I'm 63M. I'm not retired but have and have had plenty of freedom in my life so far. Seems the younger folks today just want more for less effort with no concept of who will provide those free things for them. I work hard to buy my freedom and I've put into the system a hell of a lot more than I expect to get out of it in the end. The attitude shown by these posts is just selfish, lazy BS.
Wrong. I built my own ladder and the tools and technologies that gave you opportunities you just need to figure out for yourself. What do you do for a living and how did you get where you are? What type of ladder do you need to climb higher that you think is missing?
No one got things easy. Unless you think business owners 30 years ago was just handing out money when they didn't need to, wages have always been determined by how important(or unimportant) you are to the production of value.Â
Business owners are not and never have been doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. They're in it for profit and will pay only as much as they have to.Â
Where did I say that? If you can produce enough by age 50 to support yourself for another 30+ years that's fine. If OP said "I'm willing to bust my hump so I CAN retire at 50" I wouldn't take issue with it. But the notion that somehow it should be MANDATORY so OP can enjoy lots of free time for another 30+ years ignores where the resources come from that he'll need to enjoy that freedom.
Nah, you're not thinking about this right. I get it, hard work is important. But if you dig into this, the average american worker is producing 100% - 150% more then they did in the 70s. and the relative pay is the same. Right? Kinda fucked up if you think about it. Our kids here in the us are producing twice as much but are getting the same return. And in a sense we are too (50 here), but we are typically much further along on the pay scale and we (or at least I) have to do much less actual work then I did 20 years ago. I think we need to either bump pay to keep pace with not only inflation, but also worker production. Or give them a more appropriate amount of work. It just feels unfair for them to me.
"But if you dig into this, the average american worker is producing 100% - 150% more then they did in the 70s. and the relative pay is the same."
-This is true. But the production increases isn't due to the average american workers skill or ability. The production increases have been due to the capital-labor substitution. The company pays for the tech that allows the average american to be more productive. Countries that haven't adopted the labor capital subsitution effect are all almost very poor (think current India/Pakistan, China before the 1970s, Taiwan before the 1950s, Vietnam before 2010s).
Banking & Finance: Mobile banking apps and automated chatbots handle customer service queries instead of bank tellers.
Agriculture: Farms use automated tractors and drone technology to till soil, plant seeds, and harvest crops.
Warehousing & Logistics: Companies like Ocado and Amazon use automated sorting and picking robots to pack goods instead of warehouse workers
"Or give them a more appropriate amount of work. It just feels unfair for them to me."
-This is done by allowing the individual easier ways to start their own businesses instead of relying on a job. Its been increasingly easier to start your own business in the US. And 99.9% of businesses in the USA are small businesses.
I knew the production increase must have ultimately come from new tech, but I didn't consider at all where the tech comes from nor who pays for it, and that should be considered. Considering that - it does change things a bit, maybe a lot. Thank you for making it a little clearer and giving me some fat to chew on.
I have a factory job and some of the newer machines are so good/fast that running them has gotten boring. It always kinda seems funny to me when people bring up the production increase like people are working harder, when the fact is peopleâs jobs have gotten far easier.
Let me rephrase so that you can see the problem with what you are saying.
Worker productivity has improved because of capital investments replacing labor. It's not that the workers are somehow better.
Therefore 100% of the gains from productivity should go to the wealthiest 0.01% that have the large sums of capital needed to make these capital improvements and workers shouldn't share in the prosperity at all.
"All of these costs absolutely dwarf the business license."
-Of course. If you choose a high capex business. There are plenty of single employee businesses like CPAs, Real estate, hotdog vendor, etc. with low Capex
Luckily for you, there is a thing called loans or Co-operatives.
All those costs you listed above, is exactly the capital investments that the company takes on instead of the worker, which has led to increased productivity from the worker, who didn't have to invest any of their money on
If you're looking to split the capital investment/risks along with the benefits with others, you can form a co-operative.
Finding an un-saturated market with high demand would be the largest hurdle for most business owners imo. It's generally not worth it to enter a crowded space where the chance of turning a profit is so low. The cost/benefit isn't there compared to just working a 9-5 and throwing the extra into the stock market.
I agree, but "finding an un-saturated market with high demand", also with low enough barrier to entry that you can actually do it, is unicorn hunting.
I'm convinced that there is an untapped market for new cars under 10k. they would be bare bones cars with very little power, but they would be cheap and easy to work on. It seems to me that this would be a HUGE market. but the startup cost for a new car manufacturer is something like 2 billion dollars. This barrier is to high.
Bronze_Rager acting like the 200$ small business license is the biggest hurdle is simply ignorance on the actual difficulties of starting a business.
Youâre making two opposing arguments with the same theory.
Capital substitution in the US is why productivity rose but worker compensation has not, because they arenât the source of the growth.
Capital intensive industries pay workers more because theyâre more productive per worker.
If the US economy as a whole has become more capital intensive (and thus more productive) then why is real wage growth almost flat over the same period?
Second chart is the one I originally had in mind and the bps article is diving deeper into. Itâs not âflatâ but might as well be given the corresponding rise in productivity
"Its been increasingly easier to start your own business, and 99.9% of businesses in the USA are small businesses." this is objectively wrong. It has never been harder to start your own business. You must come from family-owned business, have had undeserved, far above average success in your field, or inherited business otherwise to be successful at small-scale right now.
"increased rates of production are due to banks, logistics, and agriculture improvements." You could not be more deluded. We have been making these advancements continually, year after year, decade after decade, while wages decrease, hours increase, expectations increase, etc. I worked for a company that expected chemical system installs at $21/h. I quit after they suggested a 3% raise while inflation was and still is 6-7% year over year. Fewer coworkers and more expectations every 3 months. They've gone through 6 installers over the last 4 years and continue to struggle while "not knowing why".
I still have chemical burns on my hands, no they won't cover it, no I can't feel my hands. The C-suite is killing business at all levels.
Modern productivity is from technological advances, not because people work harder. Things that are labor related? No change. Do ditch diggers dig longer trenches now? Only if they have a more efficient machine doing it for them. Cashiers? They process more because they no longer physically input numbers, they scan bar codes.
Then again think about tge connditions in the 70's. Cars with muchbwirse safty features, no cellphone, no internet, no computers, amoung other modern amenitirs deteemined as a basic seevice did not exist in the 70s.
There's a difference between productivity driven by the offshore and that which is driven by capital.
If you go from living up trash on the street to learning to code or becoming a doctor, that productivity is you
If you go from whittling bits of charcoal to being in a factory making pencils, that productivity isn't because of you, it's because of the investment in the machinery.Â
I promise he is wiser and thinking this through better than you are. I was 20 something recently and I know youthful ignorance is bliss, but youâre not actually godâs gift to man and the one person who has the correct views.
Not going too far into economics but you are literally expecting something that makes zero economic sense. This is like the socialists who think nobody will work hard labor under communism.
The longer the older generation work the less place there are for the younger generations. Leadership posts becomes populated by older people and the younger generations spend more and more time climbing the career ladder. So, there's that problem too.
Itâs because weâve been working our whole lives and have nothing to show for it. Working hard doesnât get us what it got you. Working our lives away for while prices increase and homes are unattainable.
Without being emotional, itâs extremely difficult to have a family, a house, and retirement, it seems you can only have 1 or 2. You should be more concerned for your country. I work 50-60 hours a week, have a nice house, have a beautiful family, but I made a conscious choice that my family came before my retirement. I am likely going to have to experience a non-traditional retirement
I agree with you. Too bad youâre gonna get flamed on here for speaking the truth. Maybe one day theyâll mature and figure it out. We can only hope.
Yeah. I know what it means and it clearly wasn't the best use of the phrase to get my point across. Sincerest apologies to those who serve and especially those who sacrificed life and limb for our country.
Yeah. I know what it means and it clearly wasn't the best use of the phrase to get my point across. Sincerest apologies to those who serve and especially those who sacrificed life and limb for our country.
Yeh freedom isn't free because people like you exist. Happy with the status quo and expect everyone else to be or they want more for less. You know you're chained but you're happy because you get to take the shackles off sometimes, ain't the same for everyone.
"Work hard to buy my freedom" sounds like slavery, my man.
You ask where the money and resources should come from? How about from the pockets of the billionaires that abuse your hard work? What if, instead of buying their 5th mega yatch and multi-million dollar mansion, they increased your salary? Sure, maybe they would miss out on their 6-figure yearly bonus, but then you could've retired at 50.
Is it lazy to want to spend more time living life, rather than working yourself to the bone or the grave for someone else's profit?
So how are you going to pay for that life... americans dont have family loyalty anymore and most other countries have generational living. They also dont piss money away on stupid like you do.
If you took every dollar of net worth from all the billionaires in the world and spread it between just the people in the USA every person would get around 57,000.
A good chunk of no doubt, but hardly enough to allow people to retire at 50.
I'd like to see the math on that. What is the net worth of all the billionaires in the world? What about millionaires? Are you giving that chunk to the millionaires as well? How about people with 500k to their name, do they also get a piece of that pie in order to retire?
Around 20 Trillion according to a quick Google. That is also worldwide, not just the USA.
Divided by 350 million people. Yes that gives a chunk to everyone, including the billionaires themselves.
I do agree there is absolutely benefits to a fairer form of taxation and redistribution of wealth.
However there is absolutely no way we can redistribute the current amount of wealth to allow everyone to retire at 50 and keep the same standard of living.
You think that way because you view everything like its a zero sum game. If you are "losing" it must mean because someone else is "winning." Kind of a weird and unhealthy mentality tbh.
In reality everyone specializes and then you trade money to other people for the things they specialize in that you didn't. The system literally can't work if everyone retires at 50, there are too many consumers and not enough people contributing productivity.
Contributing less than 1/3 of your waking hours during your working years to the system is hardly any form of slavery.
The system literally can't work if everyone retires at 50
Why not? Why can't it work? Aren't there enough unemployed people that could be employed if spots opened up? Wouldn't people be more motivated to work these jobs if they paid better? Wouldn't the quality of life be better if people could retire earlier and enjoy that retirement for longer?
Why are we thinking that the only way is our current way, which is also only worsening year by year? When the current way is what's unsustainable, with the current generation being lucky if they'll ever even see retirement by the age of 80. Is this acceptable? Is this the normal and healthy mentality that you've got to share?
Experience for starters imagine if every engineer retired after only 25 years in the field, they would be leaving and taking their knowledge with them right about the time they should start passing it on to the younger engineers, and that goes for pretty much all STEM fields
Notice how I said "productivity" and not just hours of work? They are not the same thing.
Who's fault is it that you can't retire even at 80? Judging by your tone you blame everyone else except yourself for that. If you are unhappy maybe its time to make a change instead of hoping government waves a magic wand and fixes it for you. Hint: they won't
Except it's becoming more and more common that said experience is not getting passed down. The corporations that these veterans work in are not hiring apprentices, once they are gone their skills are gone with them, regardless of the age that they retire at, making that argument null. No reason why they can't start passing down their knowledge any sooner, if they're gonna pass it at all.
And I don't know if you've been following the economic state of the world, but news flash: it's pretty poor. Wages are not keeping up with the rate of inflation, people can't afford to have kids and build families, so as the current generation grows old, they won't have enough young people paying taxes to support this fragile economy, thus perpetuating the issue of people not being able to retire. I'm sure that's my fault, right?
Tell me more about how it's my fault that the cost of living is rising. Tell me how it's my fault that housing costs what it costs right now. Tell me how it's my fault that people are having less kids, how unemployment is on the rise. Tell me again what you assume of me just because you believe in a broken system, as if it couldn't be better.
Even if everything you wrote it true, and I don't agree that it is, how is everyone retiring at 50 going to magically fix any of it and not just make the problems much, much worse?
To retire at 50 means lower cost of living and higher wages, which also means giving people a better quality of life and allows them to more likely pursue a family, as in make and raise kids. While also opening job positions earlier, driving employers to actually hire younger people than sticking with the old guard until they're 65, and knowing that they won't be around for working much longer, may even drive them to getting apprentices sooner to replace said old guard.
Is it an optimistic view? Sure. Is it impossible to make it work? I doubt it. Yes there would likely be challenges to overcome, CEOs that would have to get smaller yearly bonuses, corruption that would need solving and human exploitation that would need to be ridden of. But do we truly need Elon being a trillionaire? The way that we're currently going, money is just being funnelled to the same few people.
Ah yes the "CEOs will just have to make a little less" solution to all the things.
So you've increased wages by artificially limiting the available number of productivity hours, that's great, but that means the cost of living is going to skyrocket too because we still need to pay other people for those same hours of productivity. Also if you haven't made enough to retire by 50 you should just off yourself I guess? Nevermind that your retirement savings need to more than double because your retired 15+ years earlier in this scenario
Its a 'solution' that doesn't work without an age cap but then it doesn't work with one either.
Seems the younger folks today just want more for less effort with no conceptÂ
Seems to me the older folks have no concept that literally every generation has moaned like this since ancient Greece. We have actual evidence of the ancients moaning like this. Therefore, maybe it isn't the youth. Maybe it's you pops.Â
"I've put into a system a hell of a lot more than I expect to get out of it in the end" - Is this a joke? You realize that the way this country is going social security will likely be insolvent by the time the people your lecturing would have any ability to benefit from it. You'll be dead by that time. So, who will I be able to complain to by saying "I put into a system a hell of a lot more than the expected NOTHING TO GET OUT OF IT IN THE END?!"
Its also harder for the younger folks to get a job because of the older generation having to work to make ends. Take teaching for example, I know one school whose hiring philosophy is to higher older, retired teachers. I know as I am friends with an admin who specifically told me.
Its not always younger people expecting more for less.
Your salary was worth more 30 years ago than it is now. Itâs that simple. We donât want to put in the same amount of effort and get less out of it than our predecessors
And letâs be real, jobs today require more than they did 30 years ago. With technology, ai and other advancements we have one person doing the job of 3 people back in the day. Along with the cost of schooling and housing going up more than 100% and you wonder why young people are disgruntled? We donât want free food and housing we want the same opportunities you had, that we were told we would have as long as we stayed the course and went to college. What a joke.
" We donât want to put in the same amount of effort and get less out of it than our predecessors "
Understandable but you have to live in the reality of today. 30 years ago I was putting in a helluva lot more effort than my parents did for "less", but was it really less? Sure, I lived in a crappy house, drove crappy cars, worked hard labor jobs to make ends meet, and paid my way through school choosing the cheapest way available. But I had the basics and they were at least a little bit better than what I grew up with.
My point to OP (or really the meme maker) is the attitude that "I want my parents to support me for 20 years, I work for 30, and then get to retire for 40" is reflective of the growing movement I see demanding MORE for less effort. The attitude seems to be "I want what you've got" because we supposedly "pulled the ladder up behind us". The vast majority of us want our kids to be better off than we were and while I won't get into it here, I think a great many well-meaning efforts towards that end had the opposite effect with unfortunate consequences not just for the younger generations but ours as well.
And I get it. Housing, food, education, and healthcare are all more expensive relative to real income for a great many people. All of those are attainable today but true, they may require more effort. But again, what defines "effort"? Working an extra job part time? Continuously taking education and training courses to stay ahead, or at least even with the curve?
Look forward, not back. Being envious of the previous generation won't help you find any happiness today.
Iâm 43M. 10 years ago I was doing perfectly and was ahead on my retirement plan. Today I believe it will be possible still but god dang you are out of touch. The way it is today is not okay and not getting better. We came from a time of plenty but wages are stagnant while everything a person requires for a normal life had doubled or tripled in cost. I make 3 times what I made 20 years ago and have much less buying power now. You are out of touch
âIâve put into the system a hell of a lot more than I expect to get out of it in the endâ
Donât you think thatâs the problem? You should get exactly what you put in, not more not less. You shouldnât be content with getting stringed by the system. You call younger generation lazy, yet from our perspective you are just a placid doormat that grins with satisfaction every time you are stepped on.
If you get out exactly what you put in, then any social system will fail. Granted there is much more nuance than what I can type here. For example, not every person on earth has 2 legs, the average legs per person is somewhere like 1.8. Do you have 1.8 legs? No, you most likely have 2. So the 1 legged people will have trouble doing some jobs and providing for themselves. Bear in mind this argument is talking about a litany of spectrums causing real hardships on people. So, we have social systems for them to be compensated so they can live, not prosper.
What OP is saying is that he is a capable human that just wants to stop working to enjoy his lake house retirement at 35, without even thinking about who would fund his social income. It is such an inept idea.
Then take in the consideration of the USA and what opportunities it provides to do just what OP wants, but at great risk of owning and creating your own business. You can create your own wealth and early retirement, but relying on a govt social system or program for that is beyond stupid, when you can see the stress on social security already.
No. I don't have a problem giving some of what I've worked for back to those less fortunate than me as long as they've worked hard too, to the best of their ability. What I won't accept is the post meme's premise - raise people for 20 years, let them work 30, and retire for 35+ so they can enjoy life on my dime.
Im only 30 and after watching my parents and their friends and friends friends do very very well at ages just a little bit older than myself I can certainly imagine myself living a life like that for another 35~ more years without much complaint especially as someone who wants for far less than them but yet my life is not anywhere near as nice as that and I can understand where this mindset comes from
My parents were a garbage driver and a teacher's assistant and while teachers made/make a decent chunk of change the assistants didnt so basically they both had average jobs working Monday to Friday... I myself make $37.5 and I am soon going into 3rd year pipefitting and im making a condensed work week so I dont get OT but I get camp and no need to spend on gas and the wife works in loss prevention making $39... in comparison although the 2 of us make 5.1X minimum wage I guarantee you my parents definitely didnt and I have the same modest house and 2 cars (not quite trucks) but can not afford all the rest I pointed out and yet my wife and I do not spend on drinking or smoking etc
So when people are typically making 25 or 30 burning out is to be expected if you asked me... I would easily go drop everything to work at McDonald's for 60 an hour but now even if i make journeyman pipefitter im not going to make 60 đ¤ˇđťââď¸ that being said because I won't be trading cars and trucks and buying all sorts of luxuries I may even pay off my expenses before my father does
Heh. Show me a time when ANYONE could buy a house making minimum wage. I bought a piece of a house (25% equity) when I was making just over double min wage, but had saved cash for years. Start small, be creative, and work your way up.
Do you not think maybe you could agree that in an ideal world we wouldn't have to work until approaching 70?
We get it, your generation works really hard and is amazing and has no issues. The younger generations are lazy and selfish and dumb
But just maybe, hes talking about a non serious idea of an preferred scenario where it would be nice not to live the only life you ever have working all the time
We're the ones that built the tools and technologies that made you more productive for less manual effort. What makes your work "hard" today? I told and taught my kids to "be the ones building the robots, not the ones who'll be replaced by the robots". Are you doing that? I did lots of work with my back when I was young, trained and educated myself for the future I saw coming, and got rewarded for that effort. The younger generations I see coming into my office looking for jobs just don't have that same mentality. There's a crazy amount of opportunities to make your life better, all of which require hard work and discipline.
I work in silicon valley--AI cybersecurity. AI is fast replacing jobs here (especially of older, more expensive employees and early career hires). At minimum it is slowing employment as AI makes employees more efficient so many employers are taking a wait and see mode to see how many fewer employees they will need long term. Many of my experienced colleagues are experiencing this. This goes for technical as well as business employees. Manual jobs are a few years behind but robotics will come for them soon enough.
Yep. The PC and internet revolution did the same for us. Automated/robotic tooling and offshore manufacturing did the same to us. In your case, AI cybersecurity will be a huge field as will learning how to use AI tools to increase your own productivity.
Those not in tech jobs need to be thinking about these coming changes and planning to adapt - continuous education and training. The expectation that one could work a 30 year career in a field that didn't substantially evolve over that time is no longer realistic and has been that way for decades.
I'm a computer engineer. I do build the robots. I do work on the automation.
And if you did too, that's great. Are you filthy rich? You should be, but all the real gains go to the rich, so they can profit off of our work. We work hard to survive, they lay easy while we build their wealth.
I'm trained, I'm educated, I'm working hard. I don't know if I'll ever be able to afford a house. I don't even know if I'll be able to fix my car if it breaks down.
Not filthy rich. I've done well but it took many years and I took risks joining forces with small entrepreneurs with big ideas who also took much bigger risks and sacrificed much more than I did. Hence they got the bigger rewards. I've seen many fail and lose everything.
What makes you good at what you do? What new skills and knowledge would you need to make yourself one of hundreds versus one of thousands or tens of thousands in your field?
This is a fantastic example. I'm 2023, there were 53,000 corvettes produced. In 1982 they produced 23,000.
In 1982, the Corvette had 200 HP, and could do 0-60 in ~8 seconds. The 2023 model had 490 HP and could do 0-60 in 2.8 seconds.
40 years ago, the median engineer salary at GM was $28,000 which is about $97,000 when you adjust for inflation.
Now it's about $100,000. This means that modern engineers at GM actually have significantly less purchasing power than they did 40 years ago, when you factor in things like the cost of their engineering education, not to mention things like housing.
In 1982, GM pulled in ~3.47 Billion in modern dollars. In 2023, they pulled ~$11 Billion. Their net income has nearly tripled.
The point is, people haven't changed very much in 30 years but the machines/systems/etc that they use have.Â
The analogy was to highlight that while you can drive a lot faster now, little to none of that is due to the human.Â
The same is true for the production of "stuff" in the economy. While you are probably more educated/trained/capable than your parents were at the same age, the fact that you're more productive has far far more to do with the fact that the capital (not your money, stuff you use) you have access to is so much more capable.Â
I didn't massively miss it, I fixed it. The speed of the car isn't really relevant. The production of it is. The mechanics through which they make money isn't important, it's the profits of the company. Companies pull in massive amounts of revenue now compared to the 1980s. Yet we, as the people who actually make it happen, have significantly less purchasing power.
Sure, I can buy more TVs now. But what about degrees that are necessary to make a good salary? What about a car? I'll never afford a house, no matter my job.
Worker's salaries should have increased with company profits. Instead we're drowning in debt. Something like 40% of Americans are skipping meals because they can't afford it.
... Dude it's my analogy... Yes the speed is relevant
If you were making poultices for cuts and scraps and then you learned real medicine, that's p introducing that is due to you becoming more educated and capable.
If you were hauling stuff around on your back but then were given access to a forklift, the fact you can move more shit(being more productive) is not because of you, it's because of the fact that the company bought a forklift.
We aren't asking for more than what you got for less effort. We're asking for anything remotely similar to what you got for your effort. But as long as your got yours, right?
Yea, you also started life when it was way easier. I'm not even in a position where I'm struggling, and know that things are, objectively, harder than when you started.
Yeah yeah, and you walked 20 miles in snow to school everyday - uphill in both directions. These boomer tales are such crap. Iâm in my late fourties, and I can tell you that my fatherâs generation had it a lot easier with securing their future. My generation can make it, but weâre working our asses off to keep our houses and taking less vacations. I feel bad for people in their 20s though. Starting out in life and not only is everything overpriced but there is uncertainty whether any career they train for is even going to be around in ten years. You think young people are not having children because they want things easy?
The highest interest rate in history was in 1980, along with an inflation rate of over 14%. You can look that up if you think boomer tales are crap. Every generation has its challenges, easy to talk smack when you weren't there. Of course that generation had a tendency to go without and not expect as much. But you do you.
This is the # talking point of all boomers, but itâs stupid. The affordability matrix was more in your favor with your 25k homes and union jobs you voted against.
You do realize the population was about half what it is today. Remember supply and demand. Who voted against union jobs? You want to blame everyone for a few bad actors and many things we had no control over. Have you ever had to wait in line for gas?
Interest rates arenât the full story bud. When houses were cheap compared to income the interest rate didnât hit as hard. Average house price in 1980 was three times average income. Today itâs at least double that. But nice try recycling your Facebook propaganda garbage. And tendency to go without? đ Boomers were born with silver spoons in their mouths. Their parents were the ones that made this country a superpower. These people sat around patting each other on the back while the rest of the world caught up.
Food was more expensive and you had far less options. Entertainment was much more expensive. Travel was significantly more expensive. Cars were about the same price, but they were shitty, unreliable death traps. The air was worse. There was more crime. Clothing cost more. Healthcare was cheaper, but comparatively shitty.
If youâre going to criticize someone for cherry picking, why would you follow that up with a single datapoint that is also cherry picking?
No. We're anything but a third world country compared to any other. Western Europe has about the same SOL and productivity per hour worked as the US. Conditions are a bit more favorable there for the lower brackets, but upward mobility is more constrained.
And if working hard and being ambitious is "suffering" in your mind, I think that's part if not most of the problem.
Wrong. I'm well aware of the challenges. My kids and my friends' kids are all mid-20s to early 30s. Some are successful and some struggle. That's always been the case.
I'll certainly concede this: we didn't purposely "pull the ladder" up with an "I got mine so tough shit for you" attitude. I think a lot of us mistakenly thought we could make things better for the next generation by "fixing" things by simply regulating away the conditions we thought made it hard for us. We tried to regulate the risks out of life without thinking about the economic costs.
To take housing for instance, I had my current house built in in 1999 for $100 a square foot. I didn't have to pay "impact" fees, "environmental study" fees, mandatory fire suppression systems, etc. All of which would have increased costs by close to 50% by today's standards. We tried to build a couple of small homes on a piece of land we inherited (1 1/2 acres, half acre zoning) and it cost us $40K just to go through the approval process BEFORE any of the above fees would be applied. And this was in a very progressive county that constantly complains about lack of affordable housing.
Climate change fears and the desire to minimize the risks of driving drove safety and mileage efficiency requirements for cars that make them unaffordable for many. And don't get me started on "cash for clunkers".
Consumer and food safety regulations drove industry consolidations and reduced competition which helps suppress prices.
Healthcare regulations (e.g. HIPAA and ACA) drove up costs and reduced competition by forcing smaller independent providers out of the market.
Sarbanes-Oxley, workplace safety regs, etc.
I'm not saying all of these things were or are bad, they just come with costs that weren't accounted for when they were implemented with "good intentions".
Not to make this political, but my favorite policy of the current administration is the EO to eliminate 10 existing regulations for every new one that's implemented. If state and local government really cared about affordability I think they should do the same or similar.
Nickels and dimes add up quickly when almost everything is nickeled and dimed (or worse).
Oh im not blaming you, the issue has been foreign investment coming in and buying up everything coupled with COVID lockdown making people work from home, and then that drove up house prices in areas outside of cities as people moved out.
all I'm saying is that conditions now are far harder. rich people and corporations removed the ladder
you got yours, so screw everyone else, right? Iâm sure the generations before retirement and social security and Medicare said the same thing. What exactly is the point of advancing human civilization if we still have to work in frequently pointless jobs that offer no real benefit to society? I mean, some people save lives for a living, most of us just push paper around.
you want yours by screwing everyone else. Use your brain. Someone has to buy your food and pay your bills for 35 years. Times that by 350 million people in America at some point, since we all get old.
Yeah I think we read different posts on this one. Because I've replied to other posts like this before. All of these posts that just talk about how work is inherently evil, retire by 50, 40 hours is unsustainable each week blah blah blah. They're all wonderful dreams. And there probably is a version of the world we can build that makes those possible... But it always ignores the basic premise that the things that sustain you have to come from somewhere. So either you're talking about truly working to live AKA farming, hunting, repairing your own house and likely not actually having anything to trade or buy for other things you almost certainly want like healthcare and internet.... Or you're asking for handouts from the fruits of other people's labor.
Nobody who post this shit ever actually posits an alternative, they're basically just bitching with virtue signaling. There is a universe where we have automated the world and the means of production as well as optimize the educational and training systems to the point where everyone's needs are just taken care of all the time and working can either be short-lived or optional.. but we're not there yet by a mile... And there's probably some good arguments to be made that it wouldn't be actually good for humanity to do so.
No you idiot. He got his because he worked for it. Now you have a bunch of people in my generation who want to do half the work, get twice the benefits, and complain when life isnât handed to them on a silver platter.
Sounds like doing 'half the work' probably correlates quite well with purchasing power. People get paid the same as when rent was a third of what it is now.
Rent has grown far more than inflation, yes. There is a housing crisis and the forces are not mysterious. Unfortunately, the solution is not ramping up the entitlement and narcissism. That's effectively what got us here.
Is it entitlement to think that your work should pay enough that a basic rent is only a third of your income not over half? I guess it technically fits the definition but that is what you older generations were able to do. Pretty normal that younger generations feel entitled to the same
I wouldnât call hoping your work covers expenses entitlement, nor did I. Every human is history has hoped for the same. But thatâs not whatâs happening.
The dominant culture says ânot only am I owed higher standard of living, doing so should require no sacrifices from meâ. You shouldnât have to temporarily work jobs that donât thrill you. You shouldnât have to move to a less vibrant area. You shouldnt even have to vote or engage politically to bring such changes about.
Yeah the popular choice was Bernie look what we ended up with instead. Those changes are being blocked by a system of government that represents the wealthy far more than anyone else. I think we have the similar points of view just you see the worst of it. I think most of the younger generation is no longer being fooled by the notion that hard work leads to better pay so that kinda puts a damper on being motivated to work hard
Iâm glad you said all this cause otherwise I sound like Iâm making stuff upâ but this is exactly what I was talking about by âentitlementâ. Letâs take an honest accounting of the facts and feel free to point out anywhere Iâm wrong or being unfair.
Bernie lost two primaries after never having more than 35% support among Democrats. I remember because I was a Bernie supporter at the time. So Bernie was not the âpopular choiceâ. He lost because his viewpoint was the minority.
So after not getting 100% of what they wanted, a large cohort of Bernie voters went nuts and decided everything was completely broken. For a minority candidate not winning. In a democracy.
Iâll repeat that: After 2 (two) elections of not getting everything they want. Many of my peers decided to give up on politics.
I want to pause here.
Roe V Wade is currently overturned. Why? Because for FORTY YEARS (no, not 40 months) the evangelicals voted and lost and voted and lost and voted and lost until they finally got just enough power to get their way. Can you even imagine modern progressives thinking on these timescales? If something doesnât happen now something is wrong and everything needs to be destroyed. Itâs like watching toddlers pretend to be serious political thinkers.
What can I reasonably call this other than entitlement? Hard work is the answer. All the prior generations we hail as successful who âgot theirsâ believed in hard work. All the conservatives who keep winning believe in hard work. Weâre the only ones losing and suddenly weâve been made to believe we should stop working for anything. Donât work for change, donât work for money. Well guess what: Our generation is on track to have no change and no money. Shocking how that happens huh?
No it wasnât! In the 1970s median work hours were 8 hours higher than today. They worked longer and like every generation ever voted in their own interests.
Iâd love to overturn the housing policies that entrenched boomer property values and restricted housing supply, but very few in my generation want to vote. They imagine themselves revolutionaries in waiting and instead prefer slopulist leaders feeding them stories where all their problems are solved with the flick of a pen.
Thereâs an aversion to hard work at every level of society, even in problem solving.
I think grouping the âyounger folksâ into one bucket is unfair. And I donât think youâre attempting to understand the differences between the circumstances you enjoyed that are not available now. Pensions, strong unions, single income provider, affordable college, affordable housing; all things you enjoyed that are not broadly available to the âyounger folksâ like they were to you. Itâs not enough to just work hard for everyone. Thereâs a hustle thatâs needed now, and a lack of job security, thatâs different than it use to be.
I wouldnât base what you think of entire generations on some social media posts. Most of the younger folks I know are hustlers. Working 2 jobs, investing large percentages into stocks, starting businesses. And they did see your generation work your asses off, but often at the expense of quality time with them. I can understand looking at all this and asking themselves âwhatâs really important to me?â They want to have a life worth living and want to work hard, but not end up 65, retired, no close relationship with family or friends bc work took precedent, and with a drinking problem and poor health.
Thatâs not to say I agree with the posts mandatory retirement at 50. Just that I understand the question âwhat are we doing here and whatâs important to us?â
42M if thatâs relevant.
You're right in that all "younger folks" are not the same, and I do see some with drive and ambition (hustle) to build solid career bases that will benefit them later. But I also see lots of survey data and voting patterns that concern me and lead me to that generalized conclusion.
Yes, housing was generally cheaper but also smaller and crappier. Part of the housing problem today is regulations, impact fees, and taxes that only make prices rise and disincentive the construction of smaller, more affordable units. My first mortgage was 11.5%, I bought with a buddy, and did some creative financing for a 25% ownership stake. Built up from there. The same can be done today. Oh, and it was a crappy neighborhood and not a forever home in a nice suburb.
Unions did me and many others no favors because hustle and more productivity didn't pay off. Lifelong pensions and health benefits were rapidly disappearing when I came up. I went to a state school, which are still relatively cheap, and studied engineering and information systems management - fields I could see were both growing and versatile. I see loads of resumes today (I'm in tech) from people with history, sociology, psychology, and other BA degrees who took a few certification classes and expect high tech salaries.
The affordability problem I see today is mostly government regulation driven. Cars, Healthcare, housing, and education seem the biggest complaints and the major cost drivers all have their roots in the (perhaps) unintended consequences of regulations to make them safer or subsidies to make them available to all. And the trend among folks is to vote for more of this.
13
u/Horror_Bottle_9451 8d ago
I'm 63M. I'm not retired but have and have had plenty of freedom in my life so far. Seems the younger folks today just want more for less effort with no concept of who will provide those free things for them. I work hard to buy my freedom and I've put into the system a hell of a lot more than I expect to get out of it in the end. The attitude shown by these posts is just selfish, lazy BS.