• EdibleFriend@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    163
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Maybe gen a will be the ones with the balls to actually rise up, set everything on fire, and kill the people responsible for destroying everything. Because of the rest of us are just sitting around complaining.

    And yes, I admit, I’m in that category.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      87
      ·
      8 months ago

      It looks like if gen Z’s massive wave of unionization doesn’t work that’ll be the case. Gen A is likely the water war generation unless we clean up our act enough for it to be gen ß

      • buzziebee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        8 months ago

        Occupy Wall Street started strong but quickly decended into uncoordinated nonsense. The initial message was simple, popular, and actionable about how it’s bullshit that global austerity and government cutbacks were hurting the 99% whilst the 1% who caused the crash got off scott free with massive bailouts and tax cuts.

        Because it was a “leaderless” collective action it quickly got occupied itself by all sorts of weird and wacky movements who diluted the message and gave the right wing media all the ammo they could ever want to paint the whole thing as “just some crazy hippies chatting shit about communism” or whatever.

        It’s pretty typical of movements on the left unfortunately. Everyone wants to be super inclusive so all ideas are equally important and you can’t just dismiss ideas as not being relevant without creating a load of infighting. The alternative however means people with bad ideas (ones who often have more time and energy to boot) can easily take over the conversation and your whole message gets diluted, confused, and easily disarmed by the media.

        • Riskable@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          7 months ago

          I think the left’s problem isn’t inclusiveness (in things like this) it’s the inability to give power to “strong” leadership. The same mental firewalls that prevent those on the left from falling victim to mountebanks keeps them from letting others speak on their behalf.

          It also creates mental roadblocks for anyone on the left who tries to lead. “How can I speak for these people? I am not one of them.” That’s not a limitation of inclusiveness it’s just empathy. So when anyone on the left challenges a left wing leader with anything, really that leader–if they are truly left leaning–will not fight back without near certainty about their position.

          This makes it easy for a left wing leader to denounce the illogical and/or racist positions from those on the right but extremely difficult to take a stand on issues where everything sucks like Israeli/Palestinian conflict or immigration. This leaves them open for charlatans to point to them and say, “See? They’re weak!” Which is the exact thing the right hates and fears from left wing leaders.

          • buzziebee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Maybe inclusiveness wasn’t the right word to use, but your second and third paragraphs are exactly what I meant. It’s because we want to make sure everyone’s voices are hard and ideas are considered that movements end up standing for everything and nothing at the same time. To me creating that space and opportunity for all ideas and people is inclusivity, which is a great thing overall but can make affecting change difficult when your opposition all fall into line behind “strong” leaders.

      • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        We need a raised militia in open, violent rebellion against the police and national guard. Anything less than that is theater.

      • EdibleFriend@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Lol I’m a millennial too I definitely remember that and it’s not what I’m talking about at all. They just stood around yelling for the most part.

    • FenrirIII@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      I have been educating my child on unions and workers’ rights. When he’s old enough, we move on to the proper engineering and maintenance of guillotines.

    • Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      It is getting to the point that is the only option. Voting doesn’t matter, protesting doesn’t matter, complaining doesn’t matter. Millennials were raised that those are the processes, we have come to realize they don’t work and our kids are being raised with the understanding that that doesn’t work. If they want things to change, and it literally HAS to, that is what needs to happen. Either accept the status quo or forcefully change it. If I understand history, that is the most American thing you can do.

    • cooopsspace
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      The funny thing is that we have politicians here in Australia that complain about “woke” environmentalists standing up for the environment by sitting down on the road. They’re trying to have them labelled as terrorists for simply sitting down in the street.

      Meanwhile in France, Farmers who are angry about stopping of diesel concessions are setting things on fire, blocking streets with tractors and dumping manure and dirt into the street to block public servants responsible into buildings.

      The point is two fold, French have always done protests better. And the west conservatives have a massive raging boner for eroding ones rights to protest.

      • Bronzie@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I support protesting wholeheartedly, but blocking a road is among the most moronic ways to protest I can think of.
        They are blocking emergency vehicles, people going to work, people doing errands, visiting family, goods being transported etc.
        There is a reason people get pissed off and pull them off of the road themselves. It does absolutely nothing to further their cause.
        It doesn’t even effect the people they protest against.

        Imagine missing your kids show, mothers dying breath or the flight to your long awaited vacation and family visit because someone couldn’t think of a more appropriate way to protest than sitting down and being an absolute butthole.

          • Bronzie@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            I don’t call people potentially dying an inconvenience.
            They have no moral right to decide wether or not people make it to where they are going.

            So what do they hope to achieve?
            If it is awarenes, then there are much better ways of doing it

    • daltotron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’m gonna be honest, I’m a zoomer (ahhh yes I’m a zoomer, I’m a zoomer, yippee! Everyone look at me, I’m the zoomer) and, looking towards the future, my future, I’m already kinda there. I just think we both haven’t quite hit the critical mass where everyone else is at that point, yet, and I think that the narrative about, you know, why things suck, I think that’s been co-opted with a mixed level of success, forcing people to feel “fine” with their circumstances, or, forcing people to feel personally responsible for their circumstances, as the case may be. I also think there’s a good amount of cynicism about standing up to the US government and institutions, since we’ve been fed a shitload of stuff against that, and then, you know, we’re all fucked and have limited resources and whatever. I also think people are probably too nice for their own good, most people just kind of want to chill, even if that means they’re actually not allowed to chill because they have to work 2 jobs and have no energy and one financial emergency could wipe them out instantly.

      I dunno, I feel pretty cynical, but I also feel like things will probably get at least a little bit worse, before they get better. I just hope they get worse in the right way, instead of in the whole like, world ending kind of way. Or, localized apocalypse, kind of way, more likely.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    122
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    This seems like a good place to post this reminder that in the last 50 years income has lost to inflation by 137 points. That’s decades of prices rising faster than wages. It’s not rocket science. They walked away with all of the productivity gains, and gave the entire country a pay cut at the same time. You want a boring dystopia? How about stealing your paycheck a couple percentage points a year until suddenly we realize we can’t afford to live without 3 full time incomes in one household.

    • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      78
      ·
      8 months ago

      Where I’m from, the median house price has risen 600% relative to the median income in the past 50 years.

      That means the deposit we pay today is the equivalent of the entire 30 year mortgage of the people calling you lazy.

    • TengoDosVacas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      8 months ago

      Without violent pushback there is no reason at all to improve things. Cant afford to live?.. fuck you, we’ll find someone who can. Piss off, peasant.

        • Saurok@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          7 months ago

          Shawn Fain (United Auto Workers president) has been calling for unions across every industry to align their contracts to end at the same time on May 1st, 2028 (International Labor Day), specifically so that we can prepare for a general strike. Gives the already organized unions time to build up a strike fund and non-organized folks time to get organized.

            • Saurok@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              Might be worth your while to look into Locals in your area that aren’t necessarily IT focused unions. Some unions (like the Teamsters and others) will still help you organize under their union even though they typically represent workers in a specific industry. I don’t have an office workers union local in my neck of the woods, but I’ve been giving it some thought as well.

        • TengoDosVacas@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          People who can’t afford three days off work will certainly fare well by not participating in a general strike.

          /S

      • Brainsploosh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 months ago

        One percent relative what the market was at the starting point.

        The market today is 237 % of starting point (probably 1990).

    • Obinice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      gave the entire country a pay cut

      Entire country? Which country? We’re talking about our whole western civilisation.

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      Inflation isn’t prices growing faster than wages, it’s just prices growing in general. Don’t let anyone tell you that gentle inflation is bad for poor people.

      Debtors gain from inflation because they pay their fixed debts with currency worth less. When interest rates are low, refinance or borrow at low fixed rates. When inflation rises, your fixed debt costs go down in real terms.

      If you want wages to increase, support a higher minimum wage.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        8 months ago

        This isn’t just inflation over 50 years. This is divergence in the inflation of wages and core inflation. So prices over all have risen by 137 points more than wages have risen. This isn’t the talk about inflation vs deflation vs death spirals. This is everything slowly becoming less affordable over time. And it really doesn’t matter if the money is worth less when the interest rate on the loan is far beyond inflation in the first place. You either pay it back quickly (monthly on a card) or watch it spiral out of control rapidly because adjustable rate loans work off of inflation and your wages didn’t go up to match. So now you have that much less money a month to buy food.

        Theoretically inflation is good for borrowers. In practice you need a certain base of money for that to be true. If you can’t cover increased costs over the life of the loan then inflation is going to take you behind the shed.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      The Market Has Spoken: Get Fucked.

      A riveting exploration of the markets and society of the 21st century that will be written in 2200 lol

  • JohnFoe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    8 months ago

    We’re DINKs just starting to push into the “living a comfortable life” range. As in, we can do what we want and enjoy doing it.

    However, bringing a kid into that picture throws all of that away. Hospital bills, diapers, just the costs in general would wipe us out.

    We most likely wouldn’t qualify for any reimbursements and are already maximizing the ones we have such as house financing and taxes.

    I obsessively try to keep my “IOUs” to a minimum meaning aggressive mortgage payments and credit cards within the limitations of what I can pay off immediately but even that is difficult.

    The house needs work - new siding and windows, unexpected issues like the boiler dieing etc. And I’m generally fearful of what we’d find behind the siding (termites??? everything not up to code?) A new job like that could turn into $40-50K that we just don’t have floating around.

    I don’t go to doctors because I was afraid of what I might find. I’m lucky in the fact that my insurance is now pushing in the correct direction but still ludicrously expensive… And I mean ludicrously for the lack of services available that won’t cost me an additional fortune.

    The wife also works a must-commute 9-5. Not sure how she, or both of us would be able to handle childcare needs and not feel like we would be neglecting the kid.

    When would I ever be able to afford a kid in these situations?

    And I am lucky to say that we are DINKs that are getting paid relatively well… How can people that are below us in income survive having kids?

  • AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    8 months ago

    After WW2 almost every other developed nation was in ruin. The US was “the only game in town” when it came to production. This caused US labor to be in high demand and priced at a premium compared to places like in Europe or Japan, who were more concerned about rebuilding than exporting goods.

    THIS is how a high school dropout could afford a house and a family. Because that high school dropout was basically your only option for labor. As those other countries finished rebuilding a lot manufacturing jobs left and things started to get “back to normal”.

    The US was in a unique position but like most things it was just squandered. Now the US is “regressing towards the mean”. This is going to be the new normal because the last 40-50 years was an exception.

    • Damage@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Europe was reduced to rubble, but my grandfathers, who were children during the war and after, both still managed to build a house, raise two kids each and set money aside; one of my grandmothers worked as a seamstress and those grandparents not only built houses for themselves and each kid, but essentially owned a whole block in our village. The other grandfather was the son of an orphan, still managed to do well.

      I had to take a job that requires great effort, stress and skill and keeps me away from home 40% of the time, it pays well but still I couldn’t dream to be able to do the same as they did.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      8 months ago

      That’s true to a point. However bigger effects were the rise in executive compensation, the loss of labor and corporate regulations, and the resurgence of the shipping industry such that it was cheaper to ship from China than to make it in the US. It’s true that demand for US manufactured goods has fallen, but there’s no reason our current Service economy should struggle like it is.

    • Bennettiquette@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      8 months ago

      enlightened bit of context here.

      correct me if i’m wrong, but these are the colloquial “golden days” that so many want to return to, right? a period which undoubtedly contributed to the presumption of american exceptionalism in the minds of its citizens.

      if only there was a way to build a future out of transparency and sustainable systems instead of perpetuating our collective delusions.

    • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      8 months ago

      I think attributing the “good years” just to post war production is an incomplete explanation. The real issue is irresponsible private ownership and hobbling the value our economy can create.

      Creating true value in our work is possible. Once some types of work are done the output can continue to benefit our society for decades. But a confluence of decisions by private owners have meant often we don’t receive that benefit, and instead it’s siphoned away as profit.

    • DrQuickbeam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      I moved from the US to Italy, where everything is cheaper and better quality, and we get free healthcare, free college, retirement pension and six months paid maternity leave. All this on a 35% tax rate. Public daycare is about $300 a month, housing expenses are about half of what I paid in the US, and while groceries are about the same, they are all local, organic, non GMO and -get this - crops are grown for flavor rather than weight. Houses are smaller here and wages are usually lower, but working hours are less and less intense, and the pace of life is much chiller.

    • Obinice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Thankfully we don’t live in the US then, but these same dark times are washing over us in Europe too :-(

  • Mahonia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    7 months ago

    But there’s actually an outrageous amount of wealth in the west. It just needs to be redistributed.

    It’s not an easy problem to fix, but it’s relatively simple.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      Unfortunately, much of that wealth was stolen from the global south via colonization. Redistribution of ownership must be done at a global, international level.

        • in4aPenny@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Not just their land, but their ideas of “freedom”, “equality”, and “democracy”. Europeans didn’t even know those words until the French Missionaries in the late 1600’s were met with the Indigenous Critique, and how Indigenous Americans had equal rights for men and women, were free to disobey arbitrary authority, had a conglomerate of states that conveined in a “federal” central committee, and could impeach their rulers. Of course, so-called “Enlightenment” philosophers who were just rich trust-fund babies stole that idea to create America and call themselves “Enlightened Thinkers” as if they came up with it themselves, while simultaneously degrading the Indigenous Critique by calling them “savages” who were “less advanced” than Europeans based on evidence they dreamed up while staring at a fireplace (I’m look at you Rousseu and Hobbes), stealing Indigenous politics as their own, and thanking them with ethnic cleansing.

          Fuck Europeans.

          • Plopp@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            As a European I agree. The amount of shit we, on our high white horses, caused across the globe is astonishing. It would be interesting to see what the world would have looked like today had there never been any colonization.

      • Mahonia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I can’t imagine why you’d get downvoted for that. Yes that’s absolutely true and I’m all for a globally equitable wealth redistribution.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          7 months ago

          It’s the whole “they’re gonna hunt me for sport?!” Meme, I think. They imagine that if we share ownership equitably globally, they will suddenly have to go to eating rats and dying in the streets, when realistically it will just mean a heavier emphasis on industrialization and international public transit, with more equitable distribution of wealth.

          For anyone confused: no, I’m not advocating for people taking your gaming PC.

  • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    8 months ago

    It’s wealth inequality. Capital accumulates capital, and it actually means something because wealth is control, and things like housing that determine control over people’s lives are forms of wealth that get concentrated away from regular people along with everything else.

    IMO two main things need to happen:

    • redistribution of wealth
    • increase housing supply
    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Oh but they actively took our paychecks too. This wasn’t just government welfare for the wealthy and the stock market. When they fired Janet because they only needed one worker instead of two thanks to new software? They didn’t pay Bob extra. That’s wealth just sucked up into the Executive and Shareholder realm. Then to add salt to the wound of doing two jobs they give Bob a December raise below inflation. (because of course there is still actually more that Bob has to do, the software didn’t fix everything.) So now they get Janet’s pay and the extra revenue they denied Bob, because of course their prices damn sure went up in step with inflation.

      This kind of fuckery has resulted in an estimated upwards transfer of around 47 Trillion dollars.

  • Haagel@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    I’m not advocating violence, of course, because that’s illegal both on this platform and in real life.

    However, the history of humanity has demonstrated that powerful people need to be publicly executed in order for there to be sea change in economic inequalities. When enough people have nothing to lose, said executions become inevitable.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m not advocating violence, of course, because that’s illegal both on this platform and in real life.

      No it’s not.

      1. This platform’s policies do not have the force of law.

      2. Advocating for violence in general isn’t illegal; only specific threats are. (Trump, for example, is an idiot-savant at walking that fine line.)

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Assuming change involves violence you simply advocate for the change and “defending” your way of life or “taking back” or “sheparding society”. Violent Neo Nazis use this kind of rhetoric all the time to get people to do stupid shit and then escape accountability for winding them up. The absolute best way though? Thoroughly make your case and spread your ideology. When enough people feel like things aren’t going right and they can’t make change any other way, violence is the natural next inflection point.

        That all said. We really should be trying to do things peacefully. Political violence is fucking nasty and modern civil wars see things like militias taking control of small towns or neighborhoods to kill everyone they find because they think they voted the wrong way. If we could avoid that I’d be grateful, I really don’t need to witness a second factional battle with hundreds of people on either side right down a main street in a city.

        • Haagel@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          I certainly don’t want civil war. I would, however, like to see a few billionaires fear for their life enough that they would lossen their death grip on the future health and wellbeing of the rest of the world’s inhabitants.

          • Haagel@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            It’s really hard for me to imagine a scenario where large groups of people are fighting on principle to protect billionaires.

    • forrgott@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      The only way to avoid this that I have ever been able to imagine would require our global society to somehow abandon the concept of currency. But that’s insane, of course, so we’re probably screwed…

      • PorkRoll@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        Not insane. Insane is making up a system of what is worth keeping alive and then sacrificing life on Earth for that system. If we want to survive as a species, we might have to embrace a sort of gift economy.

        • forrgott@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Thanks for your reassurance. You know, given that the entire purpose of operating as a society is for everybody’s individual benefit, it seems kinda weird to reject a “gift economy” out of hand, doesn’t it? Basically, if each and every member of a society doesn’t benefit from how that society is organized, then said society has failed at it’s most primary function.

  • OpenStars@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    Die.

    Whenever I hear someone say “what are people supposed to do?”, that is what I remind myself is the default.

    When the rich have taken everything that they want, that is all that is leftover for literally everyone else.

    A magic utopia is not the default. That took effort to build, and now the ultra-wealthy are putting in effort to tear it down, so it is ludicrous to think that without effort that things will magically go back to the way they were. That is neither how inertia nor entropy work.

    Sorry this is upsetting, but it is the Truth. When Trump wins, it will get even worse, not better. Maybe we should do something about it.

  • saintshenanigans@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    It’s not even about money anymore.

    I’m not positive that the world is going to be a comfortable place to live in at all in the next 40-80 years. I can’t be sure it’s morally acceptable to bring a new life into the world just to struggle until death. I know if I were given the choice I would have rather just not have been, it’s not worth struggling forever just to barely get by until the game changes yet again and you get knocked back down to the peg you started on.

    • Icaria@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      I can’t be sure it’s morally acceptable to bring a new life into the world just to struggle until death.

      That has been true for just about everyone throughout history.

      the game changes yet again and you get knocked back down to the peg you started on.

      People in the developed world not having kids is part of how they ‘win’ the game.

      The reason boomers were able to demand so much is because, as the name implies, they’re a big fucking cohort. They were politically influential from the time they could vote. Keeping birthrates depressed and shipping in cheap foreign labour is how those with power keep everyone else powerless.

      It’s a weird situation, but the way to improve living standards for future generations is to… have future generations. Even if you don’t feel like you can entirely support them now.

      • aidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        You’ll bring the “Population Bomb” doomers out, proving failed predictions never have consequences for the predictors since they can always say it will happen next year- since 1798

  • Surreal@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    8 months ago

    People who think of their children and want to give them the best future but don’t have the money for it don’t have children. People who don’t care about the future of their children, ended up having children.

    This leads to more children being born with shitty parents who don’t care about them.

    • Misconduct@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      This is a bit unfair. There are lots of circumstances that result in children that weren’t planned. Lots of millennials grew up being told to just pop out the babies and the rest will happen. No the fuck it doesn’t. Not anymore anyway. Maybe that was true at some point but now what happens is they have to work harder than ever while daycare raises their kids. Meanwhile, they have to work a second job to just pay for daycare. When I was a kid I remember my mom getting a lot more gov assistance than seems to ever happen for people now. It was rough but we never had to worry a out keeping a roof over our heads or food on our table. Half those life changing programs are gone now. At least in my area.

    • Facebones@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      8 months ago

      Being a millionaire isn’t even enough anymore. You have to be at least a multimillionaire to live off of it.

      • Mango@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Uhh no. I could do just fine with the rest of my life and a million dollars.

        • Facebones@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          If you keep working and investing etc etc, sure. That’s not what I said.

          I said to live off of it, which is generally the implied point of the “millionaire” goal. Retirement and whatnot. The generally accepted number is you can safely pull down (depending on the year and performance etc etc) ~30k, MAYBE 40k per mil you have invested. Fine if you’re still in the workforce and all that but it’s not paying the bills on its own if you have a single M.

    • fidodo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      That’s giving them too much credit. They’re just greedy and trying to manipulate markets to hoard as much wealth as possible and they don’t care what happens to the workers.

    • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I agree with your stance on policy, but honest question here:

      I hear lots of theories that the ownership class are trying to limit reproduction of the classes below them.

      Why though? Don’t they want a huge population of desperate workers that keep fueling their profits and keeping their well-manicured hands from doing any real work?

      I dunno, I wonder sometimes if we apply Hanlon’s Razor and it really is an extreme example of incredibly shortsighted capitalist stupidity: “Yeah we’re running out of workers but that’s not a problem THIS quarter…”

  • Adalast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    7 months ago

    I am that educated couple. Wife has an associates and was just able to find a small job. I have associates, BS, and MA and can’t even get a fucking interview because I don’t have the absolutely insane list of qualifications on my resume that these companies are demanding for a half-decent paying job. I did everything I was supposed to and they still won’t fucking pay me.

  • Toneswirly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    7 months ago

    meanwhile 1000 and 1 Stinkpieces are being written about population decline, blaming young generations for not getting busy while job and housing prospects go down the shitter.

        • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          7 months ago

          I don’t really agree, because I consider labor or opportunity based immigration a symptom of continued economic injustice in the global south. Modern societies, among many other things, need to acknowledge the reality that the planet has a material limit on the population it can support.

          • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            7 months ago

            You’re right. I was thinking that immigration could be an answer under capitalism, but I agree that exploiting immigration maintains inequality.

          • aidan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Yes it does, but why do you assume we’re anywhere near close to it now? Especially with current growth trends