At this point gen a or g or whatever is going to live in the popular democratic republic of north America
Poignant post on the state of things
Submitted 9 months ago by STRIKINGdebate2@lemmy.world to aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8c103ae7-3c64-4ca7-a120-e4b2bf8dc94a.jpeg
Comments
Luisp@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 months ago
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 9 months ago
This is why it’s critically important for millenials to buy homes. Good ones. Big ones with land. It’s going to end up a generational home. You’re gonna need room for additions.
drislands@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Are you aware of the general difficulties faced by the Millennial generation with buying housing? Because it sounds like you’re not. Millennials aren’t not buying homes because of a preference as much as a lack of option.
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 9 months ago
I am. That’s why it’s so important.
Whole thing reeks of setting us up for failure. Insecure housing means no/less kids, and that has huge rippling effects 30 m-50 years from now when millenials are too old and infirm to work and there’s not enough people to replace us in the workforce.
And then our boomer parents, who somehow despite all our best efforts are still alive, will be blaming us for it.
dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 months ago
Just let me know how someone is supposed to do that when the average person makes like $40k a year.
Phegan@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Many other countries have multi generational homes that aren’t huge or massive. This is a very American centric mindset of needing a giant home for more people.
Also, millennials definitely can not afford what you described
starchylemming@lemmy.world 9 months ago
uh if you want to live remotely close to where the jobs are, its gonna be a tiny shitty appartement in exchange for life long debt. not a house, most definitely not a desireable one. thats with two median incomes lol.
those who can buy houses do so thanks to family or have exceptional income or both. mostly both
Mango@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Oh yeah let me just reach into my pockets. Oh right, I’m not wearing pants and I’m commenting on Lemmy from my air mattress unable to sleep.
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 9 months ago
You think it’s gonna be better for your kids?
Oh you don’t have kids? Well then my post is t about you. Feel free to fuck off.
Surp@lemmy.world 9 months ago
This is the best post on Lemmy. It’s the best way to say this.
shasta@lemm.ee 9 months ago
But it’s a post on Reddit
grendel@lemmy.world 9 months ago
[deleted]BluesF@lemmy.world 9 months ago
While I agree that in general the demands of wealthy nations are frequently excessive, there was a time in those nations where, as the meme describes, relatively poor families could own a home and support a family on a single income. That disappeared not because everyone stated wanting more, but because of constant, intentional inflation of house prices and depression of wages (relative to inflation) by capitalists.
pedalmore@lemmy.world 9 months ago
To me the point is more that the post WW2 boom and the resulting ability of a cashier to buy a home and support a family was somewhat an aberration, not a new normal. Something similar could happen again if the conditions were right (much more modest house building via major zoning reform, free education, healthcare, and childcare, high taxes on the wealthy) but we’re not actually achieving those necessary things politically, so here we are. And even if we did achieve all that, new homes won’t look like current new homes because 4000 ft2 suburban homes are fundamentally unsustainable.
oij2@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Yeah… so, the record high inequality is just nothing to think about, because suddenly we don’t deserve to own a house for one life’s worth of work…? What a joke take
Aggravationstation@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Man I’m glad I was born and raised in a working class town now. Prospects looked pretty dire here when I was a kid. Local industry fell flat in the 1990s and into the 2000s so tonnes of my fellow millennials left to go to uni and get jobs in cities. That kept the cost of living here low and I was able to buy my first house at 22.
Now those deserters are saddled with student debt and unaffordable rents with no prospect of ever buying their own home. Recently the local industry started taking off again in a big way. I’m already making a pretty good wage but I’m also in track to have a Masters Degree and a high paid job after 3 years with a house that should have its value skyrocket over the next decade.
Xer0@lemmy.ml 9 months ago
I’m glad my partner and I bought our house when we did. Got it for fairly cheap about 5 years ago and have had a lot of work done to it. Mortgage is affordable and I reckon we’ve easily put 200k+ on to the value of it. Issue is no fucker will be able to afford to buy it.
LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 9 months ago
Maybe we’ll see planned communities pop up that pool resources and create their own “circular economy”. Certain things are incredibly cheap today, e.g. learning how to do things. And technology can make certain basics needed to live very cheap. Food, water, energy, housing, education, safety, medical, community.
If you could e.g. buy some farmland and build a compact apartment block out of e.g. shipping containers (or something even cheaper) then you could produce your own food, have your own school (partially over internet), a doctor / medic, and have workshops to make and maintain whatever you need.
Maybe the “buy in” costs for each person could be pretty low, like 10-20k.
A kind of “democratization” of economy for the basic needs. The global economy is completely out of whack because nobody can compete with mass produced garbage and marketing, so our work is getting worth less and less and we’re getting poorer.
Spaceinv8er@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
That sounds like a commune with extra steps.
deus@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Kedly@lemm.ee 9 months ago
Yeah ok sure, but this site has shown me theres a good reason to distrust someone who call themselves a communist. China and Russia are TERRIBLE examples of where the world should head, yet a LOT of the communists on this site are Tankies
LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 9 months ago
Gasp! Sir, this is a micro-federation of free people! :D
I don’t really care what you call it, it shouldn’t be about ideology but about economy benefit and freedom from economic exploitation. But you’ll definitely be facing anti-socialist propaganda. It’s possible that certain advances in technology allow for a life in relative luxury (e.g. rich in free time, rich in stability, rich in self determination). Things like 3D printers don’t quite get us there, but if you could invent / develop or genetically engineer access to raw materials. You’d still need quite a few “vitamins” like microprocessors etc so you’d still need to import some stuff and export some labour or goods.
gilokee@lemmy.world 9 months ago
solarpunk!
LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 9 months ago
Definitely! But most solarpunk I’ve seen isn’t realistic about the amount of land you need to produce enough calories for food.
LKPU26@lemmy.ml 9 months ago
Genuine question: I see a lot of posts on both sides on lemmy. Does anyone have a rebuttal/counter argument to this?
Donkter@lemmy.world 9 months ago
The argument I’ve seen “against” this is to point out that if you want to live like they did in the 50s it’s pretty cheap. It’s a lot of canned food. A lot of stuff you might pay for now are DIY projects (such as clothes repair, house repair, car repair etc.) there’s no such thing as your fancy TV, your Internet or any modern kitchen amenities. Medical assistance is garbage so no wonder you paid less for it. The way you live today is like a king compared to the 50s.
Now it’s still an idiotic argument. Before anyone replies, I don’t agree with it. But it’s what people who can’t handle the OP tell themselves.
MIDItheKID@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I know you said you don’t agree, so this argument is for the hypothetical person who holds that opinion…
With that said. My wife and I crunched the numbers recently. If we lived like people in the 50s, which is to say, we lived as poor as we could and completely wrecked our quality of life (eating as cheap as possible, no Netflix, never eating out, no luxuries at all), we would save like $10k a year. Which means that if we did that for 10 years, we would have enough for a down payment on a house that we would not be able to afford the monthly mortgage on (and a house in that price range would be a wreck in our neighborhood. A standard 3bed 2bath in good condition where I live starts at about 800k).
It’s insane. This isn’t some “just stop eating avacado toast” thing.
IMALlama@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Here are five fast examples from both sides
- The average new house size went from around 1,000 sq ft in 1910 to 1,500 sq ft in 1970, to 2,000 sq ft in 2000 to aroind 2,400 sq ft today. It’s not easy to buy a new small(er) home and housing prices reflect that
- When the Corvette was launched in 1953 it cost $3,490. That’s around $39,000 in today’s money. A brand new Corvette will cost you $70,000
- A 1970 Datsun 240z was $3,500, which is $28,000 today. You can buy a brand new Mazda Miata or Toyota GR86 for that inflation adjusted amount
- A gallon of milk cost $1.32 in 1970. That’s $10
- According to the 1970 census, median household income was $8,730. Adjusted for inflation, that’s around $71,000 - which is surprisingly close to the 2022 census’s $70,784 number
So what’s going on and why are people not happy? IMO it’s a mix of
- Things are getting nicer, but they’re also getting more expensive. This seems to be a mix of consumer taste and seller side shenanigans. For example, small/mid size cars, which are typically cheap, have had decreasing sales volume for the past 20 years. Enter multiple OEMs de-emphasizing small/mid size cars and leaning into crossovers, which just so happen to cost more. To go back to the earlier housing example, house size has been going up while the average household size is going down. There were 4.5 people per household in 1910. This dropped to 3.15 in 1970 and is down to 2.51 today. In other words, today’s new larger homes have fewer people living in them than 50 years ago. New homes today also tend to be built with nicer furnishings (coming from someone with 1960s builder grade cabinets in their house). Housing is a bit of a mess for a bunch of other reasons too… Zoning, smaller parcel sizes for subdivisions, etc etc
- The wage vs productivity gap
- The… very big imbalance between worker vs CEO wage growth
It goes beyond the cost of goods and gets back to some level of fairness (or a complete lack there of).
uis@lemmy.world 9 months ago
It seems US tries to do Russian history in reverse
Cryophilia@lemmy.world 9 months ago
“And then things got better”?
Lmaydev@programming.dev 9 months ago
[deleted]RickRussell_CA@lemmy.world 9 months ago
And yet, every one seeks to rest under their own vine and fig tree. I don’t think that’s strictly capitalist indoctrination. People need places, spaces, situations, groups, creative outlets in which they have some basic autonomy. We could set up soup kitchens on every corner so that nobody is ever hungry, but for many that will fall far short of a “full happy life”. Like security from violence or shelter from the elements, a full stomach is foundational to happiness, that doesn’t mean it’s enough for most people.
kamenlady@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Your life depends on a full stomach, that’s the last barrier for most people. After all, the system we live in also ensures that work will take the most of you. We’re always exhausted, after a day full of work, happy to have the time to think, regenerate and be among your loved ones. But, before we have a chance of fully regenerating, we’re at work again, counting hours.
tonyn@lemmy.ml 9 months ago
Even if you have nowhere to sleep at night?
Maggoty@lemmy.world 9 months ago
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 9 months ago
It’s hard to have enough to eat without money.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Says the guy with money. Hey if you don’t need yours, maybe I could have some?
IvanOverdrive@lemm.ee 9 months ago
We have the ability to feed everyone in the world, but we don’t. We could house everyone, but we don’t. We could heal everyone, and we don’t.
Capitalism was great for raising a huge portion of humanity out of poverty. It has its limits however, and we are reaching them. It’s time to find a new way of doing things, not for profit, but because those things need to be done.
pseudo@jlai.lu 9 months ago
I don’t find it so poignant. The idea of living your parent house to adult properly is cultural. Their is nothing fondamental weird about most people still living with their parents until they passed away. Sure not every siblings can benefit from it if they also want to get spouse and children. But one people arriving in a house to marry is leaving room in another one. And as sad as it is when the elders leave, their is more space for the new-born.
Of course, it is important that people are housed and not dependent of landlord but why the solution should be that every couple ( and every adult that is single) buy its own house. That’s a far stretch. Especially in countries where demography isn’t booming.
OatChalice@lemm.ee 9 months ago
lol the problem isn’t that everybody should move out, it’s that hardly anyone can afford their own apartment (let alone single family home)
ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 months ago
The issue is not if some people stay home with their parents. The issue is when it becomes wide spread over the population. What we’re seeing with the housing market and more people with the financial necessity to live with their parents is a form of generational control. Conservatives want younger generations more dependent on their parents for housing so their parents have a say over those younger generations longer.
If a person’s parents control whether or not that person has a roof over their head, then that person is less likely to engage in political behaviors, life style choices, or life saving medical treatments like HRT, that could upset their parents. This could depend on the politics of a person’s parents, but the the trend is for younger generations to be more progressive than older generations.
TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Immigration can be used to replenish deficits in the working population.
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Gen A is just gonna be Gen
exit
Kalkaline@leminal.space 9 months ago
[deleted]yeather@lemmy.ca 9 months ago
Newest generation, ~2012 to about now. Before that was Z, Millenials, X, Boomers, Greatest, and Silent.
Chubak@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I really enjoy that West is crumbling. You guys did dun dirty to us Iranians in the past 10 years, pressuring our economy and crippling it. Now you are experiencing a literal ‘Karma, Bitch!’.
It’s not far-fetched that, once Iran manages to have America fuck off the middle east, it will become the next superpower (for the 5th time over the past 2 millennia I believe and don’t say ‘Persia is not Iran’, you will show how uneducated you are, because Persia is a province in Southern Iran, it’s a Netherlands/Holland situation) and I hope I am alive to see the fall of West. Because you Westerners have been nasty to me, insulted me, been racist against me, etc. You deserve nothing but a nice fall from grace.
Let’s raise our cups to the fall of ‘jorsumeh’ that is the West.
NounsAndWords@lemmy.world 9 months ago
[deleted]cedarmesa@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Strong men make easy times. Easy times make weak men. Weak men make hard times. Hard time make strong men.
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 9 months ago
Rent. Gen A will rent at home. That’s how the parents will finally clear the home; through rent.
Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 months ago
Their millennial parents will also be renting. How will they afford a retirement home or nursing home? How did we get here?
mods_are_assholes@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Already seen this a few times with people I’ve dated.
Rich parents buy a vacation house, not so rich kids pay rent on it with no equity while also understanding that their shitstain parents will reverse mortgage all that equity for retirement vacations before they ever have a chance to inherit it.
They cope with a ‘this is fine’ attitude.
If I had a nickle for every person I dated that was in this situation, I’d have three nickles. Which isn’t a lot, but it’s weird it happened three times.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 9 months ago
To be fair, if they’re bringing home a paycheck they should be contributing. Of course since it’s family you do a split based on income, not a straight split. And they also get a say on things around the home at that point too.