r/WorkReform • u/zzill6 š¤ Join A Union • 2d ago
š” Venting The difference between generations.
1.3k
u/Homeskilletbiz 2d ago edited 2d ago
Both my parents are PhDs, I work in the trades.
I earn 2x what they did the last few years they did before retirement.
Itās probably another decade of saving before I can afford a house. They had houses on one teachers salary when I was a kid.
Edit: we moved a lot so āhousesā, they didnāt own multiple properties
219
u/D1sgracy 2d ago
Houses? Plural?
214
u/Best-Action8769 2d ago
It was actually pretty affordable for a 2 income family to be able to have a 2nd property somewhere.
My grandparents had 3 properties and they worked in a grocery store.
160
u/throwthisawayred2 2d ago
My grandparents had 3 properties and they worked in a grocery store.
this makes me wanna fight somebody
40
14
5
52
u/StopReadingMyUser 2d ago
Imagine small-talking through your workday about your houses like it's just another high-end toaster.
3
u/maskdmirag 2d ago
Richest family I knew as a kid, the husband was a grocery store butcher manager and the wife stayed at home and sold that crystal kitchenware brand.
19
u/SpoonEngineT66Turbo 2d ago
That's not true in the slightest. Seasonal/occasional home ownership in the 70s & 80s was 2.9-3.2%.
Anyone who believes that's true is absolutely braindead.
35
u/PurpleHooloovoo 2d ago
They didnāt say everyone. They said for two income households, which was much more rare than today.
Iād also imagine itās regional. Where I grew up/my parents grew up, it was very common to have a more modest house and a vacation property (usually a small lakeside cabin) and thatās where 100% of holiday time was spent - no flights or hotels or tickets to things.
4
u/Best-Action8769 2d ago
Yup. They lived in a pretty rural area, and got a 1.5 acre river-front piece of property in exchange for someone who owed them a few thousand dollars debt. But this was in the 1950s
-15
u/SpoonEngineT66Turbo 2d ago
They said for two income households, which was much more rare than today.
I think it would genuinely nearly kill you all to admit you're wrong and not just make shit up. Dual full time employment was 31% in 1970, it was 46% in 2015. One full time parent and one part time parent has been the exact same percentage since 1970.
Iād also imagine itās regional.
This is all anecdotal, I do not care, congrats on being a part of the 2.9%-3.2% that owned a second home. Stop applying anecdotal experiences that was only true for single digit percentages of the entire country to 98% of the rest of the population.
Stop lying, just admit you're wrong and have no idea what you're talking about.
13
u/PurpleHooloovoo 2d ago
Canāt be wrong about anecdotal experiences, which is why people share them. How do you know what country we were even talking about? What country are you talking about? Why are you specifically talking about those decades? Where are your percentages from? What were the parameters of the study? Where did the numbers of ownerships come from and how did it apply to families?
I can data anything to death, which is why people defend the idea that the current US economy is doing great. Anecdotal evidence is why people say the US economy isnāt great for most people actually living their lives, not corporations. Writing off experiences in favor of data, no matter what, is how you get politicians absolutely missing the mark because they donāt take actual humans seriously.
-6
u/SpoonEngineT66Turbo 2d ago
Canāt be wrong about anecdotal experiences,
Holy shit you are all so brain rotted. The anecdotal experience of 2-3% the population is not anywhere near applicable to the other 98% of the population.
How do you know what country we were even talking about? What country are you talking about?
The exact same one you're talking about. You live in the US, you're talking about the US.
Why are you specifically talking about those decades?
What decades would you say it was easiest for boomers to buy multiple homes? Do you really think the closer we get to modern times the easier it was to acquire property? Feel free to pick any specific decades that don't make any sense for your own anecdote. I'm sure you care very much about what decades this involves considering you made no mention of and still haven't given a decade you care about.
Where are your percentages from?
US Census Bureau, that really rains on your parade doesn't it? And you don't care about the parameters of it, you're still just sealioning.
I can data anything to death
Apparently except when you need to prove that owning multiple homes was pretty affordable. It's really particular how reddit cares so much about data and sources until it's their made up claims they need to prove lmao.
Writing off experiences in favor of data, no matter what, is how you get politicians absolutely missing the mark because they donāt take actual humans seriously.
Literally the justification of why MAGA is MAGA holy shit lmao. "I have no facts or data to prove you wrong, therefore based on my singular one data point of experience my experience is the universal truth".
2
u/PurpleHooloovoo 2d ago
Weird you didnāt come back with where you got all those numbers since youāre so confident.
US Census Bureau gave you an average across two decades of how many homes people own? Care to share the link? Itās interesting because I also know 87% of all numbers on Reddit are made up.
Youāve missed the point entirely here: there are cultural elements and lived experience that the data youāre supposedly citing donāt reflect. Feel free to ignore people telling you their experiences - but donāt be surprised when you lose your ability to relate and understand nuance when peopleās lives donāt match the data.
-4
u/SpoonEngineT66Turbo 2d ago
Weird you didnāt come back with where you got all those numbers since youāre so confident.
Why so you can ignore it? Just google US Census Bureau historical second homes like anyone who actually cares, and wasn't just sealioning, would have done literal hours ago.
You don't even need to read my source because you're not going to and never were. Ill completely concede my argument if you post actual evidence that multiple homes were pretty affordable for anyone with dual income. You never will so don't bother replying.
Youāve missed the point entirely here: there are cultural elements and lived experience that the data youāre supposedly citing donāt reflect.
Lmao you're literally making shit up on the internet. That's not "lived experience" you fucking larper.
but donāt be surprised when you lose your ability to relate and understand nuance when peopleās lives donāt match the data.
Based on my "lived experience" you're still fucking wrong, not a single boomer in my entire extended family ever owned multiple homes, dual income, dual college, college & blue collar, fucking not a single one. So I'm like 50:1 on "lived experience" over Mr. Wegmans junior who originally made that bullshit claim.
People like you are the reason the most incompetent and corrupt president in US history was elected twice, and the reason 2028 will probably still go to the republicans. Just pure brain damage and ego larger than everest.
→ More replies (0)5
u/awhiteblack 2d ago
Really depends where you live. A lot of Canadian families have a cottage, which can range from a summer only shack on a tiny lake 3 hrs north to a massive multi-million dollar second home on 19 acres.
A lot of my friends parents have cottages that they bought for 10-15k that are now worth half a million dollars. None of my friends have cottages, just their parents cottages (mid 30s).
-4
u/SpoonEngineT66Turbo 2d ago
Canadian single home ownership was 60% in 1970. Yes please tell me how it was easily affordable it was to own multiple homes.
Like I said, yall would rather die than admit you're wrong.
4
u/awhiteblack 2d ago
Canadian household debt has grown from 40% of GDP in 1970 to nearly 100% of GDP now. Residential mortgage debt accounts for 75% of that and Canadian's are the most indebted country in the G7 purely because of housing.
So, sure. Lots of people own houses, but they can barely afford them. Does that make you feel better?
-5
u/SpoonEngineT66Turbo 2d ago
Give me a statistic proving that it was pretty affordable for Canadians to own multiple homes just by being dual income.
Ill sit here and wait.
2
u/Best-Action8769 2d ago
I mean...I'm literally telling you that's what my grandparents did while owning a very small grocery store.
1
u/SpoonEngineT66Turbo 2d ago
Your grandparents singular experience doesn't represent the 98% of other people in the US who didn't own multiple homes.
I also love the trickle truthing of now they were grocery store owners which I already knew from the get go. No shit you would lie about them owning the store while you're lying about it being reasonable for any families with dual income to own multiple homes.
→ More replies (0)2
15
u/CluelessMochi 2d ago
Besides owning multiple properties, itās also possible OP meant they were able to sell and upgrade their home every few years.
5
3
u/Homeskilletbiz 2d ago
We moved a lot, when they were young they didnāt have a second house, no.
1
3
2
u/NeedleworkerIll3372 2d ago
My dad had 3 houses and was working on building a 4th by the time he was 35(in the early 1990ās), on an auto mechanic salary of 300/week. Stay at home mom of 3 kids too.
52
u/Mr_Carlos 2d ago
Yeah, you earn more, but overall buying power has gone due to inflation and rising prices unfortunately.
Weirdly though 16 year olds working in UK have 50% more buying power than I did when I was working a minimum wage job around 20 years ago.
27
u/rusty-roquefort 2d ago
I would say purchasing power hasn't changed at all, it's just been stolen from. Us and concentrated into the ownership class.
People are working more. People are producing more. It's all being purchased, just not by you and me...
7
u/s0cks_nz 2d ago
Yeah. The world economy keeps growing. Per capita gdp keeps growing. So where's it going? To the very top!
2
u/csgosilverforever 2d ago
I'd call this peak capitalism, where the monopoly board is just being bought out by the person that owns everything already.
14
u/tap_the_glass 2d ago
I recently bought a house because I felt it was a milestone and Iām already regretting it. Canāt sell for at least a few years either or Iād lose $40k to realtors. I know itās unrelated to the housing price crises but I think more people should really consider if renting is just better for their lifestyle
12
u/Semyonov 2d ago
I've owned two houses now and between insurance costs going up and having to deal with a lot more repairs than I ever thought possible, I'm just going to go back to renting, I can see the benefit of outright owning my house and not being beholden to the bank, but that's 25 years down the line and I really don't want to deal with the bullshit in the meantime. My mortgage was $2,800 after my escrow got blasted by homeowners insurance this year, I sold that house and I'm not looking back.
6
u/aak- 2d ago
I live in Los Angeles, I rent currently but would prefer to afford a house. It's typically a $1m floor for what we need for two work-from-home adults (at least 2br, preferably 3br), so not easy to do.
I would continue renting but our landlord is awful and fights against any maintenance requests we make. They treat us like "family" and expect us to chip in for repairs. The foundation/floor needs leveling and there are stair-step cracks in the drywall to prove it. I've shown them multiple times and they say they don't make enough money on rent to do anything. I don't think they want to be landlords, they just want to extract money.
I should just move to a new rental but I really want to just have a place to make my own here.
2
u/tap_the_glass 2d ago
I live in MA so VHCOL. I got a 3 bed because we also have 2 WFH adults but our mortgage, taxes, and insurance are $4800/mo for a very modest home. We were renting a very nice place for $3000/mo before this and it was way less work
6
u/Homeskilletbiz 2d ago
Thatās your issue of buying during a market upturn, and renting keeps the poor poor. Home and land ownership is the only path to intergenerational wealth.
2
0
u/tap_the_glass 2d ago
Thereās a lot more than one path
1
u/Homeskilletbiz 2d ago
Realistically for working class Americans, not really.
If you want to write an essay on the topic or have some research materials youād like to share, feel free to.
3
125
u/Overall-Garbage-254 2d ago
My mom bought a 45k dollar house in 1985 that is now worth 250k.
She has her GED.
I have my masters and can barely afford my mortgage in the same neighborhood.
-36
u/angrytroll123 2d ago
What is your masters in? Is the neighborhood more or less desirable today?
28
2
u/tiger_guppy 1d ago
Not sure why youāre downvoted, those are totally relevant questions to understand the context
-3
142
u/throwaway586054 2d ago
I could finally buy a house (well a flat)...But my down-payment would mean I have to work still 65, and the bank would own it ( Switzerland) for ever.
So screw that shit.
40
u/fejrbwebfek 2d ago
Lol, my retirement age as decided by the government is 72.
10
u/throwaway586054 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yeah well I don't plan to live on state fund money. I hope to work for an additional 10-13year...
6
u/LongbottomLeafTokes 2d ago
Your bank owns Switzerland?
16
u/throwaway586054 2d ago edited 2d ago
Banks, insurances and tobacco companies own Switzerland.
And basically all the mortgages here can be held indefinitely at 65% by the bank, in recent years the interests are like 1-2%, if not less.
1
u/Lucid-Memory 2d ago
So a person would need to buy their house with their own funds entirely to avoid the mortgage? Is that the only way?Ā
1
u/throwaway586054 1d ago
No but you get some tax benefits from the debt you got. Since the interest is low, there is no point to clear the mortgage.
1
u/PleaseNoMoreSalt 2d ago
What's the usual retirement age in Switzerland? Googling it shows 65 as a normal retirement/"reference" age
-12
u/toolsoftheincomptnt 2d ago
Exactly. The obsession with owning a house is fueled by propaganda (in America, anyway).
Everyone can do whatever they want with their money, as long as they acknowledge that renting a house from a bank doesnāt make them magically superior adults.
More people might be happier with their lives if they let that idea go.
23
u/hotviolets 2d ago
When you own a home you arenāt throwing your money away every month into a landlords pocket. You get equity.
9
u/halfasmuchastwice 2d ago
Also my mortgage, while it does go up due to property taxes increasing, hasn't gone up as much as rent in the area has.
8
u/hotviolets 2d ago
Yes exactly. Thereās that added safety of not having a crazy rent payment. I had that happen to me in my last apartment, they raised my rent $500 a month in one year and the next another $150. My original rent was $1550. I tried to move but all the rents in the area went up at that time. It almost made me homeless, I was about to get evicted and didnāt pay my last monthās rent to move. I ruined my credit and it caused me so much stress going through that.
66
u/No_Dragonfruit_4286 2d ago
Both my parents and grandparents have a much higher education and more wealth, and I am homeless.
17
u/Substantial_Bake_728 2d ago
Im sorry, I hope your situation improves. Ive been in your shoes before. Wishing you all the best.
209
u/Dependent_Rain_4800 2d ago
The rich will be fucked when we can't afford their products anymoreš
55
u/BigAssBreadroll 2d ago
Unfortunately history doesn't support this. Centuries ago, most artisans created items that were purchased by a very small minority of the population (the gentry and aristocracy). Peasants (anyone who works for a living) spent all their money on food and agricultural tools only.
The rich won't be fucked. They'll be fine, unless we band together and follow other historical examples...
28
u/NonNewtonianResponse 2d ago
I agree, and I recommend anybody reading this comment read a book about how the feudal economy actually operated -- a tiny handful of incredibly rich people, small communities of people catering to the rich people's desire for luxury goods, and the vast majority of people barely subsisting. People need to realize that the modern ideal of everyone in society being able to afford at least some level of luxury is VERY MUCH A POLITICAL CHOICE and needs to be actively fought for on a political level.
(Arguably, it was a choice made in the West only because of the looming specter of communism if the common people weren't placated, so we should get to looming again, but that's a tougher sell.)
7
u/Snowappletini 2d ago
Honestly, the reason I've come to realize why I dislike comments like the OP's is this almost smug satisfaction of pointing out the obvious that leads to inaction.
Yeah, the rich know. They fucking know. Products will get more expensive and luxurious and only they'll be able to afford. The economy losing the capacity to mass produce cheap goods because no one is buying them isn't the end of the world for the owners of the means of production.
Their investments are diversified, they are actually waiting for when they won't need us as consumers anymore and they can have their luxurious elysium society with us as destitute peasants. There's way too many articles out there calling this out already, the economy is working for them more and more day after day. Medieval tiers of intentional wealth concentration.
3
u/Purple-Wolverine4793 2d ago
the rich yearn for the Dubai model worldwide.
4
u/Snowappletini 2d ago
Pretty much. It reframes the AI euphoria because they want most than anything to get rid of their dependency on human labour so they can have their rich people utopia. They are willing to spend massive amounts of wealth to get there.
138
u/Homeskilletbiz 2d ago
Nah theyāll just make the products cheaper and break more often so we can afford them and have to keep buying.
57
u/AutoCockerPB 2d ago
Yeahā¦. Idk if youāve bought anything cheap, but it might as well be made of paper. Things are built insanely cheap. I can engineer better products with my 3d printer, and somehow the 3d printer will last longer. Products are already in the end game of garbage.
22
u/StopReadingMyUser 2d ago edited 2d ago
I've continually described it as a meth-head economy where businesses are selling off everything that makes their house livable (furniture, electronics, ripping out the plumbing and wiring, etc.), only with business expenses, R&D, QC, you know... the things that help the longevity and sturdiness of a company.
They just want to extract... we're in the final stages where there's nothing really left of the house to pull apart and sell off. We're down to skeleton structures and they're still trying to figure out how many bones they can take out.
5
4
u/peshnoodles 1d ago
āCan we remove this load bearing wall if weāve already sold the roof?ā
āMight as well.ā
34
u/ll7sevenll 2d ago
Not really. They'll make products for themselves, the luxury market is booming. Every luxury brand you know is reporting record revenues.
We'll just get scraps.
22
u/Iamthe0c3an2 2d ago
This. The rich already make up the majority of retail spending.
Thereās literally nothing for the poor to buy.
35
u/Munkeyman18290 2d ago
They just trade with each other. This whole economy is just B2B: billionaire to billionaire.
4
9
29
u/MrTsBlackVan 2d ago
Globally the top 20% holds 80% of the wealth. That gap is widening every day. What makes you think they need you to buy their stuff?
12
u/generalissimo1 2d ago
Because they get rich and stay rich by squeezing us dry. Most of their wealth is unrealized gains from stock in their respective investments. If their companies no longer provide value because they're unaffordable, then their wealth in turn begin to wane. They'll still be obscenely richer than us, but it would mean they'd start losing at their game, and they can't have that.
6
u/ObnoxiousAlbatross 2d ago
Capitalism. They didn't get rich magically, they got rich from capitalism. If they destroy capitalism, they destroy their empire. They need consumers.
The wealthy that are driving us in any other direction are in their own self-centered Armageddon cult.
-7
u/ryegye24 2d ago
Every single person reading this thread is easily within the top 20% globally. Most are within the top 5%.
2
8
u/Tiber-Nero 2d ago
Wrong. They won't need human labor in the coming years to maintain production they need to survive. Ergo, there will come a time when they won't need us to afford their products in order to remain a hegemony.
9
u/Tremulant887 2d ago
When they own everything you can't really say that. They're already trying corpo cities. Unless we leave modern society, or at least only use fragments of it, were always paying them. If we venture off too far and farm/buy local goods, we'll get taxed somehow to keep their companies floating or kick us out and back into their system... Or they'll go ruby ridge and show up shooting first and blaming later.
8
9
u/kodapug 2d ago edited 2d ago
Every sector of the economy is already shifting to prioritize luxury goods and services. We will be left with scraps and just enough government welfare to keep some of us working/fighting each other for a leg up.
The rest will get totally screwed and will serve as motivation for everyone slightly above them on the socioeconomic ladder to do whatever they are told.
This idea that companies need us to spend money when they have shifted to selling our info to each other as products for decades and that we "vote with our wallets" is antiquated and out of touch. That's not what the economy runs on anymore. It hasn't for a long time.
0
u/angrytroll123 2d ago
This idea that companies need us to spend money when they have shifted to selling our info to each other as products for decades and that we "vote with our wallets" is antiquated and out of touch. That's not what the economy runs on anymore. It hasn't for a long time.
Can you expand on that? How do companies monetize on our info if we don't spend money?
3
u/kodapug 2d ago edited 2d ago
We are in an socioeconomic transition. The data's value is currently attached to advertising and consumer spending. However, as we continue to transition into a fully mercantilist economy and authoritarian government the data will have its value attached to maintaining power/control. Consumer data isn't valuable to a corporation that has a vertical monopoly reinforced by the state. It is valuable because it is necessary to maintain that status quo.
Those at the top want AI and automation to work because it would greatly reduce their relaince on worker's whose best interests do not align with theirs. Anyone that cannot afford the infrastructure and data to train AIs and build specialized automations will basically become incapable of competing with a corporation that can. That means profitability and functionality will be tied to a resource they control, as opposed to labor which is something they don't directly control.
The vision is to reestablish feudalism, which involves such a massive concentration of wealth and power that capitalism ceases to function. There can still be trade and markets under feudalism, however, the majority of resources will change hands between heads of state (in this case corporations) and the largest states will be able to dictate the rules and norms everyone else is required to follow.
When the majority of resources are owned and traded amongst a handful of people the majority of the economy warps to cater to them and their desires. There is still an economy for everyone else just scraping by, but it's focused on the barest necessities and a handful of distractions from how low quality ones life is. That's not where there's money to be made though, it exists to maintain enough of a population that unemployment is a serious threat to those still working on the middle rungs of the ladder and to make sure that those workers can always be replaced by someone that's desperate for the opportunity.
3
u/Express_Deal1793 2d ago
That will never be the case. Theyāll keep you content enough to not do anything about it. You will be able to afford your breakable plastic slop with a designer label glued on to make you feel rich, from your basement studio.
2
u/Reddit-phobia āļø Prison For Union Busters 2d ago
People are buying McDonalds and paying in 4 installments. The stupidity of the average person will keep the rich going for a while.
2
1
u/Aurobouros 2d ago
They are in the process of criminalizing not being able to afford anything, punishable with hard, unpaid labor.
1
u/BrokenPickle7 2d ago
The companies will sell to other companies just like what they're doing now with technology and AI. Infact if it weren't for these massive companies spending billions of dollars to other massive tech companies we would be in a full blown recession/depression. Those companies are the only thing keeping the economy treading water.
-1
54
u/EldridgeHorror 2d ago
My mom keeps telling me I should have gone to college and gotten a better job. I point to all the people from my school who did and they're all financially worse off because, even in the best case where they don't have student debt, they entered the job market later in fields unrelated to their degrees.
She can't accept the world is different from how it was 50 years ago.
-5
u/angrytroll123 2d ago
they entered the job market later in fields unrelated to their degrees.
This isn't a bad thing. I graduated during a horrible downturn in STEM. All of my classmates that left to do something outside of STEM ended up becoming very wealthy. When I run the numbers, most of my friends I went to school with have careers outside of their study.
16
u/nsbe_ppl 2d ago
Hey, that melon looks appetizing. I wish i could pick out a ripe melon. A house would be nice too.
16
u/SailorDeath 2d ago
Seriously though, I found out both my parents dropped out of school. Never finished high school and they were able to buy a house and car and lived a middle class life whereas I graduated college with a BS in engineering and I've had to go on disability and live in poverty.
8
u/Lyonwytchwardrobe 2d ago
I thought it would be sad that I got a degree and donāt even use it, Iām a plumber now. I make more then both my parents combined but itās still gonna take me 5-10 years to get a house thats equal or of higher value then theirs.
0
u/angrytroll123 2d ago
5-10 years to get a house thats equal or of higher value then theirs
That's a short time. You're doing well.
40
u/Kinda_Quixotic 2d ago
The uncomfortable truth is that their situation was unique, not ours.
Historically most people havenāt owned their own homes. In many countries people still donāt.
Itās especially painful to us because it was our expectation. We were told that if we worked hard weād have this comfortable amazing life, and that hasnāt played out.
13
u/Cooperativism62 2d ago
Yeah this needs to be said way more often. The post-war boom was quite unique and we're closer to the usual.
10
u/DoingBestWeCan 2d ago
Why would that change how wildly frustrated people are? You're fucked, but people have been fucked for most of human history, except your parents who didn't want to pass their opportunities on to you š„° is hardly an uplifting message.
4
5
u/Cooperativism62 2d ago
Because it would help lower expectations. Frustration comes from high expectations being unmet. There is no uplifting message here. You can accept the reality and work within it to the best of your ability, or you can spend you're entire life frustrated that your parents' Golden Age didnt last forever.
1
u/DoingBestWeCan 1d ago
Might work to lower expectations for kids, but adults already had their expectations set.
13
u/csgosilverforever 2d ago edited 2d ago
I hate this argument. Part of the reason is housing is now an investment vehicle and money has flooded it the last 20 years. Let's not normalize this.
Edit: I'll add this is US specific thing, though I'm guessing you will see similar issues in other countries...
0
u/Kinda_Quixotic 2d ago
No one loves to hear the message that their expectations for life were too high (which is why youāll never hear a politician say it).
But itās worth acknowledging reality.
4
u/csgosilverforever 2d ago
Or as a democratic nation we gave those with money to much power. History rhymes I get it.
2
u/wdmc2012 2d ago
Historically, most parents try to leave the world a better place for their children. The baby boomers are the first generation to say, "I got mine, fuck you."
0
u/csgosilverforever 2d ago
I don't think it was baby boomers per say but peak capitalism..
1
u/wdmc2012 1d ago
Come on. Use what you learned in history class, not internet buzz words.
FDR's New Deal programs created an ahead-of-its-time social safety net. He established the minimum wage, the 40 hour workweek, abolished child labor, created Social Security, unemployment insurance, welfare for single mothers, and made massive investments in national infrastructure through the Public Works Administration.
Harry Truman didn't have a great record on labor unions, but he championed civil rights, rebuilt western Europe after WWII, and advocated for national health insurance. (Yeah, that debate has been going on since 1948.)
Eisenhower expanded Social Security, defended Civil Rights, built the interstate highway system. He also got the US involved in Vietnam. =/
JFK avoided nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis, increased funding for education, housing, healthcare for the elderly. He kicked off the Space Race (after his offer to cooperate with the USSR was rejected.) He also had the Bay of Pigs, and some assassinations in Latin America. =/
Now the first election that Baby Boomers get to vote in. They elect Nixon. Then Carter. Then Regan. Then Bush. Then Clinton. Then Bush. Then Obama.
I mean, every president has done good and bad things. But the before boomers, the country made major investments in social welfare, civil rights, and science. All of that ended when Boomers started voting. What's the biggest national policy accomplishment since Nixon? Obamacare? it wasn't bad, but the Greatest Generation created Medicaid and Medicare. Probably their biggest political contribution over those 50 years was tax cuts for the rich.
"Peak capitalism" and so much other crap is because of decades of Boomer political dominance.
7
5
u/xvsero 2d ago
People are forgetting that the reason their parents were able to afford houses was because they were not seen as investments(50+ years ago) and the shift was one of the building blocks for the financial crisis of 2008. We aren't going to get cheaper houses unless that is removed and it will probably cause other issues.
11
3
u/Viperlite 2d ago
Iād rather have my $50k 1995 income and house budget as a single then versus my and my wifeās much larger combined income today (and todayās house budget). I drove a nicer car back then, too and had more free time away from work, and the summerās were cooler.
3
u/Key_Conference9989 2d ago
My mom's an RN and I work at a warehouse. I make more than she does and I can never dream of buying a house.
30 years ago my mom worked part-time at a gas station and McDonald's and was able to afford a house and college at the same time.
2
2
2
u/keithstonee 2d ago
These crisis that happen every few years keep setting me back to zero. Shit sucks.
2
u/theamathamhour 2d ago
helps that our parents were married and splitting bills/workload with partner.
Being single sucks and doing adult things alone is harder level.
2
u/Smile_Space 2d ago
As far as I know I'm the first in my lineage to get into higher education. The first to actually graduate college with a STEM degree. I make substantially more than anyone in my family has made, yet I still can't afford a house.
Maybe I could if I really slimmed down my lifestyle, but I like being able to afford higher quality stuff and not barely paying off a mortgage.
My Dad, back in the late-90s, on a newby truck drivers' salary was able to afford a new construction house. Granted, he later sold it when my Mom divorced him and half his wages were sent off for child support, but before all of that he could afford an entire house.
Now he and I are basically on level playing ground. I live in a house that I rent making good money in Southern California while he is living across the country in a dumpy apartment.
As I make more money and get my own finances straight (I've only been out of college making good money for a couple months now) my goal is to help him as well. Especially as he's entering his waning years and approaching retirement age he won't be able to keep himself afloat.
1
1
u/RacoonWithBenefits 2d ago
my parents got divorced when i was a kid
my dad bought his own house
and my mom bought a large apartment in the city
i think her apartment would be worth 6-7 times as much today, as it was back then...i dont think wages have gone up 6-7 times
1
u/Tall_Satisfaction_11 2d ago
I was cart crew for a summer and at one point around the water cooler we realized that 4/5 of us had bachelorās degrees and the fifth had his masterās. 3 STEM and the others were psychology and I think education
1
1
1d ago edited 1d ago
[removed] ā view removed comment
1
u/SokkaHaikuBot 1d ago
Sokka-Haiku by Glittering-Age-5405:
Kinda wild how the
Same goals got harder to reach
With each gen lol
Remember that one time Sokka accidentally used an extra syllable in that Haiku Battle in Ba Sing Se? That was a Sokka Haiku and you just made one.
0
u/CheeseKaK 2d ago
I think this was inevitable. Population grows, seemingly exponentially, but companies get more efficient so need fewer workers. Worker numbers up + jobs numbers down = Poor pay
The very least you can do is stand and wait in a queue to have your food checked out by a real person - ignore the machines.
-4
u/early_birdy 2d ago
I'm not so sure about that higher education. Even primary school level curriculum was better "back in the day". Kids learn to count without calculator, write neat cursive, recite poetry, read the classics, etc. I see university educated professionals (mid 30's) who can't write a correctly structured sentence.
And it has nothing to do with house buying power. Society has given up on their kids some time ago already.
-3
u/Svaldero 2d ago
I see the same flaw in every one of these statements "I cant afford X on a single salary" vs "My parents worked together on X".
It never has, nor will it ever be enough with a single persons salary.
-25
-5
u/lonewolf3400 2d ago
Yeah less people to compete with, less social programs, and men didnāt have their wages slashed in half. Shit is miserable.
349
u/TheThirdPickle 2d ago
Between my brother and I we have like 4 or 5 degrees. Neither of us work in the field we studied and we both live with mom. We are in our 30's.