINK. Skilled blue collar labor. Not union (for now...my next job I want to get in a union shop). I work hard, but I was also very lucky.
The #1 thing I did, by far and away, to crawl out of the grinding poverty that I was born into, was to leave my shithole Southern state and move to California.
I now make enough money that I'm on track for my own retirement, and I'm also funding my parents' retirement. I'll be a millionaire within a few years if things stay on track.
I did NOT pull myself up by my bootstraps. I worked very hard, had a government social system designed to support me rather than keep me down, and had several lucky breaks. Now I pay a shit ton of taxes and I'm glad to do so. California has been VERY good to me, and whatever taxes they feel entitled to is okay by me.
There are plenty of people in your situation (I'm also one of them), but the fact is that (unless you're at the very top of the pyramid) nearly everyone (including people like us) is a bit worse off than they would have been at a comparable stage in life 30 - 60 years ago.
I had to work hard and make sacrifices to make it, however with my qualifications my parents (and even moreso my grandparents) generation would have just walked into secure, high-paying jobs with real prospects of advancement. Instead I've got to constantly be switching jobs and looking out for myself in order to not fall behind. I know the rules of the game, so I do what I have to do.
Now just imagine people who 50 years ago would have been 'making it with sacrifices and hard work', since (virtually) everyone is now a bit worse off, their situation has shifted to 'underwater despite sacrifices and hard work'.
TLDR: The average millennial is poorer than past generations and it's harder to make it than before. This doesn't mean that there aren't large amount of individual millennials (like us) who DO make it, although even for this group (unless they are at the top of the pyramid) it's harder than before.
Well, that's great. It's very easy to make this about you and fail to see what many others face. I hope you never have to face the brutal hardships caused by not being in the right place with the right connections and the other life circumstances that can lock people into a life of deeper or generational poverty. But it could be the tide just hasn't risen to a level with your head barely above the turbulence stuck treading water with no way out. In an instant, everything could get turned upside down and through no fault of your own, now the world is a different place all of a sudden. But it's not any different, you've just joined the millions of others who got the rug pulled from beneath them earlier than you.
I too have been quite successful in life through hard work, discipline and the right life situations that gave me the opportunities to carve my own path in life doing what I love. I can still see how things have collapsed and I would never question the validity of the millions of others simply because my life experience has been different. This alone makes you venerable to being pushed to the front of the line next.
You're literally in such a small minority in the US it's not even funny.
Congrats, you're above the curve. For now.
How do you think you will do with a decade of 30% inflation?
That seems fanciful. You can get decade long mortgages right now for under 6%.
We haven't even begun to see just how fucking bad this incoming depression is going to be. We've staved it off for a long time by wildly printing money and shoving it anywhere it will fit since 2008 but that's over now.
It's going to be really, really fucking bad, and the cratering of the real estate market will only be the beginning. China is already feeling it.
During the last Great Depression, real estate was a hedge for the wealthy as they pulled out of the retail-overleveraged stock market that was starting to wobble while being at an all time high after the spanish flu, was mainly due to everyday joe investors with no fundamental understanding of company valuation investing in the financial recovery once everyone stopped dying all over.
DOES ANY OF THIS SEEM FAMILIAR?!?!??!
I'm a very late Gen X, my wife is very early Millennial, most of our friend groups are a similar mix... And we're in the same boat as you. I paid off my student loans last year, my mortgage is bearable, I got laid off a little over a year ago but had the savings to bridge the gap until I found a new job (and landed in a better paying position), and just got back from taking my family to Disney World for a week. But I spent most of my 20s and into my 30s eating ramen, saving up to go to maybe 2 concerts a year, asking my parents for gas money, and truly living paycheck to paycheck. Gradually it got better, but I was lucky to not get sick, injured, or addicted and I do acknowledge just how much of my current situation is due to luck, but I also had to put in plenty of hard work.
Millennial here. Doing alright. SINK tech worker with no pets.
Was sort of on a track to retire at as early as 45, though recent inflation has made me rethink how much I need saved.
I bought my condo, 1 bedroom + office, in 2016, and it was within my budget and was slightly bigger than apartments I had rented in the past. Back home though I could use my parents garage when needed.
Now I feel somewhat trapped because to get even a small place with a garage (I miss working on my car myself), is prohibitively expensive given how interest rates and house values have changed. Sure my condo is up quite a bit in valuation (something like 50% increase in the past 8 years), but homes have gone up quite a bit more, like 100% increase in some cases. Also my HOA dues just keep going up too, and we don't have a pool or anything crazy. Not to mention developers in the area grab up small starter homes before they can hit the market, bulldozer them, and drop a mansion on the same land that is completely unaffordable for me.
So my options are stay where I am (and it's fine for now I guess), or move and expect to have to work much longer, and have a longer commute.
Pretty much checks all the boxes you said. No debt except mortgage. Emergency fund. 401k. HSA. I'm not house poor. These days I can afford pretty much anything I could want in life except for a slightly bigger house :p
But I look at how prices are changing and I'm still worried for the future. Ideally I live another 60 years. Statistically another 40 or so. That's a long time for high rates of inflation and greed to change things.
Edit: also with all the tech layoffs happening, there's just an underlying sense of gloom. I've been laid off twice throughout my career. Once it took me something like 6 months to find a job. The other time a little under 2 months. Not fun though.
Yup, living my best life after getting married. Two kids, two cars, and a house in the suburb. I worked my ass off through my twenties and only in my mid thirties did it start to all come together.
Why is it all so great? Wife had a windfall from her mother who died from cancer as well as from her grandparents who passed away soon after. Bittersweet, mostly bitter. It doesn't feel right to me most days, but at least our children have a good chance to get there faster than we did. For us we don't have to worry about retirement as long as we keep that money invested, and the world doesn't go sideways.
I think if childcare and college were free people could basically have the same benefit. That money can go into retirement and a mortgage instead.
Im like you, doing pretty well. The only way this was possible is we have no kids. Kids would have killed us financially and I would be hand to mouth for the rest of my life. Fuck you capitalism, no future labor to exploit from me!
I would of been in your situation if covid didn’t happen and put me around 80k in the hole next to a government that refused aid to me.
At this point gen a or g or whatever is going to live in the popular democratic republic of north America
Rent. Gen A will rent at home. That's how the parents will finally clear the home; through rent.
Their millennial parents will also be renting. How will they afford a retirement home or nursing home? How did we get here?
To be fair, if they're bringing home a paycheck they should be contributing. Of course since it's family you do a split based on income, not a straight split. And they also get a say on things around the home at that point too.
Already seen this a few times with people I've dated.
Rich parents buy a vacation house, not so rich kids pay rent on it with no equity while also understanding that their shitstain parents will reverse mortgage all that equity for retirement vacations before they ever have a chance to inherit it.
They cope with a 'this is fine' attitude.
If I had a nickle for every person I dated that was in this situation, I'd have three nickles. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird it happened three times.
This is the best post on Lemmy. It's the best way to say this.
But it's a post on Reddit
Maybe we'll see planned communities pop up that pool resources and create their own "circular economy". Certain things are incredibly cheap today, e.g. learning how to do things. And technology can make certain basics needed to live very cheap. Food, water, energy, housing, education, safety, medical, community.
If you could e.g. buy some farmland and build a compact apartment block out of e.g. shipping containers (or something even cheaper) then you could produce your own food, have your own school (partially over internet), a doctor / medic, and have workshops to make and maintain whatever you need.
Maybe the "buy in" costs for each person could be pretty low, like 10-20k.
A kind of "democratization" of economy for the basic needs. The global economy is completely out of whack because nobody can compete with mass produced garbage and marketing, so our work is getting worth less and less and we're getting poorer.
That sounds like a commune with extra steps.
That reminds me of this meme
Gasp! Sir, this is a micro-federation of free people! :D
I don't really care what you call it, it shouldn't be about ideology but about economy benefit and freedom from economic exploitation. But you'll definitely be facing anti-socialist propaganda. It's possible that certain advances in technology allow for a life in relative luxury (e.g. rich in free time, rich in stability, rich in self determination). Things like 3D printers don't quite get us there, but if you could invent / develop or genetically engineer access to raw materials. You'd still need quite a few "vitamins" like microprocessors etc so you'd still need to import some stuff and export some labour or goods.
So... A commune then... I'm sorry I'm not trying to troll you, but you quite literally are defining a commune.
Not exactly, the proper umbrella term would be "intentional community" and there are many forms that would not fit that label.
PS: Mostly I'd avoid that term because of the negative propaganda. You see OP, everyone agrees shit is ridiculously bad, then you see accusations of being a "tankie" when you suggest any alternative. But there are also many (failed) social engineering ideas that are associated with communes.
We are saying the same thing here man, you're just not wanting to say commune because it's too close to the word communism... When a commune doesn't strictly mean a communist village.
The wikipedia you linked to even says that it's a synonym for a commune.
Also being a tankie is way different than wanting more progressive legislation. Though I understand your point.
Yes you're right, unfortunately I failed haha. The wikipedia article even says "Also the alternative term commune is considered to be non-neutral or even linked to leftist politics or hippies."
You failed at nothing friend. We were just getting on the same page, and giving two labels for the same thing.
Yeah ok sure, but this site has shown me theres a good reason to distrust someone who call themselves a communist. China and Russia are TERRIBLE examples of where the world should head, yet a LOT of the communists on this site are Tankies
My example is explicitly not "state-socialism" (where all economic power is concentrated in the hands of very few) and most socialists think Russia is a far right government. Unfortunately the hardened battle lines make it very hard to discuss the failures of either state socialism or plutocracy, while pretty much all agree that massive concentration of economic power is shit.
But on a small scale like a planned community these things actually do work much better.
solarpunk!
Definitely! But most solarpunk I've seen isn't realistic about the amount of land you need to produce enough calories for food.
This decline is a necessary aspect of Capitalism. Competition, for all it helps initially with forcing prices lower, ultimately comes at the cost of increased exploitation of the Working Class. As all value comes from labor, there is only so much you can immediately automate away to lower cost of production before you must further exploit your labor force to remain competitive.
Socialist markets, ie ones controlled by Worker Co-operatives, still face these issues, but delay them due to being of and for the workers themselves.
Only a non-market form of Socialism, such as Anarchism or Communism, can actually permanently solve these issues. Markets are a useful tool during Capitalism, but just as feudalism gave way to Capitalism, so too will Capitalism give way to a more equitable distribution of control.
It seems US tries to do Russian history in reverse
"And then things got better"?
The argument I've seen "against" this is to point out that if you want to live like they did in the 50s it's pretty cheap. It's a lot of canned food. A lot of stuff you might pay for now are DIY projects (such as clothes repair, house repair, car repair etc.) there's no such thing as your fancy TV, your Internet or any modern kitchen amenities. Medical assistance is garbage so no wonder you paid less for it. The way you live today is like a king compared to the 50s.
Now it's still an idiotic argument. Before anyone replies, I don't agree with it. But it's what people who can't handle the OP tell themselves.
I know you said you don't agree, so this argument is for the hypothetical person who holds that opinion...
With that said. My wife and I crunched the numbers recently. If we lived like people in the 50s, which is to say, we lived as poor as we could and completely wrecked our quality of life (eating as cheap as possible, no Netflix, never eating out, no luxuries at all), we would save like $10k a year. Which means that if we did that for 10 years, we would have enough for a down payment on a house that we would not be able to afford the monthly mortgage on (and a house in that price range would be a wreck in our neighborhood. A standard 3bed 2bath in good condition where I live starts at about 800k).
It's insane. This isn't some "just stop eating avacado toast" thing.
Yeah not only that but the obvious conclusion is "well yeah, but why should we hold our standards to the 50s?" Sure we have needs we didn't then for things like TVs and computers but those same computers have made everything about that 50s lifestyle exponentially cheaper and easier to accomplish. It should be nearly free to live like the 50s but for some reason prices have kept rising.
Lots of the DIY stuff is harder now though. I can change the oil on a ‘00 Civic, can’t on a ‘19. Cars now have complicated and user-hostile electronics - they don’t really want you to fix your own car, phone, TV…
I mend my clothes as much as possible, but fast fashion in the last ten years have seen a race to the bottom on material quality. Clothes don’t always come with extra buttons, the fabric is shit… if you find vintage stuff from even the 90s at a thrift shop it’s obvious. Modern clothing is made to be worn a few times and then thrown away.
Cooking can be still be done cheap (if you enjoy lentils and beans!) but requires time, which is easier if you have a stay at home partner. You also need storage space. There’s been substantial declines in the quality of kitchen appliances and tools imho. I’m still upset about what they’ve done to Pyrex.
Lots of the modern fancy stuff is also somewhat necessary. Internet is required for pretty much everything nowadays. You can go to the library/McDick’s/etc for WiFi, but you shouldn’t be filling out a job app on public WiFi.
Here are five fast examples from both sides
So what's going on and why are people not happy? IMO it's a mix of
It goes beyond the cost of goods and gets back to some level of fairness (or a complete lack there of).
That's what's gonna happen here in America. IF and I mean IF your family was lucky enough to have a single home in the family everyone's going to be living at it. Many aren't even close to lucky though...I wonder how many more will die on the streets in the coming years.
Gen A is just gonna be Gen
Newest generation, ~2012 to about now. Before that was Z, Millenials, X, Boomers, Greatest, and Silent.
Immigration can be used to replenish deficits in the working population.
Man I'm glad I was born and raised in a working class town now. Prospects looked pretty dire here when I was a kid. Local industry fell flat in the 1990s and into the 2000s so tonnes of my fellow millennials left to go to uni and get jobs in cities. That kept the cost of living here low and I was able to buy my first house at 22.
Now those deserters are saddled with student debt and unaffordable rents with no prospect of ever buying their own home. Recently the local industry started taking off again in a big way. I'm already making a pretty good wage but I'm also in track to have a Masters Degree and a high paid job after 3 years with a house that should have its value skyrocket over the next decade.
The idea that any working class boomer could raise a family/ own a house on a single income is a myth. That was only true if you were a man, and happened to be white. The federal government built the interstates to the suburbs, the GI bill loaned the money to buy the house, and sent you to college. All to the exclusion of POC and women.
Even the labor unions told black men that you couldn't be in a union without a job, and couldn't get hired unless you were in a union. This "golden age" economy was also when a divorced woman couldn't get a bank account, an apartment, or a job.
The capitalists weren't sharing more wealth, they were sharing with fewer people.
A higher proportion of business's income went to wages, so yes, they were sharing more wealth (but only because they had to, because of the strong unions).
But yes, that was only being shared with white men
Okay, and now it's even worse.
Sorry no, you are deliberately sliding this discussion.
Anytime I see "the good ole days" brought up, I remind them they were only good to them because only cishet white men were allowed to participate.
This is why it’s critically important for millenials who want a family to buy homes. Good ones. Big ones with land. It’s going to end up a generational home. You’re gonna need room for additions.
Are you aware of the general difficulties faced by the Millennial generation with buying housing? Because it sounds like you're not. Millennials aren't not buying homes because of a preference as much as a lack of option.
I am. That’s why it’s so important.
Whole thing reeks of setting us up for failure. Insecure housing means no/less kids, and that has huge rippling effects 30 m-50 years from now when millenials are too old and infirm to work and there’s not enough people to replace us in the workforce.
And then our boomer parents, who somehow despite all our best efforts are still alive, will be blaming us for it.
Oh, well in that case it's also really important that I win the lottery
Just let me know how someone is supposed to do that when the average person makes like $40k a year.
uh if you want to live remotely close to where the jobs are, its gonna be a tiny shitty appartement in exchange for life long debt. not a house, most definitely not a desireable one. thats with two median incomes lol.
those who can buy houses do so thanks to family or have exceptional income or both. mostly both
Oh yeah let me just reach into my pockets. Oh right, I'm not wearing pants and I'm commenting on Lemmy from my air mattress unable to sleep.
While I agree that in general the demands of wealthy nations are frequently excessive, there was a time in those nations where, as the meme describes, relatively poor families could own a home and support a family on a single income. That disappeared not because everyone stated wanting more, but because of constant, intentional inflation of house prices and depression of wages (relative to inflation) by capitalists.
Any attempt to redirect blame onto the people this affects, by accusing them of "wanting too much" plays into the hands of those capitalists.
To me the point is more that the post WW2 boom and the resulting ability of a cashier to buy a home and support a family was somewhat an aberration, not a new normal. Something similar could happen again if the conditions were right (much more modest house building via major zoning reform, free education, healthcare, and childcare, high taxes on the wealthy) but we're not actually achieving those necessary things politically, so here we are. And even if we did achieve all that, new homes won't look like current new homes because 4000 ft2 suburban homes are fundamentally unsustainable.
I agree with that, certainly. I think at least the ability for everyone to buy a home should be normal.
Lmao I'm sorry do only "westerners" have phones? Or clothes? Do people outside the west not have trinkets that they don't really need? Of course they fucking do. Moving to a poorer country only works if you move with significant capital... If you are from America and you have no money, moving to Venezuela just means you still have no money but now you live in Venezuela, not sure how that's supposed to help.
Not sure what your point is re politicians. They bear culpability alongside the capitalists, yes.
When you or I bought our phones doesn't matter because even if I bought a top of the line phone once per year that wouldn't buy me a house. I don't, fwiw, and I'm privileged enought to be able to afford to buy a house - but I also don't make the mistake of thinking that being frugal is what got me here. Individuals in America and the UK (can't speak for anywhere else, I'll limit it to where my experience lies) do not have a choice they can make that will get them the things they need at a reasonable price. It is not their fault for wanting too much or anything else.
Yeah... so, the record high inequality is just nothing to think about, because suddenly we don't deserve to own a house for one life's worth of work...? What a joke take
I really enjoy that West is crumbling. You guys did dun dirty to us Iranians in the past 10 years, pressuring our economy and crippling it. Now you are experiencing a literal 'Karma, Bitch!'.
It's not far-fetched that, once Iran manages to have America fuck off the middle east, it will become the next superpower (for the 5th time over the past 2 millennia I believe and don't say 'Persia is not Iran', you will show how uneducated you are, because Persia is a province in Southern Iran, it's a Netherlands/Holland situation) and I hope I am alive to see the fall of West. Because you Westerners have been nasty to me, insulted me, been racist against me, etc. You deserve nothing but a nice fall from grace.
Let's raise our cups to the fall of 'jorsumeh' that is the West.
And yet, every one seeks to rest under their own vine and fig tree. I don't think that's strictly capitalist indoctrination. People need places, spaces, situations, groups, creative outlets in which they have some basic autonomy. We could set up soup kitchens on every corner so that nobody is ever hungry, but for many that will fall far short of a "full happy life". Like security from violence or shelter from the elements, a full stomach is foundational to happiness, that doesn't mean it's enough for most people.
Although perhaps you have hit on an essential point -- until somebody has an empty dish in front of them, they may not be unhappy enough to take drastic action.
Your life depends on a full stomach, that's the last barrier for most people. After all, the system we live in also ensures that work will take the most of you. We're always exhausted, after a day full of work, happy to have the time to think, regenerate and be among your loved ones. But, before we have a chance of fully regenerating, we're at work again, counting hours.
Even if you have nowhere to sleep at night?
We just need to use tarps and setup Bidenvilles. We can use these pictures for inspiration.
It's hard to have enough to eat without money.
Says the guy with money. Hey if you don't need yours, maybe I could have some?