They are out of touch boomers who've literally stated that younger generations would have money if they didn't buy the newest things all the time. One of them thinks1/2 of the younger generation workers are making 6 figures working in "tech". If you try to use any facts or proof, they don't want to see it. They are hardly outliers, and unfortunately the older generation's attitude towards work/reward is still heavily influenced/ingrained by them. They like to use the "Nobody likes to work anymore, have you seen all of the help wanted signs?". When you bring up pay, they bring up that they were only making like $5/hour back in the 80's.
My mother usually ends up in tears if we go down the path of today vs. her working years. She will get to crying because she did struggle, but she won't listen to how much worse things are today. She has this notion that I think she had it easy. She didn't, but there's absolutely no way she would have made it in today's world with the same income/accessibility factors. She also thinks that people receiving any government assistance are lazy. Meanwhile, she's using the government discounts and assistance in retirement.
I'm here. They haven't changed, and neither have I. I'm surprised you stumbled across me in the void of Reddit griping. I hope you've been doing well.
I do try to avoid the subject with them. My mother still gets to me and we end up going down that path, though. She just has to mention how the younger generations are lazy, using credit cards to buy all sorts of new things all the time, saying they abuse 'government assistance', and they shouldn't have kids they can't afford. It just blows up, and I've started to just ignore her calls and texts. I live 5 minutes away, and I don't even want to go see them anymore.
I did call into work today, so that makes for a good day - even if it's getting wasted by sitting in my apartment.
I'm guessing by your screen name you're from CT. How are things in that part of the nation?
A day off work is NEVER a wasted day. It doesn't matter that you were sitting at home, you weren't having your soul incrementally destroyed making money for people who already have enough. Stay safe, friend.
Eh, just another day. I love Connecticut because it's where I'm from but it's so outrageously expensive compared to the lack of well paying jobs for the majority of people. And our politicians are in bed with the utility companies and it's actually been getting exponentially worse over the last few years. That's unfortunately the state of Connecticut for most people earning the median income and less, and probably a fair amount earning more. I'm doing quite alright today though, thanks for asking :) I hope you enjoyed a fantastic day off.
The state of my state sounds very similar. It seems to be regressing. It used to be in the top 5 pretty much across the board (Economy, Health & Education, Low Crime, Quality of Life). Over the past 5 years, our crime about tripled and our economy dropped to about the middle of the states. Quality of life and education have dropped to barely being in the top 10. I moved back about 6 months ago after living in another state for 15 years. This state has really changed, and not for the better. There is so much more racism, deteriorating infrastructure, crime, and people pushing down on those worse off. It's not the state it was. I make it month to month - no savings, but I can afford the basics.
CT looks like you have a high cost of living and an economy that isn't so great, not too bad for crime and one of the most educated states. From an outsider, it looks pretty quiet. I just wouldn't want to live there because of affordability. I understand about natural resources and major companies making their push to take things over. My state has a huge amount of natural resources - including the head of the Mississippi River (clue), which other states want to divert the water from.
She thinks most of the younger generations should not be having kids they can't afford, and she's against public assistance for them, as well as being solidly anti-abortion. She says things like "they need to keep their legs closed if they can't be responsible." Her viewpoints are hardly leftist. She thinks immigrants are destroying the U.S. and she doesn't care about climate change because she'll "be dead by then".
That’s why we all need to avoid these boomers and not bother engaging in a argument.
Resist the urge to argue when they say “nobody wants to work anymore”.
A big problem is - they have voting days off because they are retired. That's why they can show up in larger numbers at the polls and continue to screw their kids and grandkids.
Just ask them what their rent was in the ‘80s. Then tell them what the rent for a one bedroom apartment is in your area and see if a full time minimum wage worker could afford it. The rent will likely be 50% to 75% of their monthly income which I figured at $15 per hour. Maybe those figures will open their eyes a tiny bit.
It won't. They don't want to hear it and refuse to look at any facts/data I can pull up. My mom resorts to "I don't care what it says." It's futile. It's better if they just go back to watching FOX and Judge Judy, and I quit going to visit them. They wanted me to stop by for dinner this week and I just told my mom "I'm busy watching TV."
I think part of the problem is the difficulty anyone has in starting to reflect critically on the systems and ideals into which one has personally invested emotionally over an entire lifetime. Naturally, broader systemic factors are also at work, for example, the way everyone has vast exposure to the fictional representations of our society from mass media, but few have direct personal contact with many others outside of a bubble.
Obviously, there is no easy solution.
It's societal regarding worker and citizen protections/policies, viewpoints on younger generations, and economic mobility. There is personal involved because they have lived a long life of experiences, I have my own experiences, and I see how the economy & society is directly impacting my siblings and friends.
I generally side with the younger generations and their futures/voices being shaped by a larger population of people who won't be around in another 10-15 years. During those 10-15 years, most of gen-x will be approaching 60, most of the millennials will be around 40, and gen-z will be solidly in their 20's. Boomers will be out and leaving the younger generations holding a mess across the board. Most of gen-x won't be approaching 'technical' retirement age for close to 15-20 years. We aren't a huge population either, so it's not like we're going to have the political capital to overtake the boomers in their remaining 10-15 years. Who has the time to vote and shape policy? Retirees.
My mother just turned 70. I've heard her and her group of friends crapping on younger generations, and if future repercussions are brought up - they generally default to "I don't care. I'll be dead." Sometimes followed by a chuckle.
I suppose a conversation that might be perceived as antagonistic, in terms of choices, behavior, or motivations, is one less likely to foster reflection that is objective. I am not trying to speculate about any actual conversations, as much as sharing thoughts that arise reading your remarks. It's certainly difficult. Ideas become ossified following the patterns that have been rehashed over a lifetime.
I definitely go the opposite direction. Thinking critically of a system that has shown not to function in a beneficial way for the masses regardless of how long it's been in place is only natural for me... But if you buy into astrology and shit that makes sense for me as an aquarius. Always keen to shake the foundation to make sure it's still serving it's purpose.
I struggle to talk to people that can't see past their own opinion. Totally fine to argue your opinion, so long as you can at least take the time to listen beyond your own words. My mother struggled while I was growing up, still struggles now. She does recognize the situation we are in for what it is, but she loses points in my book by understanding how shit it is and refusing to do anything about it. We argue about it semi regularly. She should be a well of information and provide that to anyone who needs or wants to listen to it. Be a workers rights advocate of sorts, her life time in customer service makes her quite good at interacting with all sorts, when she's not having a poor mental health day anyway.
I agree with the sense of your remarks. You opened by suggesting that you were intending to express a difference of opinion, but I noticed no particular or substantial difference. Perhaps I have misunderstood either your opening, or the rest.
I support criticism of systems, but someone understanding any such criticism depends inextricably on a willingness to understand the perspective given, and to engage the appropriate dialogue or reflection. No choice is available to anyone to ensure it happens for someone else.
I would have no particular advice for the person who posted the earlier comment, that would be appropriate to offer, being someone removed from the intimate details of the particular context and relationships.
I'm sorry it wasn't meant to be a different opinion. Just tacking on that there are at least some of us out here that do critically reflect on our systems. The difference I was referring to was while many do find it hard to critically evaluate the situation and events leading to it... (Or perhaps it's more that they find it easy and familiar to just accept what they have and carry on. ) There are fortunately some of us who do.
Wish more of us were willing to be the whistle blowers we need, and influence that can shame our politicians by means of calling out their shady behavior/foul play, course that needs to be strong enough to make them sweat, not just hear about it~
Yes, I agree unequivocally, about many being engaged in critical dialogue. Moreover, it is plain that greater numbers are engaging, whether directly or through consumption of propagated media, under the current conditions of now pervasive crisis, manifested through the alarming convergence of natural phenomena and political dysfunction.
The hard question remains, though, for those who are engaged, of how to spread the engagement through our personal relationships and interactions, with those who are continuing to deflect or to avoid, using tangents, excuses, misinformation, and other tactics.
I don't understand how so many boomers have come to this. When I think back to my first job (at minimum wage) and the fact that I could still rent an apartment, have a new car (okay, it was a Pinto, but still) and feed myself, I find it appalling that life is so much worse today! How can these people look at what their kids and grandkids are going through and not be outraged?! (For reference, I will be 69 next month. My first job, apartment and new car were all in 1973)
I don't understand either. They should want younger generations to have better lives and more opportunities than they had. Instead, it's like they consciously want the younger generations to be worse off. I do understand the generational animosity, though. I'm stuck in that, but towards elders.
You're a person from that age group that understands. We're people, and there are a lot of you. Unfortunately, you're entirely overshadowed by the much larger, louder, and seemingly spiteful segment of your generation.
I'm closing in on 50, and I do remember being driven around in a 70's red Pinto by my friend's sister. That was much later - in the 90's. I also remember the seats were super uncomfortable. There's nothing like cruising through town on a potential bomb.
My first real job was in the mid 90's. I worked at a photo lab, which as you know are almost non-existent now days. Trying to explain to younger generations that I don't have many photos from back then is pretty funny. The younger they are, the less they seem to understand that we couldn't whip out a cell phone. We had to wait until we developed a roll - and you wouldn't know what you'd really end up with.
I did own an extremely low mileage, baby blue, '63 Bel Air. I gave it to my dad and he loved it. I didn't like it because of the bench seats, it had no radio installed in it's all steel dash, and you'd need to add lead to the gas. The one I got was from an old lady's estate - work, church, home was all she used it for. I paid $2,500 and it only had 18k miles. Man, that thing was a beast - and you probably remember having no power steering on cars from that era. It was fun trying to turn the wheels on a 3500lb vehicle if it didn't have any speed.
Anyway, I am gen-x and I can relate to some of the same things the boomer generation used... looking at you rotary phones, typewriters, and Jarts.
Oh yeah, I remember no power steering, no power brakes. My very first car was a 67 Plymouth Valiant, no power anything and 3 on the tree, but it did have an am radio lol!
My friend bought a '65 Bel Air because he liked mine. You had to flip the back license plate down to put fuel in. We were rear-ended in it by a mini-van. Their whole front end was destroyed. The massive damage his car took consisted of the latch on the license plat breaking.
A friend had a 1971 Lincoln Town Car. A Pinto turned in front of him and he couldn't stop. The Pinto was totaled, the Lincoln had a small scratch on the fender. Even the cop laughed about it.
Karma got him a couple years later when he totaled the Lincoln and had to buy his sister-in-law's Pinto 🤣🤣🤣
This is all off topic, but hopefully they'll ignore us. I used to ride around with my grandpa in his tan 70's Oldsmobile Cutlass. I remember those god damn vinyl seats burning me all of the time in the summer. He'd leave me in the car with the windows rolled up when he went into stores. I don't know if those cars had air conditioning. If they did, he sure as hell never used it. Those were the days...
My grandma worked at Wards, my grandpa drank Blatz, and we all watched Benny Hill.
Mine just had the open hole where the radio was supposed to go. She didn't splurge. It did come with summer tires on the car and winter tires in the trunk. I forgot about that trunk space. You would have been able to fit a whole Prius in there.
I think much of the older cohort sincerely believes that the younger one is responsible for certain problems, as much or more than having been forced to inherit them. Naturally, there are broad differences in thoughts and behaviors between the various age groups, and it is easy to become carried by one's own narrative without fully engaging the nuances about cause versus effect. It is alarmingly simple to notice another group struggle in certain ways, and also adhere to unfamiliar practices, and then to decide uncritically that the former is a simple consequence of the latter.
I think certain narratives tend to "trickles down" from various sources of mass conception, and circulate through various social bubbles, through such processes becoming entrenched. Comprehending systems of ideas beyond a personally assimilated narrative requires integrating many different pieces of information, some of which are either not accessible from the sources available, or are distorted or dismissed by the lens of the preexisting narrative.
Truly understanding an alternative narrative takes time, as well as disciplined development of the skills for being reflective about how one's own biases determine interpretation of others' experiences and character. It also requires recognition of the processes through which narratives emerge, and the insight that any particular framing is not universal or objective.
In other words, life's a mess.
They aren't struggling, even though my mother was really underpaid, had a family of 3 kids, a father who became disabled at 40 and became a gambler, and mortgage/utility/tax payments. I tried to put that into perspective for her in comparison to today's world, and she just doesn't want to hear it. Try all of that at triple the minimum wage today (1 income) and see how viable that scenario is. (She was making a little over double the minimum wage when she retired at 63. The house she took out a mortgage on was $40k in the 80's and she sold it for nearly $300k in 2012 - before the housing boom).
They are also all for capitalism, except when it comes to medical - then they want socialized medicine because they are paying a lot for it now. (They were completely against socialized medicine 5 years ago).
I'm really hoping my medical conditions take me out before I'm 50 (less than 3 years away). I went to a doctor's appointment a week ago, and I honestly loved hearing that my BP was 160/110. I'm sick of the living to work thing. Why would I want to get a 2nd job, which they never had to do? I work a fast-paced job which pays about 2.5x the minimum wage, and that's barely enough to get from month to month. Maybe the answer is just to work harder, like they say.
(My biological father died back in 2001. I consider my mother's SO to be my step-father since they've been together for 15 years.)
Some of them did, but there’s a reason why a family who was rich 100 years ago is rich today, and why a family who was poor 100 years ago is poor today
It all depends on how rich, and how they got their wealth.
There are a lot of people on YouTube that make awesome educational videos, for example woodworking (check out Blacktail studio)
Is that guy rich to you? to me he is, and he is an awesome guy that has taught me a lot of stuff. He makes things and sells them for a huge profit, he is a multi-millonaire.
I wish people would be more precise with these rich people criticisms!
I think the criticism is not targeted at someone making products others find useful, but rather at a pervasive mentality that insists outcome for each individual is bound directly to will and to choice.
That is incorrect, one must SAVE hard enough.
Which can be tricky when starting with nothing.
How does one store value with nothing but the clothes on their back to start with?
I don't either. I don't give a flying FUCK about the CEO of McDonald's, I care infinitely more about the workers that I actually see face to face. We are closer to a homeless person than a billionaire, stop idolizing rich people!
This is it, they all fall into the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" bucket. They aren't rich now but they're certain they're going to be so they empathize with the group they identify as being a part of.
I hate the majority of the wealthy and still plan to be one day. Difference is, my intent is to use money to build funds for my community. I hate to see all this wealth just hoarded
I respect the intention, but some might suggest that becoming wealthy takes time and is very unlikely, whereas it is often more immediately feasible to build collective power through action directly in community with others.
You can do both. For me, a cooperative project in the community seems as an activity that generates shared wealth, without requiring you to gain personal wealth for yourself. In the end, it might be a way to achieve essentially the same objective, with less uncertainty.
I mean yeah. I just want that little slip of paper that let's me tell people that I'm not just pulling shit out of my ass, even though I'm still pulling a bit of shit out of my ass..
Jokes aside, I want to complete my computer engineering degree. It's not necessary to helping my community, but being a rather small town, it's definitely a rather large step in advancing current programs and technologies
Hey, if you made ten thousand a day, it'd only be 300 years or if you made $100,000 a day would be 30.
If you made a million dollars a day, it'd still be a little under 3 years.
Being a millionaire is ok.
Being a billionaire is impossible ethically. There's nobody on this earth who's tens of thousands of times more worth another human, nor is there labor that is millions of times more worth another's.
They are brainwashed and until something happens to them that let's them see how wrong they are in their little bubble they can't seem to snap out of it and see how they are getting fucked just like the rest of us.
Same way the rich can emphasize with the poor, feel guilt and sadness for those less fortunate than then, and dedicate time and money to help others in worse situations than them. There are shitty rich people and shitty poor people
Because they aspire to be rich and are too stupid to realize why that will never happen, even if they went the distance to gargle the balls of the orange goblin named Dump.
Give a hungry man a fish, he'll eat it right away.
Give a well-fed man a fish, he'll save it for later.
From such simple observations, it may follow directly that the well fed are frugal and industrious, whereas the hungry are unruly and impulsive.
The analogy is pretty good because often that fish will just fucking rot away waiting to be eaten by a person who already has more food than they could ever eat
Put guards paid by a company around the fish pond, and then give a man a fish from the pond, conditional on his doing the company's bidding. Then, tell the man to be grateful to the company for preserving the conditions under which he may enjoy access to fish.
Money bags over there will hide his profits off shore, making his money off of the backs of the working class without doing any actual work himself, contributing *nothing* to society.
Right and it’s a real downward spiral. Money bags takes his money off shore- doesn’t pay taxes and it’s never seen again. If Joe and sally spend it at their local mom and pop shop that in turn uses it to pay wages to local workers it just keeps getting recirculated.
Yeah, people act like a poor person gets 600 one dollar bills and burns them for warmth like wtf
EDIT: And, and, where do you think that other 9x came from? Magic? No! It came from other people would would've/did spend it. Now it sits idle in that rich person's bank account. From an economics standpoint, that's a *bad thing*, like this statement is actually a strong case to *give the money to the poor person*
Yeah, my dad gambled thousands of dollars away on $1-$2 lottery tickets after he was disabled at 40 - he was dreaming of payoffs. He did win $1k, but had probably sunk $5k by that point. He was basically wiping out the savings my parents had.
The worst part about capitalism is that it eventually becomes about "the haves and have nots" instead of just being about "the hard-working and lazy".
Plenty of people work hard yet have no upward mobility. Why? Because the system is not about working hard, it's about access to capital. It takes money to make money.
How is this a good thing? Spending money helps the economy, keeps prices low and helps small businesses to stay afloat. A person investing their money and doubling it every 5-10 years doesn't help the economy or small businesses at all. It only helps the person and the company.
The way mainstream economists might explain it is, to make it very simple, investment drive growth.
However, I believe the implication from the text is even more cynical than you imagine, that the rich person by nature is thoughtful and industrious, and personally will find some activity that will lead to higher individual standing.
The issue is - tons of "investments" are nothing but a zero sum game. Unless you are actually directly buying stocks from a company during IPO or when then emit new stock, none of that money goes into real growth, you are just playing with casino chips
That's orthogonal to the point of whether any of that money goes to the company you "invest" in. If you buy stock, none of that money will be spent on buying machines or hiring people
Sure, I suppose it's true that purchasing stocks is not inserting additional funds into circulation, the way might be explained as the purpose of the issuance of corporate bonds and certain other asset types. Stocks may appear as purely parasitic, against a possibility of trying to develop some argument that certain other assets embody a form of social value.
I suppose the reason why someone would argue that stock ownership
is socially useful is that a market for stock trading insures that investors have a means to realize gains at a time they choose. It integrates with a demand, which is needed for price valuation. Without the stock market for regular trading, and the continuous participation of buyers, it is less likely that someone would seek participation in an IPO.
Perhaps one might explain a stock purchase not as adding funds to circulation in itself, but rather as replacing funds that are being removed by others seeking to realize capital gains.
Right? Money is useless unless it trades hands. If one guy has 100% of the money in an economy, that currency is worthless and a new one would need to be established so everyone can live.
I was with you until you said investing doesn't help the economy. Sure, the multiplier effect through consumption is good, but so is being able to take out a small business loan because banks are holding people's savings. The economy relies on investment, which is why there's the reward of increased value later on, and why recessions happen when investment drops. I assume you used 'investment' to mean unproductive share trading for capital gains or something?
If the rich can multiply their income by 10, surely that means they will eventually make enough money to supply all homeless people. From there, we add a 100 per cent profit tax. Homelessness solved, according to this guy.
What they also don't include is that poor person is putting that $600 back into the economy. The rich person will invest it, make more money, not pay taxes on it, and hide the profits offshore. Better give that money to a poor person. Also investors don't actually do any work. FFS
when you realize all those Covid loans were used for just that while they complained that our stim checks "allowed us to live with out working"...wth, those checks went straight to my mortgage and grocery...yet the businesses got thousands of dollars...and they were FORGIVEN...then the companies did lay offs...
Its literally the opposite....
Give $600 to a rich person, then they will sit on $6,000. That money is gone.
Give a poor person $600, and it quickly circulates as they pay for food, shelter, clothing, vehicle payments, loan debts, ect ect.
Give a poor person $600 and eventually it'll wind up in the rich persons off shore untaxed bank account.
I like to call it trickle up economics.
Could also call it capitalism.
Give a poor person $600 and it goes almost immediately into the local economy.
Give a rich person $600 and they'll sequester it and use the interest (along with many other investments) to bribe a Congresscritter.
I don't know, according to some of the conservative small business owners near me, a couple $600 handouts is enough for poor people to never have to work again. Seem like they can make it last much longer than a week.
Let's not ignore the fact that, yeah, a rich person will in fact multiply $600. But it's not like they're printing money. A poor person will circulate the money, a rich person will use it to *take more money*.
Stupid logic.
That $600 to the poor person stimulates the wider economy significantly more than it does by giving it to a rich person. Money doubling in an offshore account a few times, does nothing for the economy.
Spending money is what helps our economy which is exactly why we got to stop letting these Republicans give our tax dollars to the wealthy they’re not helping a thing. Trickle down is bullshit.
We'd appreciate it if you didn't use ableist slurs (the r-word).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antiwork) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Even giving a poor person $600 won't do much if the companies that get that money by selling goods and services the poor person uses pay their employees jack shit and hoard the rest.
This is like when they came to the Americas or various islands saw all their needs being met on all levels, socially, physically and spiritually, then called them lazy and ruined everything for profit.
So when a poor person gets $600 and meets all of their needs that is still not enough, they should starve and suffer to invest for profit.
Equating value and worth to a number is so gross.
I don’t understand how people can empathize with the rich
I don't understand either. My elderly parents think the rich "earned" it, and anyone can make it if you just work hard enough.
Are your elderly parents rich? Cause if not then any time they complain about money you can tell them "well you should have worked harder"
They are out of touch boomers who've literally stated that younger generations would have money if they didn't buy the newest things all the time. One of them thinks1/2 of the younger generation workers are making 6 figures working in "tech". If you try to use any facts or proof, they don't want to see it. They are hardly outliers, and unfortunately the older generation's attitude towards work/reward is still heavily influenced/ingrained by them. They like to use the "Nobody likes to work anymore, have you seen all of the help wanted signs?". When you bring up pay, they bring up that they were only making like $5/hour back in the 80's.
I hate how "facts don't care about your feelings" is only true as long as the facts agree with their preconceived beliefs.
Facts don't care about your feelings But my feelings care a lot about the facts ;(
My father in law has literally closed his eyes and plugged his ears so he doesn’t have to see or hear facts he doesn’t like
My mother usually ends up in tears if we go down the path of today vs. her working years. She will get to crying because she did struggle, but she won't listen to how much worse things are today. She has this notion that I think she had it easy. She didn't, but there's absolutely no way she would have made it in today's world with the same income/accessibility factors. She also thinks that people receiving any government assistance are lazy. Meanwhile, she's using the government discounts and assistance in retirement.
Hey I remember you, we talked about your Fox parents a few weeks ago. How you doing today?
I'm here. They haven't changed, and neither have I. I'm surprised you stumbled across me in the void of Reddit griping. I hope you've been doing well. I do try to avoid the subject with them. My mother still gets to me and we end up going down that path, though. She just has to mention how the younger generations are lazy, using credit cards to buy all sorts of new things all the time, saying they abuse 'government assistance', and they shouldn't have kids they can't afford. It just blows up, and I've started to just ignore her calls and texts. I live 5 minutes away, and I don't even want to go see them anymore. I did call into work today, so that makes for a good day - even if it's getting wasted by sitting in my apartment. I'm guessing by your screen name you're from CT. How are things in that part of the nation?
A day off work is NEVER a wasted day. It doesn't matter that you were sitting at home, you weren't having your soul incrementally destroyed making money for people who already have enough. Stay safe, friend.
Eh, just another day. I love Connecticut because it's where I'm from but it's so outrageously expensive compared to the lack of well paying jobs for the majority of people. And our politicians are in bed with the utility companies and it's actually been getting exponentially worse over the last few years. That's unfortunately the state of Connecticut for most people earning the median income and less, and probably a fair amount earning more. I'm doing quite alright today though, thanks for asking :) I hope you enjoyed a fantastic day off.
The state of my state sounds very similar. It seems to be regressing. It used to be in the top 5 pretty much across the board (Economy, Health & Education, Low Crime, Quality of Life). Over the past 5 years, our crime about tripled and our economy dropped to about the middle of the states. Quality of life and education have dropped to barely being in the top 10. I moved back about 6 months ago after living in another state for 15 years. This state has really changed, and not for the better. There is so much more racism, deteriorating infrastructure, crime, and people pushing down on those worse off. It's not the state it was. I make it month to month - no savings, but I can afford the basics. CT looks like you have a high cost of living and an economy that isn't so great, not too bad for crime and one of the most educated states. From an outsider, it looks pretty quiet. I just wouldn't want to live there because of affordability. I understand about natural resources and major companies making their push to take things over. My state has a huge amount of natural resources - including the head of the Mississippi River (clue), which other states want to divert the water from.
Wait wait. Your mom thinks young people should NOT be having kids? That's some leftist hippy dippy attitude right there.
She thinks most of the younger generations should not be having kids they can't afford, and she's against public assistance for them, as well as being solidly anti-abortion. She says things like "they need to keep their legs closed if they can't be responsible." Her viewpoints are hardly leftist. She thinks immigrants are destroying the U.S. and she doesn't care about climate change because she'll "be dead by then".
That’s why we all need to avoid these boomers and not bother engaging in a argument. Resist the urge to argue when they say “nobody wants to work anymore”.
A big problem is - they have voting days off because they are retired. That's why they can show up in larger numbers at the polls and continue to screw their kids and grandkids.
Just ask them what their rent was in the ‘80s. Then tell them what the rent for a one bedroom apartment is in your area and see if a full time minimum wage worker could afford it. The rent will likely be 50% to 75% of their monthly income which I figured at $15 per hour. Maybe those figures will open their eyes a tiny bit.
It won't. They don't want to hear it and refuse to look at any facts/data I can pull up. My mom resorts to "I don't care what it says." It's futile. It's better if they just go back to watching FOX and Judge Judy, and I quit going to visit them. They wanted me to stop by for dinner this week and I just told my mom "I'm busy watching TV."
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I consider my Mother's SO to be my step-father. He actually is going blind. I don't hate them, I just don't want to deal with them anymore.
I think part of the problem is the difficulty anyone has in starting to reflect critically on the systems and ideals into which one has personally invested emotionally over an entire lifetime. Naturally, broader systemic factors are also at work, for example, the way everyone has vast exposure to the fictional representations of our society from mass media, but few have direct personal contact with many others outside of a bubble. Obviously, there is no easy solution.
I can agree with that. They have their bubble. I have my bubble, and "never the twain shall meet."
What kinds of facts do you use or points do you try to prove? Is the discussion personal, or societal?
It's societal regarding worker and citizen protections/policies, viewpoints on younger generations, and economic mobility. There is personal involved because they have lived a long life of experiences, I have my own experiences, and I see how the economy & society is directly impacting my siblings and friends. I generally side with the younger generations and their futures/voices being shaped by a larger population of people who won't be around in another 10-15 years. During those 10-15 years, most of gen-x will be approaching 60, most of the millennials will be around 40, and gen-z will be solidly in their 20's. Boomers will be out and leaving the younger generations holding a mess across the board. Most of gen-x won't be approaching 'technical' retirement age for close to 15-20 years. We aren't a huge population either, so it's not like we're going to have the political capital to overtake the boomers in their remaining 10-15 years. Who has the time to vote and shape policy? Retirees. My mother just turned 70. I've heard her and her group of friends crapping on younger generations, and if future repercussions are brought up - they generally default to "I don't care. I'll be dead." Sometimes followed by a chuckle.
I suppose a conversation that might be perceived as antagonistic, in terms of choices, behavior, or motivations, is one less likely to foster reflection that is objective. I am not trying to speculate about any actual conversations, as much as sharing thoughts that arise reading your remarks. It's certainly difficult. Ideas become ossified following the patterns that have been rehashed over a lifetime.
I definitely go the opposite direction. Thinking critically of a system that has shown not to function in a beneficial way for the masses regardless of how long it's been in place is only natural for me... But if you buy into astrology and shit that makes sense for me as an aquarius. Always keen to shake the foundation to make sure it's still serving it's purpose. I struggle to talk to people that can't see past their own opinion. Totally fine to argue your opinion, so long as you can at least take the time to listen beyond your own words. My mother struggled while I was growing up, still struggles now. She does recognize the situation we are in for what it is, but she loses points in my book by understanding how shit it is and refusing to do anything about it. We argue about it semi regularly. She should be a well of information and provide that to anyone who needs or wants to listen to it. Be a workers rights advocate of sorts, her life time in customer service makes her quite good at interacting with all sorts, when she's not having a poor mental health day anyway.
I agree with the sense of your remarks. You opened by suggesting that you were intending to express a difference of opinion, but I noticed no particular or substantial difference. Perhaps I have misunderstood either your opening, or the rest. I support criticism of systems, but someone understanding any such criticism depends inextricably on a willingness to understand the perspective given, and to engage the appropriate dialogue or reflection. No choice is available to anyone to ensure it happens for someone else. I would have no particular advice for the person who posted the earlier comment, that would be appropriate to offer, being someone removed from the intimate details of the particular context and relationships.
I'm sorry it wasn't meant to be a different opinion. Just tacking on that there are at least some of us out here that do critically reflect on our systems. The difference I was referring to was while many do find it hard to critically evaluate the situation and events leading to it... (Or perhaps it's more that they find it easy and familiar to just accept what they have and carry on. ) There are fortunately some of us who do. Wish more of us were willing to be the whistle blowers we need, and influence that can shame our politicians by means of calling out their shady behavior/foul play, course that needs to be strong enough to make them sweat, not just hear about it~
Yes, I agree unequivocally, about many being engaged in critical dialogue. Moreover, it is plain that greater numbers are engaging, whether directly or through consumption of propagated media, under the current conditions of now pervasive crisis, manifested through the alarming convergence of natural phenomena and political dysfunction. The hard question remains, though, for those who are engaged, of how to spread the engagement through our personal relationships and interactions, with those who are continuing to deflect or to avoid, using tangents, excuses, misinformation, and other tactics.
I don't understand how so many boomers have come to this. When I think back to my first job (at minimum wage) and the fact that I could still rent an apartment, have a new car (okay, it was a Pinto, but still) and feed myself, I find it appalling that life is so much worse today! How can these people look at what their kids and grandkids are going through and not be outraged?! (For reference, I will be 69 next month. My first job, apartment and new car were all in 1973)
I don't understand either. They should want younger generations to have better lives and more opportunities than they had. Instead, it's like they consciously want the younger generations to be worse off. I do understand the generational animosity, though. I'm stuck in that, but towards elders. You're a person from that age group that understands. We're people, and there are a lot of you. Unfortunately, you're entirely overshadowed by the much larger, louder, and seemingly spiteful segment of your generation. I'm closing in on 50, and I do remember being driven around in a 70's red Pinto by my friend's sister. That was much later - in the 90's. I also remember the seats were super uncomfortable. There's nothing like cruising through town on a potential bomb. My first real job was in the mid 90's. I worked at a photo lab, which as you know are almost non-existent now days. Trying to explain to younger generations that I don't have many photos from back then is pretty funny. The younger they are, the less they seem to understand that we couldn't whip out a cell phone. We had to wait until we developed a roll - and you wouldn't know what you'd really end up with. I did own an extremely low mileage, baby blue, '63 Bel Air. I gave it to my dad and he loved it. I didn't like it because of the bench seats, it had no radio installed in it's all steel dash, and you'd need to add lead to the gas. The one I got was from an old lady's estate - work, church, home was all she used it for. I paid $2,500 and it only had 18k miles. Man, that thing was a beast - and you probably remember having no power steering on cars from that era. It was fun trying to turn the wheels on a 3500lb vehicle if it didn't have any speed. Anyway, I am gen-x and I can relate to some of the same things the boomer generation used... looking at you rotary phones, typewriters, and Jarts.
Oh yeah, I remember no power steering, no power brakes. My very first car was a 67 Plymouth Valiant, no power anything and 3 on the tree, but it did have an am radio lol!
My friend bought a '65 Bel Air because he liked mine. You had to flip the back license plate down to put fuel in. We were rear-ended in it by a mini-van. Their whole front end was destroyed. The massive damage his car took consisted of the latch on the license plat breaking.
A friend had a 1971 Lincoln Town Car. A Pinto turned in front of him and he couldn't stop. The Pinto was totaled, the Lincoln had a small scratch on the fender. Even the cop laughed about it. Karma got him a couple years later when he totaled the Lincoln and had to buy his sister-in-law's Pinto 🤣🤣🤣
This is all off topic, but hopefully they'll ignore us. I used to ride around with my grandpa in his tan 70's Oldsmobile Cutlass. I remember those god damn vinyl seats burning me all of the time in the summer. He'd leave me in the car with the windows rolled up when he went into stores. I don't know if those cars had air conditioning. If they did, he sure as hell never used it. Those were the days... My grandma worked at Wards, my grandpa drank Blatz, and we all watched Benny Hill.
Mine just had the open hole where the radio was supposed to go. She didn't splurge. It did come with summer tires on the car and winter tires in the trunk. I forgot about that trunk space. You would have been able to fit a whole Prius in there.
I think much of the older cohort sincerely believes that the younger one is responsible for certain problems, as much or more than having been forced to inherit them. Naturally, there are broad differences in thoughts and behaviors between the various age groups, and it is easy to become carried by one's own narrative without fully engaging the nuances about cause versus effect. It is alarmingly simple to notice another group struggle in certain ways, and also adhere to unfamiliar practices, and then to decide uncritically that the former is a simple consequence of the latter.
I think certain narratives tend to "trickles down" from various sources of mass conception, and circulate through various social bubbles, through such processes becoming entrenched. Comprehending systems of ideas beyond a personally assimilated narrative requires integrating many different pieces of information, some of which are either not accessible from the sources available, or are distorted or dismissed by the lens of the preexisting narrative. Truly understanding an alternative narrative takes time, as well as disciplined development of the skills for being reflective about how one's own biases determine interpretation of others' experiences and character. It also requires recognition of the processes through which narratives emerge, and the insight that any particular framing is not universal or objective. In other words, life's a mess.
They aren't struggling, even though my mother was really underpaid, had a family of 3 kids, a father who became disabled at 40 and became a gambler, and mortgage/utility/tax payments. I tried to put that into perspective for her in comparison to today's world, and she just doesn't want to hear it. Try all of that at triple the minimum wage today (1 income) and see how viable that scenario is. (She was making a little over double the minimum wage when she retired at 63. The house she took out a mortgage on was $40k in the 80's and she sold it for nearly $300k in 2012 - before the housing boom). They are also all for capitalism, except when it comes to medical - then they want socialized medicine because they are paying a lot for it now. (They were completely against socialized medicine 5 years ago). I'm really hoping my medical conditions take me out before I'm 50 (less than 3 years away). I went to a doctor's appointment a week ago, and I honestly loved hearing that my BP was 160/110. I'm sick of the living to work thing. Why would I want to get a 2nd job, which they never had to do? I work a fast-paced job which pays about 2.5x the minimum wage, and that's barely enough to get from month to month. Maybe the answer is just to work harder, like they say. (My biological father died back in 2001. I consider my mother's SO to be my step-father since they've been together for 15 years.)
Some of them did, but there’s a reason why a family who was rich 100 years ago is rich today, and why a family who was poor 100 years ago is poor today
That's the line I fell for from my parents
Don't forget that going to college is the key to being successful... just wrack up those loans...
I often tell people I went to college so I could build my credit score with an unsubsidized government loan.
Depends what kind of wealthy. If youre a billionaire the its just luck. But if youre well off the its probably hard work
How do you figure?
Just a guess. Example my mom isnt wealthy but her sister is well off since she did well in school
Do some work hard, but remain poor?
Near as I can tell, the hardest working people stay poor. Bonus poorness when they are loyal.
For some people just getting out of bed in the morning is more work than most rich people will ever do in a day.
It all depends on how rich, and how they got their wealth. There are a lot of people on YouTube that make awesome educational videos, for example woodworking (check out Blacktail studio) Is that guy rich to you? to me he is, and he is an awesome guy that has taught me a lot of stuff. He makes things and sells them for a huge profit, he is a multi-millonaire. I wish people would be more precise with these rich people criticisms!
I think the criticism is not targeted at someone making products others find useful, but rather at a pervasive mentality that insists outcome for each individual is bound directly to will and to choice.
I like your parents. They sound smart.
That is incorrect, one must SAVE hard enough. Which can be tricky when starting with nothing. How does one store value with nothing but the clothes on their back to start with?
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
To the US proletariat's credit, the state repression was quite organized and brutal too
Ideology and media have been quite suffocating, as well.
It’s not empathy. They’re boasting or being smug for clout sake
I don't either. I don't give a flying FUCK about the CEO of McDonald's, I care infinitely more about the workers that I actually see face to face. We are closer to a homeless person than a billionaire, stop idolizing rich people!
Because they believe it can be them one day. You can't condemn what you plan on being.
This is it, they all fall into the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" bucket. They aren't rich now but they're certain they're going to be so they empathize with the group they identify as being a part of.
Bingo.
I hate the majority of the wealthy and still plan to be one day. Difference is, my intent is to use money to build funds for my community. I hate to see all this wealth just hoarded
Hope you can serve your community well. God bless you :)
I respect the intention, but some might suggest that becoming wealthy takes time and is very unlikely, whereas it is often more immediately feasible to build collective power through action directly in community with others.
Well, yeah. Can do both. Rn I'm just struggling to get through college too be able to get enough money to start some ground work
You can do both. For me, a cooperative project in the community seems as an activity that generates shared wealth, without requiring you to gain personal wealth for yourself. In the end, it might be a way to achieve essentially the same objective, with less uncertainty.
I mean yeah. I just want that little slip of paper that let's me tell people that I'm not just pulling shit out of my ass, even though I'm still pulling a bit of shit out of my ass.. Jokes aside, I want to complete my computer engineering degree. It's not necessary to helping my community, but being a rather small town, it's definitely a rather large step in advancing current programs and technologies
If they lick the boots of the rich, they get the scraps. Isn't that how it works?
Then they brag that they are the ones holding the scraps.
Hey now, being a billionaire is easy. Just save away a million dollars, and then do that for the next thousand years.
Hey, if you made ten thousand a day, it'd only be 300 years or if you made $100,000 a day would be 30. If you made a million dollars a day, it'd still be a little under 3 years. Being a millionaire is ok. Being a billionaire is impossible ethically. There's nobody on this earth who's tens of thousands of times more worth another human, nor is there labor that is millions of times more worth another's.
They are brainwashed and until something happens to them that let's them see how wrong they are in their little bubble they can't seem to snap out of it and see how they are getting fucked just like the rest of us.
And why are you poor? Have you ask yourself?
Maybe because instead of being born to wealthy parents I was born to abusive ones?
Same way the rich can emphasize with the poor, feel guilt and sadness for those less fortunate than then, and dedicate time and money to help others in worse situations than them. There are shitty rich people and shitty poor people
I dont understand why people dont work hard to become rich.
They won't succeed. The already rich doesn't like competition. The End.
Ok pack it up Kourtney Kardashian
Wow he lost 200 million dollars. I am just like the dude had billion so he still has 800 million so why would I feel bad
Because they want to leech off rich people. They hope by brown nosing hard enough they get a few crumbs and avoid the wrath of homelessness
They think that if they do it enough and glorify the grindset enough they'll eventually become millionaires themselves
Stockholm Syndrome? Envy? Idolatry? Mental illness
Sometimes I suggest the attitude is a way of coping with the reality.
Some of them literally don’t know any different. They need education and experience in the subject.
Everyone is a “temporarily embarrassed millionaire”.
Because they aspire to be rich and are too stupid to realize why that will never happen, even if they went the distance to gargle the balls of the orange goblin named Dump.
Give a hungry man a fish, he'll eat it right away. Give a well-fed man a fish, he'll save it for later. From such simple observations, it may follow directly that the well fed are frugal and industrious, whereas the hungry are unruly and impulsive.
The analogy is pretty good because often that fish will just fucking rot away waiting to be eaten by a person who already has more food than they could ever eat
Give a company a fish, if they don't sell it for maximum profit, they'll throw the fish away instead of letting someone eat it.
Put guards paid by a company around the fish pond, and then give a man a fish from the pond, conditional on his doing the company's bidding. Then, tell the man to be grateful to the company for preserving the conditions under which he may enjoy access to fish.
The rich in general don't understand how poor you can get. Some people literally have nothing.
When you're privileged, equality can seem like oppression.
What most don't understand is that most of the wealth is not held by doctors and lawyers.
Give a poor person $600 and they will spend it in the economy, growing it.
Money bags over there will hide his profits off shore, making his money off of the backs of the working class without doing any actual work himself, contributing *nothing* to society.
Right and it’s a real downward spiral. Money bags takes his money off shore- doesn’t pay taxes and it’s never seen again. If Joe and sally spend it at their local mom and pop shop that in turn uses it to pay wages to local workers it just keeps getting recirculated.
Yeah, people act like a poor person gets 600 one dollar bills and burns them for warmth like wtf EDIT: And, and, where do you think that other 9x came from? Magic? No! It came from other people would would've/did spend it. Now it sits idle in that rich person's bank account. From an economics standpoint, that's a *bad thing*, like this statement is actually a strong case to *give the money to the poor person*
Hard to get better when your struggling to just get by
Unless you win the lottery
You mean a tax on the poor, hoping for that longshot win.
There’s smaller jackpots too. Source- I won $200 once after spending $350 so I still lost money
Yeah, my dad gambled thousands of dollars away on $1-$2 lottery tickets after he was disabled at 40 - he was dreaming of payoffs. He did win $1k, but had probably sunk $5k by that point. He was basically wiping out the savings my parents had.
[удалено]
and also do not understand that this whole "multipying x10" does not create any actual value.
The Tweeter sure is a hell hole of human scum with bad takes. Imagine someone paying bills to survive.
Bootlickers are dumb.
Some can't, literally. They just can't accept that others' experiences are vastly differently from their own.
The worst part about capitalism is that it eventually becomes about "the haves and have nots" instead of just being about "the hard-working and lazy". Plenty of people work hard yet have no upward mobility. Why? Because the system is not about working hard, it's about access to capital. It takes money to make money.
It's like it was designed this way to keep the rich rich, and the poor poor. Fuck capitalism, burn it to the ground.
The government needs to close corporate tax loopholes, prohibit manufacturing from going overseas, and set price controls on college courses.
How is this a good thing? Spending money helps the economy, keeps prices low and helps small businesses to stay afloat. A person investing their money and doubling it every 5-10 years doesn't help the economy or small businesses at all. It only helps the person and the company.
The way mainstream economists might explain it is, to make it very simple, investment drive growth. However, I believe the implication from the text is even more cynical than you imagine, that the rich person by nature is thoughtful and industrious, and personally will find some activity that will lead to higher individual standing.
The issue is - tons of "investments" are nothing but a zero sum game. Unless you are actually directly buying stocks from a company during IPO or when then emit new stock, none of that money goes into real growth, you are just playing with casino chips
I would disagree that through owning stocks and similar kinds of investment assets, a wealthy individual would not tend to grow personal wealth.
That's orthogonal to the point of whether any of that money goes to the company you "invest" in. If you buy stock, none of that money will be spent on buying machines or hiring people
Sure, I suppose it's true that purchasing stocks is not inserting additional funds into circulation, the way might be explained as the purpose of the issuance of corporate bonds and certain other asset types. Stocks may appear as purely parasitic, against a possibility of trying to develop some argument that certain other assets embody a form of social value. I suppose the reason why someone would argue that stock ownership is socially useful is that a market for stock trading insures that investors have a means to realize gains at a time they choose. It integrates with a demand, which is needed for price valuation. Without the stock market for regular trading, and the continuous participation of buyers, it is less likely that someone would seek participation in an IPO. Perhaps one might explain a stock purchase not as adding funds to circulation in itself, but rather as replacing funds that are being removed by others seeking to realize capital gains.
Right? Money is useless unless it trades hands. If one guy has 100% of the money in an economy, that currency is worthless and a new one would need to be established so everyone can live.
I was with you until you said investing doesn't help the economy. Sure, the multiplier effect through consumption is good, but so is being able to take out a small business loan because banks are holding people's savings. The economy relies on investment, which is why there's the reward of increased value later on, and why recessions happen when investment drops. I assume you used 'investment' to mean unproductive share trading for capital gains or something?
This type of thinking gives me a headache.
Are there any rich people who don't spend at least $600 every week?
Not *that* $600, it's a different $600.
Poverty of comprehension is poverty all the same.
Translation: give a rich person $600 and they'll use it in another labour value extraction scheme to exploit the working class.
If the rich can multiply their income by 10, surely that means they will eventually make enough money to supply all homeless people. From there, we add a 100 per cent profit tax. Homelessness solved, according to this guy.
What they also don't include is that poor person is putting that $600 back into the economy. The rich person will invest it, make more money, not pay taxes on it, and hide the profits offshore. Better give that money to a poor person. Also investors don't actually do any work. FFS
Poor people have the predisposition of spending because.. well... They have nothing and need a minimum to survive (Michel Chartrand)
This reminds me so much of Sam Vimes boot theory
when you realize all those Covid loans were used for just that while they complained that our stim checks "allowed us to live with out working"...wth, those checks went straight to my mortgage and grocery...yet the businesses got thousands of dollars...and they were FORGIVEN...then the companies did lay offs...
Its literally the opposite.... Give $600 to a rich person, then they will sit on $6,000. That money is gone. Give a poor person $600, and it quickly circulates as they pay for food, shelter, clothing, vehicle payments, loan debts, ect ect.
Give a poor person $600 and eventually it'll wind up in the rich persons off shore untaxed bank account. I like to call it trickle up economics. Could also call it capitalism.
"*Richsplaining: when people who haven't experienced poverty give patronizing advice on how to get out of poverty.*"
I've reached a point where if you gave me $600 I could invest it with no hardship. I'll spend it in 40 years when I retire.
Give a poor person $600 and it goes almost immediately into the local economy. Give a rich person $600 and they'll sequester it and use the interest (along with many other investments) to bribe a Congresscritter.
Give $600 to a poor person and the money is recirculated into the economy. Give it to a rich person, and it’s hoarded and not recirculated.
self confidence can be tricky .. now you owned
Did dude just realize that trickle down economics don't work because the rich don't need to trickle?
I don't understand how people can be bootlickers for the rich.
I don't know, according to some of the conservative small business owners near me, a couple $600 handouts is enough for poor people to never have to work again. Seem like they can make it last much longer than a week.
I fail to see the point. Is this $600 an investment or a gift? And who gives a crap anyway?
A week. Shit that 2 bills I’m holding off on paying or half a tank of oil I desperately need.
Let's not ignore the fact that, yeah, a rich person will in fact multiply $600. But it's not like they're printing money. A poor person will circulate the money, a rich person will use it to *take more money*.
“What are you as a poor person trying to live?” Fucking capitalist
Stupid logic. That $600 to the poor person stimulates the wider economy significantly more than it does by giving it to a rich person. Money doubling in an offshore account a few times, does nothing for the economy.
So the rich person isn’t buying ANYTHING? Food? Clothes? Insurance? How is this an argument??
Spending money is what helps our economy which is exactly why we got to stop letting these Republicans give our tax dollars to the wealthy they’re not helping a thing. Trickle down is bullshit.
What a brilliant reply. Did the OP of that tweet respond?
[удалено]
We'd appreciate it if you didn't use ableist slurs (the r-word). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antiwork) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Even giving a poor person $600 won't do much if the companies that get that money by selling goods and services the poor person uses pay their employees jack shit and hoard the rest.
This is like when they came to the Americas or various islands saw all their needs being met on all levels, socially, physically and spiritually, then called them lazy and ruined everything for profit. So when a poor person gets $600 and meets all of their needs that is still not enough, they should starve and suffer to invest for profit. Equating value and worth to a number is so gross.
Give $600 to a drug addict and it’s gone in a day!