IDK why your comment reminded me, but back when I was in middle school (late 90s) we had an anti drug guest speaker. One of those ones where they were former addicts trying to scare you out of trying drugs. During the Q&A, someone asked him a question and that got him onto how plastic water bottles were super bad for you and you should never drink out of plastic because you’re ingesting tiny plastic particles. I remember we were laughing at him while administration was trying to shoo him off the stage.
Now we just kinda shrug when told we’re ingesting a credit card worth of plastic every week, lol.
To be fair, if you ever wanna reconsider your job, ask a server how much they make. In a city with $3,600 rent, it’s not uncommon for them to average $40-60/hr. Shit, I’m ugly as fuck and live in a cheap city but usually made around $1,000/week working part time in college a few years ago.
Look up ‘Hell’s Angels’ by Hunter Thompson. He has a chapter on the economics of being a biker/hippie/artist in the early 1970s.
A biker could work six months as a Union stevedore and save up enough to spend two years on the road. A part time waitress could support herself and her musician boyfriend.
I think that’s part of the point. The system doesn’t want the majority to be able to say no to a job because they were able to save easily and can take time off whenever they feel. On top of the things mentioned here like food and insurance costs there are also other things now like being certified in a field or needing to continue education or paying for permits every year that seem way to calculated in cost which is just another way of keeping you from getting to far ahead.
My family does ok, but we were still cutting it close a few years ago. Today we are looking at new jobs that we hopefully can get and pay more because ours stopped giving raises and inflation has us stuck living paycheck to paycheck.
I wish I could take more than a few weeks off a year to do what I actually enjoy doing for once. 1 of those weeks is a cheap vacation and the other is just spent getting things done because work takes up most of our time. It’s stressful and tiring and the longer it goes on the more depressing it becomes.
Another thing to consider. Working folks used to be able to afford really nice things. In 1960, a Rolls Royce was about $20,000 and a Jaguar was about $6,000. A ringside ticket to the first Ali/Fraiser fight was $200. They want peasants scrambling for crumbs, not peers
Their current philosophy is an incredibly shortsighted mistake. You make money by having a robust consumer class with plenty of disposable income to spend on things they like. If most people are barely affording essentials, there’s way less variety in where money ends up. If I’m the executive of Samsung, I want to publicly support better pay and higher taxes, because it means more people can buy my TVs and phones.
I struggle to describe the situation because it actually goes against capitalism. The rich are pursuing the option that gives them less profit and hurts the free market.
We’ve gone so far off the rails in terms of the economy that it boggles the mind.
I was brought with the idea that the old Tsarist system of a few great land owners; a small middle class of minor merchants, tradesmen, white collar civil servants; and a sea of serfs, was always going to be unstable. That’s the idea the Right wants for all of us.
Till there be property there can be no government, the very end of which is to secure wealth, and to defend the rich from the poor. In this age of shepherds, if one man possessed 500 oxen, and another had none at all, unless there were some government to secure them to him, he would not be allowed to possess them.”
Adam Smith, “ Lectures on Jurisprudence” 1766
All states are unstable, because their function is to secure the wealth of the many in the hands of the few.
I think you’re missing it because you’re still thinking in a national frame. Capitalists do not. If US workers can’t afford their products, they’ll just sell to Chinese workers. That’s part of why they’re so desperate to get into that market. Capitalism always requires expanding markets. It’s why the web is going through enshittification, also.
There is no nation for a capitalist, they may play at patriotism when it suits their interests, but in reality they will go wherever they can to make as much as they can. If that stops being here, they’ll go elsewhere.
I’m sorry but they don’t actually want you to have money. They want you to have credit. Lots and lots of credit if possible. Because then they win twice. Once in the purchases and second in the interest.
True, but that still requires people to have enough disposable income that they’re freely buying things. To nail them on interest you want them to spend more than they earn, agreed, but it’s all a balance. Go too far, and they’ll pull back on spending, and you lose out doubly.
The mistake you’re making is thinking that long-term effects are a concern in capitalism. They aren’t. The point is for the people at the top to make as much money as possible in as short a time as possible, keep milking the corpse until it rots, then fuck off with your money.
And at the time the USA was 40-50% of the total wealth of the planet. Things were better for Americans then because most of Europe’s manufacturing and industry was devastated after WWII and took decades to return.
Wealth inequality was much lower in the US after the war: …pse.ens.fr/…/Piketty2014FiguresTables.pdfEurope building back should mean the total pie is bigger. The real problem is that the wealthy parasites are sucking up more and more of a proportion that pie.
It’s mostly that we could afford to argue for higher wages because no one else could make that widget or machine.
Europe rebuilding meant Europeans could buy a toaster, car, tv etc that was local whereas before they HAD to buy from America. Shifting the business away meant America had less money to go around
I also suspect it’s an old money vs Nouveau Riche taking over society thing too but Im pulling that entirely from my ass.
The distribution of that pie is also being skewed. Technology has brought prices slightly down (relative to income) for a lot of things that we buy, meaning that we get better prices and more variety on things like food, clothes, travel, and obviously electronics, but a couple of unavoidable things like housing prices and college tuition have exploded so dramatically that it totally overshadows the modest gains that we get. Both are things that only need to be paid for once, so anyone that went to school and bought a house before prices exploded now gets to enjoy cheap housing and cheap commodities, while anyone unlucky enough to come after is just screwed. I think that’s part of why older generations are so unsupportive of how much of a struggle it is for millenials and gen Z, the economy has gone to crap, but so far its only really hit the young
I think that’s part of why older generations are so unsupportive of how much of a struggle it is for millenials and gen Z, the economy has gone to crap, but so far its only really hit the young
Most of us older Generations though have kids of our own, and so we see how today’s life affects them, and the fact that we usually have to help them out because they have it much harder than we did at their age, so we’re aware of the situation.
What it comes down to is a human nature type of thing, where some people think “I’ve got mine and I don’t care about anyone else”, and that transcends physical age.
Yeah, it certainly isn’t everyone in the older generations, no group is ever a monolith. I was generalizing the general sentiment that I’ve seen, but I’m also in an ultra-conservative area that tends to be very “pull yourself up by your bootstraps”, so my perspective is probably skewed too.
I was generalizing the general sentiment that I’ve seen
Fair enough, and I thank you for the clarification.
The only reason I replied was because comments like these tend to really bother me, because as I get older, I find I become the recipient of ageism more and more, which is a form of prejudice.
I definitely do agree though that older generations have certain opinions and ways of thinking that they can be set into, but that doesn’t mean they can’t rise above that.
Just slapping the “Boomer” or “Neckbeard” label on everything and moving on feeling victorious is never a good way of solving any society problems.
And on a personal note, as a Gen-Xer constantly being called a Boomer, it reminds me of that line in the Monty Python movie where Death comes to a dinner party and picks up all these people who just died to take them away because of some bad food that was served. Theres one guy in the group being taken away by Death, and he says “hey I didn’t even eat the salmon mousse”.
Hmm… I knew a Hell’s Angel when I was younger and he certainly didn’t work a union job. He was essentially a gangster, who made bundles of money doing illegal things.
He was a Hell’s Angel in the 70’s and 80’s, so it was during the same time period that the book was written about.the Hell’s Angels have always been a criminal organization, despite trying to paint themselves as a simple motorcycle club.
Yes, but they’re not called Hell’s Angels. There are still bikers who aren’t in the Hell’s Angels. I’m replying to someone who specifically said “Hell’s Angels”. If you’re a biker that isn’t a Hell’s Angel and you call yourself one, you’re going to have a real bad time.
A biker could work six months as a Union stevedore and save up enough to spend two years on the road. A part time waitress could support herself and her musician boyfriend.
30 years ago you couldn’t find a reasonable place to rent for $700 in my smaller NC city. Today the prices here are around $2000 for a reasonably nice apartment. I’m not saying there isn’t somewhere in the US where those rents can be found within that time period, but I’m skeptical there isn’t some exaggeration going on here.
Which area of NC?? I lived in Hillsborough for a time, and 10 years ago I was able to get housing for $750/m. You’re saying that 30 years ago it was more expensive? I’d like some sources, because I think you’re either misremembering at best.
Greensboro, NC. Maybe not such a small town in NC, but small on a national scale. To be honest, my comment was anecdotal and from memory. But a quick search led me to deptofnumbers.com/rent/north-carolina/greensboro. It goes back to 2005 where the median residential rate was listed as $794. So, my memory is likely colored by what I considered as “acceptable” conditions as well as expense in 1993. I ended up renting a room, with no real kitchen, but a nice enough bathroom, for $400. Yes it was cheaper, but the kitchen was basically an alcove with a dorm fridge and a microwave at the end of the hall. It was not a place you’d bring a date home to. I recall that actual “nice” apartments I looked at were around $800 or so
Edit, whoops had to change to nominal dollars. 2005 median was $635.
A 47 year old lawyer should be able to afford $3,600 a month without particular difficulty. I’m a software developer so I make less than most lawyers do, but I can pay about $3,400 a month for my one-bedroom in the center of a big city.
(I don’t rent. $3,400 is my mortgage plus my building fees and the building charges an additional fee to people who rent out their unit, so if I rented mine out for $3,600 then I would probably actually lose money every month. Paying my mortgage does mean that my net worth increases, but it doesn’t help me afford things now. Someone with their mortgage paid off would be in a better position to be a landlord, but they would still be getting less than 4% profit per year even if they have the perfect tenant who never costs them anything. Selling the apartment and putting the money in the stock market would be more profitable than renting it out for $3,600.)
The average yearly return of the S&P 500 over the last 30 years is almost 10% a year, so if instead of investing in the stock market, you choose to be a landlord whose yearly profit is 4%, you’re a humanitarian donating 6% of the cost of your apartment to your tenant every year.
I’m exaggerating because the average rise in real estate values is 6% so such a landlord actually gets about the same return as he would get from the stock market, as long as he never has a bad tenant and doesn’t mind his money being locked up in real estate.
Well that was in the past, but over the last 2-3 years I have lost a few thousand $ in the value of my S&P 500 index fund investments. That money would have been better off in a plain old savings account or invested in real estate (but it wasn’t really enough to buy any real estate).
You must have bought at the worst possible time. But there’s risk associated with any investment - the neighborhood you buy in could go to hell, or if you rent out your property then you could get a tenant who trashes it and takes a year to evict. I think real estate does tend to be less risky than the stock market, but it has significantly worse returns too. (Plus, the stock market lets you diversify - if you only own one property and something happens to it, you have lost everything.)
With that said, you can invest in real estate even if you don’t have enough money to buy property yourself - you can buy shares in a real estate investment trust.
Chainmail Hauberk - it’s fine until it’s hot. 16 decoy wallets - who needs money, buy more wallets. Tactical Glock - Lämp Pacifier, Blankie and Baby Toy - ??? A Rose - wholesome Santiago - Oh Ok The keys to heaven and hell - for janitorial duties I suppose The weight of knowledge - oh, I understand now. 300 loads of cement per hour - pave the earth 16 Pictures of ma - for the 16 wallets. Cyanide Pill - I wonder if this is also a decoy. Your heart - again, no idea.
I would imagine most homeowners couldn’t afford a loan for their current house at its current value. I just ran a borrowing capacity calculator for a local large bank, and it’s well below what my house is worth.
I bought at 21 and had it paid off at 38. I earn triple what I did back then.
That’s part of the reason I bit the bullet when I did and bought a house where I didn’t want to. I started building equity and when housing prices went up I was able to roll that over into a house I wanted in the area I wanted. At some point you have to get in and start building the equity even if it’s somewhere you aren’t as happy in. YMMV.
Yeah, but I honestly feel terrible for younger people just starting out. I’m locked into a 2.35% APR loan on a house that’s valued nearly 3 times what I bought it for less than 10 years ago. I would never be able to afford mortgage payments going in at today’s rates for the full value of the house, let alone come up with 20% to get rid of mortgage insurance.
The starter townhouse my wife and I bought almost 20 years ago has gone up similarly. What kind of person in their early 20s can afford to come up with a 6 figure down payment? Or afford a mortgage payment that’s several thousand dollars a month? Shit’s crazy.
It’s starting to look like that model might be dead too. Mortgages continue to rise, but prices aren’t coming down because everyone with 2% interest mortgages are never going to move, so there’s no inventory. This means that the prices will hold, but not increase. So even if you can get a house you don’t really want now, it’s not going to appreciate much, and might even slowly depreciate as the current owners are forced to sell because of life events.
Isn’t anyone disturbed by that? Without extreme action from the left and no legal pushback from the Democrats, that would mean the right could do whatever the hell it wants without consequence, including genocide.
They already got away with indigenous genocide without consequence, so I can certainly believe it.
Overthrowing them is a huge prisoner’s dilemma. We can barely even discuss specifics without getting the whole instance censored. The first person to fire a shot would likely act alone, and spend the rest of their life in prison.
I think the most realistic solution is p2p assassination markets built on top of blockchains, like Bitcoin Hivemind. That would avoid centralized organizations for which the leaders/admins are easy to bribe or threaten.
We’ve already seen what they do to our heroes. Don’t be a hero.
lemmyshitpost
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.